Morning Wire XX
[0] Newly released documents show special counsel Jack Smith collected information on anyone who interacted with then -President Trump's Twitter account.
[1] It is such an egregious assault on our constitutional rights.
[2] This administration has so brazenly thrown our constitutional rights in the trash.
[3] How broad was the search warrant and does it chill Americans' free speech?
[4] I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire, editor -in -chief John Bickley.
[5] It's Thursday, November 30th, and this is Morning Wire.
[6] Ron DeSantis squares off against Gavin Newsom tonight in a debate that pits a GOP presidential contender against what many believe to be a Democrat shadow candidate.
[7] And federal air marshals sound the alarm over how the Biden administration is using marshals to track Americans in connection with January 6.
[8] Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
[9] Stay tuned.
[10] We have the news you need to know.
[11] a direct assault on our First Amendment rights.
[12] Not only are they compiling these lists of who was pro -Trump or who was against Trump, we've seen already how the Biden administration has been working directly through the FBI to try to bully these big tech and social media companies into blocking, censoring, or cancelling accounts of those who have a narrative that is countered to or opposed to or even questioning the narrative or the position of the Biden -Harris administration.
[13] That was Tulsi Gabbard responding to newly released court documents showing that Jack Smith, Special Counsel for the DOJ, obtained a sweeping subpoena on American citizens who engaged with Donald Trump's Twitter account.
[14] Here with the latest is Daily Wire Culture Reporter, Megan Basham.
[15] So, Megan, when did the special counsel request this information and why is it just coming to light now?
[16] So the search warrant was issued in January of this year by an Obama appointed judge of a D .C. federal court.
[17] And the documents came out due to an appellate ruling on Monday that related to a lawsuit brought by media organizations.
[18] But the documents the appellate court made public are heavily redacted.
[19] So a full eight of the search warrants 14 pages were entirely redacted.
[20] But of the portions we can review, they show that the warrant issued to Twitter, as of course it was known then, demanded that the company provide the DOJ data on users who interacted with Trump's account right before the election.
[21] So the time frame was between October 20th, 2020 to January of 2021.
[22] And essentially, what they wanted to know was who had liked or retweeted anything the former president had posted.
[23] They wanted a list of anyone who had tagged or replied to anything Trump had tweeted.
[24] And Smith also asked for a list of every user who had, quote, followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked or unblocked Trump.
[25] So essentially, if you liked Trump's tweets or shared them or interacted with his account, in any way the DOJ wanted information on you.
[26] So this is what Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said Wednesday about these revelations.
[27] I can't think of anything more chilling than a federal grand jury subpoena that says we want a list of everyone that retweeted or liked a tweet of the defendant here.
[28] It's Donald Trump.
[29] The chilling aspect of this is actually that they put this in the subpoena itself.
[30] And then to top it off, they want to know of drafts that the Trump people were working on.
[31] It's beyond the pale.
[32] It's a violation of the First Amendment.
[33] It's an unbelievable overbreath of what they're trying to do here.
[34] But they're doing it utilizing criminal process.
[35] And that's what should have everybody nervous here.
[36] And what did the warrant seek to find out with regards to Trump's account?
[37] Essentially, it was just the same information as it was seeking on users who followed or engaged with him, who the real Donald Trump account was liking.
[38] retweeting, following, replying to who he was muting, blocking, et cetera.
[39] Direct message content.
[40] But in addition to that, Smith also wanted the, quote, content of all tweets, the former president, created, drafted, favored, liked, or retweeted.
[41] Also, IP addresses used to create, log in, and use the account, any privacy or account settings.
[42] So this was a pretty sweeping subpoena.
[43] Right.
[44] So none of these people or Trump had any idea that their information was being collected about them, correct?
[45] That's correct.
[46] It does not appear that they did because the warrant also came with a non -disclosure order attached.
[47] And that instructed the social media giant not to alert Trump about the search.
[48] Twitter under Musk wanted to inform Trump about what was going on because they believe that this non -disclosure order violated the First Amendment and the Stored Communications Act.
[49] And that was a law enacted in 1986 that provides privacy protection for customers of network service providers.
[50] But the DOJ opposed that.
[51] They said in their first, filing that there is reason to believe notification to the former president, who they called a sophisticated actor with an expansive platform, would result in statutorily cognizable harm.
[52] So a lot of Americans are now on a lot of lists with the federal government, it sounds like.
[53] It does sound like that.
[54] All right.
[55] Well, Megan, thanks so much for reporting.
[56] Anytime.
[57] Florida governor Ron DeSantis and his counterpart in California, Gavin Newsom, are set to square off in a debate tonight in Atlanta.
[58] The circumstances of the matchup, which will be moderated by Fox News anchor Sean Hannity, are unique, given the fact that DeSantis is in the middle of a GOP primary fight for the presidential nomination, while Newsom isn't running for anything.
[59] Here to talk about what to expect is Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus.
[60] Hey, Dave, so let me start you off with a one -word question, which is why.
[61] Morning, John.
[62] It's a very good, if succinct question, because yes, typically debates are between candidates who are running against each other for the same office, which, is not the case here, at least not yet.
[63] It was instigated by Hannity who asked each individually in interviews if they'd be game, and they both said yes.
[64] As to why, for DeSantis, whose poll numbers have been stagnant as a standing pond for months, this is a chance to make some noise.
[65] And for Newsome, whether he has presidential designs for 2024 or not, Joe Biden isn't going to be the head of the Democratic Party for much longer win, lose, or drop out.
[66] And the governor of the Golden State pretty clearly wants to assume, that mantle.
[67] So I think there's pros here for both men.
[68] Right.
[69] These two governors do seem like polar opposites on this political landscape.
[70] What are some of the issues that might come up where we might see their stark ideological differences?
[71] You name it.
[72] I'm not sure these two would agree that water is wet.
[73] COVID policy is a huge one.
[74] I was in both states during 2020 and Florida was drastically more open than California, which had some of the strictest lockdown policies in the nation.
[75] And not that that stopped Newsom from dining at French laundry, of course.
[76] I think education especially as concerns things like critical race theory and trans issues that might be on the menu, as well as basic economic strategy.
[77] Newsom is a very big government governor.
[78] DeSantis is the opposite and will point to Florida's economic success.
[79] Newsom will likely argue that his state does a better job for the poor and working class.
[80] Crime and urban decay are also likely topics, especially given that Newsom is the former mayor of beleaguered San Francisco.
[81] Francisco.
[82] So, look, throw a rock and you'll find something for them to disagree on.
[83] An important backdrop for this debate is the fact that polls show a large number of Americans who are dissatisfied with a potential Biden -Trump rematch, which polls suggest is where we're heading.
[84] Does this also help explain why this debate's happening?
[85] Yeah, I think that's spot on.
[86] Both camps are hoping that this triggers something in the American electorate.
[87] We haven't seen many policy -driven debates on the national level of late.
[88] Twenty -12, with Barack Obama and Mitt Romney might be the last time we saw a debate along these lines.
[89] The hope of the participants is that voters look at that and say, hey, I remember this, I kind of like this, and decide they don't have to be stuck with Biden versus Trump.
[90] That's a lot to ask of one debate that may not get a ton of eyeballs, but it does seem to be their hope.
[91] So speaking of Biden and Trump, as well as the other GOP contenders like Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramoswamy, how are they approaching this sort of exhibition debate?
[92] Trump and his supporters, you won't be surprised to learn, are basically pointing at it and laughing, portraying it as a desperate move by a failing DeSantis campaign.
[93] Biden and Democrats in general have more or less ignored it because, let's face it, it's a little awkward.
[94] Newsom seems to be measuring the drapes right in front of Biden.
[95] As for the others, if DeSantis has a gaff, they might pounce, but I don't think they want to put attention on it.
[96] Nikki Haley, who's biting at DeSantis' heels, got a boost this week with a Koch brothers endorsement.
[97] And I suspect we'll see her continue to shore up her support in the GOP establishment wing in the coming days.
[98] Well, it's an unorthodox, but very interesting event tonight.
[99] Dave, thanks for reporting.
[100] Thanks for having me. Representatives of federal air marshals are warning that many security missions are going unmanned.
[101] They say hundreds of marshals have been reallocated to the southern border to help with illegal immigration, and many others are tasked with following January 6th suspects.
[102] Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Roziak has dug into the claims and joins us now to discuss his findings.
[103] Luke, a rather alarming story on a couple of levels here.
[104] What's going on with these air marshals?
[105] Hi, John.
[106] What's going on is the Biden administration's Department of Homeland Security for years now has ordered federal air marshals to follow people who flew to D .C. on January 6th, even if they didn't go to the Capitol and were never charged with a crime.
[107] Five days after that protest at the Capitol, Democrat Congressman Benny Tom, Thompson wrote to the head of the TSA to demand that the agency, quote, disrupt the travel of terrorists who just attacked the seat of the U .S. government.
[108] He cited, quote, online chatter as evidence that they might be al -Qaeda -style bombers.
[109] Now, the TSA apparently did just that, using a secret program called Quiet Skies.
[110] Back in 2018, the Boston Globe revealed that the TSA was running this domestic surveillance program that they hid not only from the public, but even from other government agencies.
[111] It assigns federal air marshals to file.
[112] follow people.
[113] But unlike the people air marshals might ordinarily target on a terrorist watch list, these ones are called, quote, unknown or partially known terrorists.
[114] And what did those designations mean?
[115] What's an unknown terrorist?
[116] Well, it's more that they're declaring them terrorists, but admitting that they don't know of any evidence.
[117] These people don't have to be suspected of any particular crime.
[118] In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General reviewed quiet skies and found that it had never apprehended a single threat.
[119] Rather than shut down the program, Since then, the Air Marshal Director has, quote, gone all in on quiet skies to target people who were, according to flight records, in D .C. on January 6th.
[120] That's what officials with the Federal Air Marshal's National Council, which represent some employees, told me. They first found out about this because one Air Marshal's wife went to Donald Trump's speech on January 6.
[121] Now, the husband could see in the TSA's computer system that his own wife was flagged as a domestic terrorist, even though she was never questioned by law enforcement.
[122] and didn't even go to the Capitol.
[123] So never questioned and didn't even go to the site of the riot.
[124] Right.
[125] And despite that, they assigned a federal air marshal to follow the agent's wife anytime she travels.
[126] But of course, she's usually vacationing with her husband.
[127] So they wind up having one federal air marshal assigned to watch another federal air marshal.
[128] The husband was obligated to introduce himself to the agent to tell him he was carrying his weapon on board.
[129] And that agent apparently told him he was supposed to be doing a sensitive international mission.
[130] but that mission went on man because it was reassigned to follow this guy's wife.
[131] Okay.
[132] Now, January 6th was almost three years ago.
[133] Are these people still on this list?
[134] That's what they say.
[135] They say this is just one example and this is still going on.
[136] Recently, a January 6 defendant described at sentencing being followed by Air Marshals for years.
[137] She's a 5 -foot -6 woman who was charged with only misdemeanors.
[138] Meanwhile, again, air marshals deployed to monitor people like her are not being deployed to conduct what normally would have been their ordinary duties.
[139] So we might have a situation here where the public in general might be actually less safe in some ways because of the prioritizing of these J6 cases.
[140] Exactly.
[141] In fact, just last week, I found there was a man who told an undercover FBI agent that he wanted to rape a child and sent childborn to the FBI.
[142] But the FBI's Washington field office made the choice not to pursue it in order to focus on January 6.
[143] They said that directly.
[144] And that man was later caught by other authorities with a 10 -year -old boy.
[145] In other words, the manpower dedicated to these January 6 cases, and there's been a whole lot of it, you can have some real consequences, sometimes tragic.
[146] Yeah.
[147] Well, thanks for looking into this, Luke, and thanks for coming on.
[148] Anytime.
[149] That was investigative reporter, Luke Roziak.
[150] That's all the time we've got this morning.
[151] Thanks for waking up with us.
[152] We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.