Morning Wire - Domestic Terror Law & Sussmann Trial | 5.18.22

Episode Date: May 18, 2022

Democrats push controversial new domestic terrorism laws following the Buffalo mass shooting, the House Intelligence Committee holds a public hearing on UFOs, and a key trial stemming from the Durham investigation begins. Get the facts first on Morning Wire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sparked by the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, Democrats are pushing to expand gun bans and to revive controversial domestic terrorism laws. Who would be targeted by the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act and does it have any chance of passing? I'm John Vickley with Georgia Howe. It's Wednesday, May 18th, and this is Morning Wire. UFOs fly out of the shadows and onto the congressional stage. We have details from Tuesday's House Intelligence hearings. And the trial of attorney Michael Sussman began this week in the the most high-profile case yet in Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins

of the Russia collusion narrative. We'll discuss what we know so far and what to expect. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. This show is sponsored by Alto IRA. Cryptocurrency may represent the future of money, but what about taxes? With an Alto crypto IRA, you can trade crypto like Bitcoin and avoid or defer the taxes. With secure trading 24-7 through Alto's integration with Coinbase and over 150 coins available, Alto IRA has you covered. Take your investments to the next level and diversify like the pros without tax headaches. Open an Alto Crypto IRA with as little as $10. Just go to alto IRA.com slash wire. That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A.com slash wire. Start investing in cryptocurrency

today. Following the deadly shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead, Democrats in Congress are renewing calls for stricter gun laws and have revived legislation that would transform the way government agencies track potential threats. Here are the latest on this new legislative battle in Washington and how President Biden has handled this situation is Daily Wire's senior editor, Cabot Phillips. So Cabot first, tell us about the general fallout from this horrific shooting in Buffalo.

Yeah, we've started to see two main views emerge on the shooting. One says it was primarily political and view the tragedy as a direct result of white supremacy and the availability of firearms in the U.S. The other side is mainly saying that this is, less about politics and more about mental health. They note that the suspect spent a day and a half in a mental health hospital last year after threatening a school shooting. And they also point out that his so-called manifesto is often self-contradictory in that he claimed to be on both the

political left and right. He also embraced neo-Nazism, socialism, and eco-fascism. So it's hard in their view to pin his actions on any one political ideology. But now the response has started to shift beyond competing rhetoric to more of a legislative battle. Yeah, tell us about that. Tell us about this bill being pushed in Congress right now? So yesterday, Democrats revived the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. Among other things, the bill would create new offices within the FBI, Department of Justice, and Homeland Security, whose sole purpose would be investigating potential domestic terror threats. As noted by Democrat lawmakers, those offices would focus much of their attention on investigating

threats posed by what the government considers white supremacists. Now, the bill had actually failed in Congress last month, but we've seen this sort of thing in the past where after a mass shooting, politicians will often quickly push gun control measures that had failed in the past because obviously the environment often becomes more conducive to that type of gun control. For example, there was a push to ban bump stocks after the Vegas shooting, a similar push for magazine restrictions after the San Bernardino shooting, and a push to ban assault weapons after the Sandy Hook shooting. Right.

There was a lot of heated debate about politicizing those tragedies. Yeah, there was. What are both sides saying on this proposed law? Those in support of the bill say domestic terrorism is now. one of the greatest threats facing the country, and that in addition to gun control measures, the government should be monitoring what they deemed to be extremist groups, particularly in this case, white supremacists. Now, the bill does face near universal opposition from House Republicans who say the government has a poor track record of deciding what is and isn't a domestic terrorist.

They point out that in the past year, parents protesting school boards over COVID lockdowns and critical race theory have been called potential domestic terrorists and say that this legislation could lead to a chilling of free speech. And it is worth pointing out that last month the bill failed in part because of opposition actually from far-left Democrats in the House, specifically those in the so-called squad who were worried about what could potentially be classified as domestic terrorism. For example, rep Elon Omar called it a, quote, horrible bill, while rep Cory Bush said she wouldn't support it unless there were clear definitions offered. So there is a bit of bipartisan opposition here that's going to take some ironing out. Now, President Biden traveled to Buffalo on Tuesday. what's been his response so far to all of this?

Right, he traveled to the city yesterday to meet with victims' families, and he also gave an address where he called for legislation cracking down on firearms, specifically what he calls assault weapons. We can keep assault weapons off our streets. We've done it before.

You can't prevent people from being radicalized to violence, but we can't address the relentless exploitation of the Internet to recruit and mobilize terrorism. So looking ahead, head, we'll be monitoring the latest congressional push for gun control, as well as this new domestic terrorism legislation. Yeah, lots to monitor for sure and a lot on the line. Cabot, thanks for reporting. Anytime. That's Daily Wire senior editor, Cabot Phillips.

Coming up, the House Intelligence Committee holds a public hearing on UFOs. This show is sponsored by Epic Will. Do you have a Will? You might be shocked to learn how many people don't. Creating a Will is fundamental to protecting yourself and your family, because if something happens to you and your spouse, the state will decide what happens to your kids and your assets. Take control. Go to epicwill.com promo code wire. Epicwill.com, where you can secure your future in as little as five minutes with a complete will package starting at $119. And when you use promo code wire, you'll save 10%. That's epicwill.com promo code wire. For the first time in 50 years, the House Intelligence Committee held public hearings on UFOs

on Tuesday. Several lawmakers warned that unidentified aerial phenomenon could pose a national security threat. Columnist David Marcus watched the military testimony yesterday and is here to tell us what he saw. So David, good morning. Did we find out if aliens are really out there? Morning. We did not. But it was significant for this question of UFOs to be handled in this official of a setting. One thing we learned is that the term UFO is outmoded. They're now called unidentified aerial phenomena. And the head of the Navy's UAP task force, Scott Bray, testified, along with Defense Department official Ronald Moultrie.

They did acknowledge that the task force has reports that they really can't explain. Now, did the officials talk about what happens when they come across these unexplained reports of UAPs and how they handle them? So over the past few years, they've streamlined a process. That includes encouraging pilots and other states. to make reports which once had a stigma. They want the stigma gone. The investigative process, they describes a lot of process of elimination.

Most reports are weather phenomena or debris. But there is a bucket of reports that they have which could contain what Bray called, quote, potential scientific discovery. Now, there have been some pretty famous examples of mysterious objects in the sky. Have any of those been solved? And if so, did they discuss?

those findings? There was one very cool example. They showed a night vision video of triangular objects darting around in the sky that they couldn't explain. Later they got a separate similar video from a different place, but this time had more sensors. It turned out that they were looking at normal drones, but the night vision and camera portrayed them as these triangles. So a lot of its detective work, but those turned out not to be UAP. Now, this was a very public platform for a topic that's long been shrouded in secrecy and classified. Did you get the sense that officials were reluctant to speak so openly about this? Yeah, it's important to understand that the UAP task force is about a lot more than finding ET.

A UAP could be a foreign adversary's technology that we don't know they have. It could be a threat to a military base. And so that's the primary concern of DOD and the Navy. You know, there's also a closed-door session with more classified information happening, but the need for tight lips here is real. That haven't been said, the acknowledgement that there is an official scientific openness to non-terrestrial origins for these things, it's a big deal. So are all the reports they've collected from military sources, or are they also looking at evidence from civilian sources as well? Well, they testified they have reports from civilians, and in one exchange suggested that protocols for civilians who think they have seen or videotaped something weird or unexplainable could be established

should obviously be a very new thing. One other direct question that Bray was willing to answer was whether we have any non-terrestrial material like a ship or body, that kind of thing. He testified that we do not. Last question. What would the tone of the hearing? It's a really exciting topic for a lot of people. Was there a vibe of amusement, or was it quite serious? It's funny. It varied. Mike Gallagher from Wisconsin took a pretty hard line of questioning and wanting answers about UFO or UAP reports in the media. Others really seem to want to keep their heads out of the clouds and stay focused on like potential military implications. There were sci-fi jokes, but it was a striking hearing, right? Congress had

hasn't done this in 50 years. It certainly won't be another 50 until it happens again. This issue is now going to be a regular and real one for them. Well, this was really a congressional meeting that people were excited for. We don't always hear about that. David, thanks so much for reporting. Thank you. That was Daily Wire contributor, David Marcus. The trial of cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussman began on Monday. Sussman is the latest person charged in special counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the unfounded Russia collusion narrative. Sussman is facing up to five years in prison for allegedly lying to the FBI in 2016 when he presented supposed evidence of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Alpha Bank,

Russia's largest private bank. Daily Wires, Tim Pierce is here to tell us more. So Tim, tell us about this trial. Hey, John. So Sussman's trial kicked off Monday. This is the first trial to result from John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion. conspiracy that dominated most of Donald Trump's presidency. Like you mentioned, Sussman is charged with lying to the FBI about the circumstances surrounding a 2016 meeting he requested with the FBI. During the meeting,

Susman fed then FBI General Counsel James Baker data mined from government servers and packaged in a way to make it appear as if the Trump campaign or Trump organization was keeping a secret back channel to Russia's Alpha Bank. The allegation has since been debunked and there have been serious questions raised about the data's authenticity. What specifically were the alleged false claim Sussman is accused of making? So prosecutors say that Sussman lied to the FBI about his reasons for requesting the 2016 meeting, not about the data itself. Sussman told Baker that he had some concerning information about the Trump campaign and that he was approaching a bureau as a concerned citizen. At that time, Sussman was working for a law firm hired by the Clinton campaign, but he did not

disclose that information. Durham's team has accused Sussman of attempting to gin up and FBI investigation and bad press to harm Trump's campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Durham's indictment claims that Sussman actually billed the Clinton campaign for the time he spent speaking to the FBI. At the time of this meeting, Sussman was an attorney at the Democratic Party's law firm Perkins Coy. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign had hired the firm to handle its legal matters and assist in gathering opposition research on Trump's presidential campaign. Now, Durham's and Sussman's teams have already butted heads over a number of legal issues ahead of the trial. What can you tell us about what's happened so far? Yeah, it's been tense at times.

Sussman's defense team has argued that Sussman never lied to the Bureau about his motivations, and if he did, the lie was immaterial to the FBI's decision to investigate the Trump campaign for allegedly colluding with Russian agents. Arguably, the biggest bit of information that has come out in pretrial filings is the existence of a text Sussman sent to Baker the night before they met. According to an April filing, Sussman told Baker, quote, I'm coming on my own, not on behalf of a client or company. Sussman said he simply wanted to, quote, help the Bureau. The text speaks directly to the conditions under which Baker met with Sussman. Durham has said in filings that by withholding his ties of the Clinton campaign, Sussman misled the FBI, and quoting here, deprive the Bureau of information that

might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis. In another filing, Durham revealed that the CIA had looked into what Sussman had provided to the FBI and had concluded that the data itself was not reliable and was, likely manipulated. So that's the CIA making its findings quite clear there. Yeah. Well, we'll be sure to check back with this in the coming weeks. Thanks for reporting, Tim.

Anytime. That was Daily Wire reporter, Tim Pierce. Other stories we're tracking this week. Several key primaries were decided on Tuesday. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mostriano, a state senator and retired Army colonel, handily won the Republican primary for governor. He'll face Democrat Josh Shapiro, the state's AG, in November. In Pennsylvania's Democrat Senate primary,

Firebrand, progressive John Federman, defeated incumbent representative Connor Lamb, despite Federman suffering a stroke just days ahead of the election. And in a race too close to call by the end of the night, Dr. Mehmet, Oz, and Dave McCormick are vying for the Republican Senate nomination, with relative unknown Kathy Barnett coming in third. In North Carolina, Republican Representative Madison Cawthorne failed to be renominated, conceding to state Senator Chuck Edwards.

And Representative Ted Budd secured the state's Republican Senate nomination, giving him the chance to fill the seat of retiring Senator Richard Burr. Thank you for listening to Morning Wire. We created this show to bring more balance to the national conversation. If you love our show and you stand with our mission, please consider subscribing, leaving us a five-star rating, and most importantly, sharing our podcast with a friend. That's all the time we've got this morning.

Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back tomorrow with the news you need to know.