In this gripping episode of Washington Watch, host Jody Heiss delves into the recent security breach at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which led to the attempted assassination of President Trump. Featuring insights from Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch and firsthand accounts from Congressman Marlon Stutzman, the episode unravels the layers of security that failed to prevent such a serious incident. Former FBI Deputy Director John Pistol also joins to provide an expert analysis of the security protocols and the potential implications of such high-profile breaches on national safety.
SPEAKER 20 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Sitting in for Tony is today’s host, Jody Heiss.
SPEAKER 16 :
Violence has no place in civic life. It cannot and will not be used to disrupt democratic institutions, or intimidate those who serve them, and it certainly cannot continue to be used against the President of the United States. We are investigating this matter fully. We will apply the law fairly, and we will ensure that accountability is swift and certain.
SPEAKER 04 :
That was Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanch earlier today addressing the investigation into the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend. Welcome to this Monday, April 27th edition of Washington Watch. I’m your host Jody Heiss. Thank you so much for joining us. All right, coming up today, it is now the third major security incident targeting President Trump in less than two years. And it is also intensifying concerns about the consequences of the left’s political rhetoric. Congressman Marlon Stutzman, who is at the Correspondents’ Dinner when the shooting took place, he’ll be joining us in just a little while for a firsthand account of the chaos and what he witnessed. Plus, former FBI Deputy Director John Pistol will analyze the security situation that was at the Washington Hilton Hotel where the shooting took place. So all that and much more coming your way straight ahead. And a man accused of shooting a U.S. Secret Service agent while trying to breach security at a Washington dinner that was attended by President Donald Trump. Well, he’s now facing federal charges of attempted assassination. Of course, all this comes two days after authorities say that they foiled his attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And joining us now is Washington stand reporter Casey Harper. All right, Casey, walk us through what investigators are saying about how all of this unfolded and what happens next.
SPEAKER 13 :
Yeah, thanks, Jody. We saw the suspect today as he was appearing in court and is now being held in federal custody with a judge keeping him detained, of course, as the case and investigation moves forward. Now, to your question, investigators say they actually have writings, including a manifesto, that linked him to this and really laid out the motives in pretty explicit detail. It also references multiple potential targets, including one— apparently referencing the president, and then top Trump administration appointees. Now, as for the scene which Congressman Stutzman is going to lay out, I mean, some of it is on video, and it’s pretty striking. The gunfire sent guests scrambling for cover, underneath chairs, underneath the tables, as many officials were evacuated by Secret Service out of the ballroom. And, in fact, here’s what the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, said about the charges that the suspect is facing.
SPEAKER 16 :
The first count is attempted assassination of the President of the United States. This count is punishable by up to life in prison. The second count is interstate transportation of a firearm to commit a felony. This is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And the third count is discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, which is punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years, a maximum of life, and the 10 years is consecutive to any other sentence imposed.
SPEAKER 13 :
Now this alleged attacker, Jody, he actually was able to get through up to two rounds of security before he was stopped, which has federal investigators also looking at how did this guy get in there, how did he get the weapons as far as he did, and were there any security lapses at this, of course, very high-profile event?
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, a lot of people are asking those questions, Casey. Let me, if I can, shift gears with you a little bit. Congress is facing several very high-stakes deadlines that are coming up this week. For example, the surveillance authority, also DHS funding crisis, which is a part of what we just saw happen over the weekend. So, Casey, what needs to happen in the House right now to try to avoid some of these major disruptions from continuing?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, Congress getting along. Hopefully that can happen. But lawmakers, they’re racing to act right now before FISA Section 702 expires on Thursday. So the clock is ticking, Jody. Now, House GOP leaders are pushing this revised surveillance bill that now they think they actually do have the votes for after it was… sort of unexpectedly failed a few weeks ago. Now, at the same time, the DHS funding crisis, which you mentioned, is now on day 72. It’s hard to believe that that’s the longest shutdown we’ve ever seen. And officials are warning that the department is actually not going to be able to keep paying employees after April 30th without some kind of new funding. Here is actually House Rules Chairwoman Virginia Fox earlier today.
SPEAKER 14 :
The forthcoming reconciliation package that this budget resolution tees up, will fully fund the men and women of ICE and CBP, along with many others who have gone without pay while they protect and serve our nation.
SPEAKER 13 :
Now, the House Rules Committee is currently setting up votes on FISA, a Senate-passed DHS budget plan, a farm bill, and a GOP measure requiring that parents consent for school gender record changes. So, looks like things are about to heat up here.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, Casey, before I let you go, one other item I wanted to run past you. President Trump is meeting with King Charles at the White House. And in fact, that meeting, as I understand it, began less than an hour ago. What’s expected to happen during this meeting with King Charles?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, before the meeting, President Trump said that they were going to cover big topics like Iran, NATO, and the UK’s digital services tax, which is really a hint at many of the policy tensions that have been brewing with the UK. But the meeting is part of King Charles’ third four-day state visit, marking the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence. Hope there’s no hard feelings there. But the visit comes amid strained relationships, the worst since we’ve seen really since probably the Suez crisis, which includes disagreements, public ones, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who President Trump has publicly criticized. President Trump also warned of potential tariffs on Britain over its digital tax, adding another economic element to these talks, Jody.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right, Casey, thank you so much for these updates. As always, appreciate it very much. All right, we want to go back now and deal with the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and get a firsthand account from someone who was actually there. Joining us now to talk about this and more is Congressman Marlon Stutzman. He’s a member of the House Budget Committee. He represents the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. Congressman Stutzman, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always an honor to have you, my friend.
SPEAKER 05 :
Thank you, Jody. Great to see you today.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, listen, first of all, unquestionably, let me just say how grateful we are that you and everyone who attended the dinner Saturday night walked away unharmed. We thank the Lord for that. But let me ask you, what did you see? What did you witness firsthand? What was it like?
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, yeah, I agree. First of all, you know, thank the Lord that there was no one that was injured or killed outside of the Secret Service agent that took a bullet to the chest but survived with a bulletproof vest. I was sitting at the in the center right up against the center aisle. towards the back and so we were sitting there just having our salads. The color guard had just left the room. President Trump had been seated and we’re sitting there eating some salad and all of a sudden over my left shoulder just outside those main doors that enter into the ballroom. I heard four loud gunshots and we all heard it. It was there was no doubt that they were gunshots and so we all hit the deck. Everybody, you know, slid down underneath the tables and the ladies that was there at our table were all underneath. And then I looked up and was looking around to see what happened, if I could see a shooter. We didn’t know which direction the gunshots, you know, the bullets would have been flying from those shots, whether they came into the room, whether they were outside. But we knew immediately there was a problem and of course you know the plates were falling on the floor. We were packed into that room. It was very tight and so once the chairs are out, people are climbing around on the floor. Plates were falling on the floor. Drinks have spilled over and created quite the mess, but you know it. It felt like quite a bit of time, but didn’t know if somebody was going to come into the room and start shooting. Of course, security came in very quickly. walking over the chairs, walking over the tables to get to the cabinet members who they were to secure. So it was very dramatic. Obviously, a moment of high adrenaline and what’s to happen next. But again, thankfully, no one was injured that night.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, and you give credit where credit is due. Certainly, we want to say thank you and praise and hats off to the law enforcement for their response. But of course, all of this, the backdrop of all this is the ongoing fight to fund the DHS. I mean, this is something that has to be corrected ASAP. Where’s this battle going?
SPEAKER 05 :
It does, Jody. I mean, this is just unbelievable and so irresponsible that DHS is not funded. I always think of the Secret Service agent that stood up there in the very front, right in front of President Trump. He stands there. He was willing to take a bullet. He was ready to take a shot if someone would shoot at the president. And that man is not getting a paycheck right now. Here he’s got the president’s back. And yet Congress doesn’t have his and this needs. It’s so irresponsible. It needs to be taken care of right away. Simply, we should just do a voice vote and not even have to vote on it because it just needs to be done. And so I just arrived back in Washington DC heading up to the Capitol here. and we’ll know a little bit more on what the plan is going forward. But, you know, the vice president was in the room, Speaker Mike Johnson and so many other cabinet members. And, you know, also the other fact is, is that I’m a little concerned about the security of the hotel. I don’t know exactly who was responsible for it, but the security as we entered in, as the people entered in to that ballroom was a little lax. And so I don’t know if there’s a shortage or anything like that, but I, Jody, there’s some questions that need to be answered. In fact, I’m still surprised that that shooter is not dead this morning. How he got in that far and the shots that we did here, I don’t know where they ended up landing, but they obviously didn’t hit him. And I don’t know if he’s lucky or not that he’s alive this morning, but I’m glad he is so that way we can question him and find out what crazy ideology he’s let himself get into.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. In fact, we’re going to be dealing a little bit later in the program with the security at the hotel. Real quickly, speaking of the funding fight, the House agenda is the whole budget resolution that the Senate adopted last week that’s coming before you. We’ve heard there may be a vote this week. What are you hearing on that?
SPEAKER 05 :
Well, there should be, and I hope so. You know, King Charles, of course, as you mentioned, is in D.C. this week. It’s important for us to to get these votes on the floor and, you know, stop the partisanship. As we both know, Trump derangement syndrome is so real within the Democrat Party. And that’s just got to stop. You know, you and I both served during the Obama years. And while we disagreed with his policies, there were times I just don’t remember we ever put the American people in danger. We had a lot of fights over Obamacare. There was a shutdown of government there for a period of time. But we didn’t put the American people in jeopardy or shut down TSA when it was so critical for people to be able to fly and move about the country and do their jobs and travel. This to me just is so irresponsible. We’re letting Border Patrol and ICE agents go without paychecks. This just seems to be so silly that that’s that’s how we’re behaving. And I hope that this Saturday night is a reminder to everyone, but especially the Democrat leadership, that we don’t want somebody getting hurt under the situations that we’re currently governing like.
SPEAKER 04 :
Absolutely. Well, as always, thank you so much, Congressman Marlon Stutzman. Always great to have you on the program. And again, so grateful that you and the others are OK from Saturday night. All right, friends, coming up, we’ll unpack Saturday night shooting and we’ll turn our direction to a former deputy director of the FBI. So stay with us. We’ll be back in a moment. I think all people really need to have this type of education.
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, I can tell you that it’s been an amazing course, period.
SPEAKER 06 :
I think this course is a reminder that a biblical worldview should really impact everything. It impacts our government from the federal to the state to the local. It should impact what we’re doing with our families and with our work.
SPEAKER 07 :
God and Government is a video-driven, Bible-based training course from Family Research Council that explores the connection between between biblical principles and American government. In this six-session video series, FRC President Tony Perkins equips participants with a practical understanding of civil government from a biblical worldview.
SPEAKER 16 :
I would encourage all people to take it. I almost wish I would have took it earlier that I could have taught my kids this.
SPEAKER 21 :
I wish I had known these things when we were homeschooling because I think children and my adults now would just greatly be influenced by that information.
SPEAKER 18 :
So I’m an attorney, and for me, it gives me some direct practical knowledge of what I can do to try to impact my legal community, to make better legislation, to try to encourage legislators to make choices that have a biblical worldview, which is what we really want.
SPEAKER 01 :
Any pastor would benefit from taking this course because we are dual citizens, right? We are citizens of the kingdom of God, but we’re also citizens of this great land, and that comes with responsibility.
SPEAKER 06 :
Even as someone who has been involved in these types of issues for a while, you’re learning little bits and pieces of new stuff all the time. But it’s also approachable enough that newer people, younger people, high school, college students, they can really glean something from this. So I would encourage everybody to take this course, whether it’s the videos, whether it’s doing it in person, bring your Bible study group through it, bring your homeschool group through it, and equip yourself for these challenging days ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
View the course at frc.org slash God and government or on the Stand Firm app.
SPEAKER 10 :
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.
SPEAKER 08 :
A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. That they’re endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
SPEAKER 10 :
That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th. Happy 250th birthday, America. May God bless America.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony and so glad to have you with us. All right, earlier this afternoon, the suspect in the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting made his first appearance in court and he was charged on three accounts, including one count of attempting to assassinate the President of the United States. What a big deal. Meanwhile, Saturday’s incident continues to animate investigators, journalists, lawmakers, and so forth as they try to process all the details surrounding the 31-year-old suspect who called himself, catch this, a friendly federal assassin. What in the world does that even mean, a friendly federal assassin? Wow. So what can we make of all of this, at least all that we know so far? Well, joining us now to discuss Saturday’s shooting is former FBI Deputy Director John Pistol, who has briefed three different presidents in the Oval Office and the Situation Room. He’s currently senior advisor at a law firm in Indiana. John, welcome to Washington Watch. Great honor to have you.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you. It’s good to be with you.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, all of this is very fresh on everyone’s mind, so we certainly don’t have the whole picture at this point, but this is the third time in less than two years that a gunman has come at least toward the President of the United States with deadly intent. And according to the White House, they will be convening this week to review practices of protecting the president. But I just had Congressman Marlon Stutzman on, and he, along with many others, are asking whether or not security at the hotel was enough. So let’s start with that. What’s your take on Saturday’s incident and how the security was that night?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, one of the things I learned in my 31 years of government, including almost 27 at the FBI and then four and a half at TSA, is that there’s so much that is clear in hindsight that it’s easy to look back and say, well, why didn’t we do this? Why didn’t we do that? The outcomes matter and the fact that they are doing what’s referred to as an after action review to look at what did work. Obviously nobody in the ballroom was injured and thanks be to God that the secret service agent has, you know, is going to be OK. But should he have been allowed to get that close? So that’s what they’ll be looking at to assess. What worked well, what didn’t work well, and what other layers of protection or security might we have when it’s not designated as a national security special event, an NSSE, as, for example, the annual address to joint sessions of Congress. So there’s a lot there looking at, and the bottom line is, yeah, nobody inside the ballroom was hurt.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, Congressman Stutzman said as they came into the ballroom and he even thought at the time that security seemed to be awfully lax. Is this kind of standard or was the hotel responsible in any way their self? Or is this all up to the president security team? What happened?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yeah, I’ve attended several of the White House Correspondents dinners when I was in in office. When I was as a head of TSA and and so security was appropriate at that time. The question is, how do you mitigate risk without eliminating risk? Because when you try to eliminate risk, Things are shut down and so they have several layers of security similar to TSA where there are both security measures seen and unseen. So for example, they do in this instance a somewhat cursory identity check. Just make sure you have an invitation to the ballroom so somebody’s not getting in there without an invitation and a ticket if you will. And then they also have to go through the magnetometers which detects the obvious weapons. The concern that I have, and I’m sure they’re talking about, is what happens if this was part of a broader plot, and I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but what happens if the person, obviously, who’s been arranged now in D.C. federal court, he was just the tip of the spear that was the distraction, and then everybody else, other co-conspirators, may have been trying to get to the president or vice president or the speaker, the line of succession there, As they were hurried out of the ballroom to their respective safe places. And so those are some of the things I’m sure they’re talking about and looking at. How can we do better? And hopefully there’s not going to be another time. But like you say, three attempts in two years. That’s not very good.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, and you bring you raise some very good questions that I believe demand answers. So based on the information that has come out so far, what’s your take on the shooter and the overall information that we’re hearing to this point?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, it seems like given his his actions coupled with his posts that he was clearly there to try to kill the president is my judgment on that, because if he was trying to hurt or kill any other public official or somebody else at that ballroom, that’s the wrong place to do when you’ve got the President United States with that package that security package around him. And so I got a thing just. by reasonable deduction that, yes, the president was a target. Now, that being said, even if he had made it into the ballroom, which is huge, as you know, 2,500 seats, and the doors entering are at the far side of where the dais and podium where the president and other dignitaries, some were seated, that would have been a challenge for him unless he had an automatic weapon, could just sweep the dice and something like that. So again, a lot of things to look at, but it’s something that I think we’re, obviously it’s something that could have been much worse if it was, and I don’t want to say this in a pejorative way, but it just seemed like it’s somewhat of an amateurish attempt. If you’re trying to assassinate the president, that’s not the place or the way to do it. As we’ve seen in the two prior attempts, more opportunity for success from the bad guy’s perspective when it’s not in such a secure location.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, and speaking of that location, of course, that’s where the attempted assassination of President Reagan took place. These type of threats happen to all presidents, but it certainly seems, we’ve only got about 30 seconds left, and I apologize for that, but it seems like it’s just much more of an issue with this president. Would you agree?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yes, I do. I mean, we’ve had four presidents assassinated in our 250-year history. But yes, the politics of today just seem to be driving people to do desperate things for whatever reasons. And unfortunately, they are able to try those things given where we are.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. Thank you so much, former FBI Deputy Director John Pistol. We appreciate your insight so much. Thank you for joining us. All right, coming up next, we’re going to shift gears. There’s a new report out on how DEI on college campuses is dying. Well, we’ll discuss it next, so stay with us.
SPEAKER 15 :
For I know that my Redeemer lives. Job 19, 25. God raised Jesus from the dead because it was impossible for death to take hold on Him. Acts 2, 24.
SPEAKER 07 :
Join Family Research Council in standing on the Word. Visit frc.org slash Bible for free resources to help your family follow the way. Jesus, the risen Savior of the world.
SPEAKER 19 :
One Nation Under God, America’s undeniable foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 11 :
The United States Capitol, an iconic symbol of the American Republic. But few know that this building at the heart of our nation’s government was once something more, the largest church building in America. Since its inception and for decades following, several rooms throughout the Capitol, including the House and Senate chambers, were used to host church services weekly. These services were filled with individuals from all levels of government. The attendance was so pervasive that often it was standing room only. Quote, going to the Capitol on Sundays was then one of the most common things in Washington. Margaret Bayard Smith. This practice was not merely accepted, but encouraged. quote, I consider it as one of my public duties as a representative of the people to give my attendance every Sunday morning when divine service is performed in the hall. President John Quincy Adams. Housing worship at the center of our capital was a living representation of the role that biblical principles played as a cornerstone of our nation’s foundation of faith.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you for joining us today on Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss, an honor to be filling in today for Tony, and thank you for joining us as well. All right, the left’s push, which I’m sure you’re familiar with now, for so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion is at this point kind of more of a nudge than anything else and we’re all thankful for that. But a recent report analyzed more than 16,000 higher education faculty job advertisements and they found significant drops when it came to DEI related requests for the applicants. So Is it possible that DEI is about to DIE? Well, let’s hope so. Joining us now to discuss this is Dr. Peter Wood. He’s president of the National Association of Scholars and is author of Diversity, the Invention of a Concept. Dr. Wood, welcome back to Washington Watch. An honor to have you.
SPEAKER 03 :
Oh, thank you so much.
SPEAKER 04 :
Okay, so I think when we talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion, perhaps in their purest forms, they may not be so bad, but certainly the left has turned its DEI into something that is bad. So we’re not talking about dictionary meanings of words here, are we? Is that fair to say?
SPEAKER 03 :
Robert R. Oh yes, that’s entirely fair. These words have acquired brand new meanings, but they have a little halo from their old meanings. They sound like they’re wholesome things, but they are used to promote things which are, well, not accepted as very wholesome by most people. That’s the identity politics world where we divide ourselves into different camps, oftentimes antagonistic to each other, and we try to distribute social goods in a fashion that compensates some people for past wrongs and punishes others for simply being in the wrong category.
SPEAKER 04 :
So what do you make of this report on higher education faculty? What’s your thoughts on it?
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I’m dubious that it really represents much change. I think America’s faculty have been burned by the executive orders issued by the Trump administration that oftentimes threaten cutoffs of their grants and other funding, and therefore they know that they’ve gone too far with DEI and they need to back out. Now, there are plenty of faculty, my organization represents some of them, that have been dubious about DEI all along, but there are others who have kind of tied their careers to advancing it. So it’s a mixed picture. I’m happy to see that the poll results are showing that it’s on the decline, but I think that may depend well on the national politics. And if the politics were to change, we would probably be right back in the soup with DEI as we’ve known it in the past.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I think that’s an excellent point, and I’m afraid that you’re probably correct in that. But let’s keep with the report as it is right now. They attribute the decline of DEI to a combination of both state-level legislation and national trends, like you’re referencing, I’m sure, the political wins. So don’t you think it’s important when we see this push from the left
SPEAKER 03 :
being pushed back on this is a good thing that we’re seeing in it absolutely it’s a great thing and I think in those states that have uh taken legislative action to eliminate dei that’s going to stick once it’s gone people won’t want it back the those bills that have passed in such states are not particularly popular on campus they are viewed as infringements on academic freedom but they’re hugely popular with students and and with the public so i don’t think that’s going to go away but we have the blue state america which is not at all eager to retire the dei regime um As far as federal government goes, President Trump made it a priority from his first days in office to do what he could to wean higher education off its infatuation with these racial preferences. And that has turned into a real Dunnybrook in some places. Harvard is, for example, not really happy about giving up DEI. A lot of other places have James Fallows, Ph.D.: : change the name in order to buy themselves some maneuvering room, but all across the country we’ve seen hundreds of colleges and universities. James Fallows, Ph.D.: : retire their dei offices, simply by changing the plaque on the door they’re now called things like offices of belonging, but it’s the same personnel in the same agenda. So there’s a complicated game going on. We are seeing a public distaste for DEI, but higher education is a little enclave in American society where DEI is still viewed as a wonderful thing by those in power.
SPEAKER 04 :
So I guess less than a minute to go here, but I suppose what you’re saying is depending on the university or college, whatever the institution is, the decline for some may just be a trend, it may be temporary, and for others it may be permanent.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think that’s accurate, yes. Some universities see the future in being inclusive in the sense of Larry Crumpler, Jr.: : Allowing conservatives to have a voice to be not simply the the mouthpiece of a radical regime, but others embrace that radical regime and are desperately hoping for its restoration. Larry Crumpler, Jr.: : Maybe this year, maybe in two years, but they think it’s coming and if they just hold on long enough they’ll be getting their their game back.
SPEAKER 04 :
All right. Thank you so much, Dr. Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars and author of Diversity, the Invention of a Concept. All right. Coming up, we’re going to dive into the SPLC and the cover that the left is providing them following their indictment yesterday. So stay with us.
SPEAKER 09 :
Exodus chapter nine, verse one says, thus says the Lord God of the Hebrews, let my people go and that they may serve me. You see, America has freedom for a purpose. The question is, are we living by that purpose today? In Scripture, deliverance and freedom is never an end in itself. It is a liberation unto obedience, to worship, and to a covenantal relationship. God’s demand to Pharaoh was not freedom for freedom’s sake, but freedom so his people could identify with and belong to and serve him. Freedom that is not used to serve God will not endure. One of the founders actually echoed a similar warning. Thomas Jefferson wrote, indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever. See, the founders understood we as a nation would be accountable to God for what he had granted to us. They sought freedom for a purpose. And that freedom was given to us as a nation for that same purpose, to serve God, to honor him, and to live as a people under his authority. In this 250th anniversary year, We must ask the question, are we living by that purpose today as a nation? Lord, we thank you for the godly foundation and heritage of our states. Lord, we would return to an understanding of the freedom that you’ve granted to us, that freedom has a name. His name is Jesus. And freedom has a purpose. It is to honor and glorify you. And I pray that our nation would return to that understanding of the purpose of the freedom that you have granted to us. We thank you, Father. By faith, we pray that we would return to that purpose. In Jesus’ name we pray, amen.
SPEAKER 12 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to the Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at the Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Good afternoon to you. Hope you’re having a great day. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony and thank you for joining us as well. All right. If you don’t follow the legacy media, you may not be aware of the extent to which they have been trying to downplay last week’s indictment of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center. In fact, here’s a headline from USA Today. They said, SPLC paid informants without donors knowing. Feds pay them too. And look, it’s not just the leftist media that’s been trying to provide cover for the SPLC. In fact, I’ve got a little clip here from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, what he had to say about the indictment last week.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let’s be clear what this case is really about. It has nothing to do with alleged wire fraud or with the Southern Poverty Law Center somehow working in coordination with the KKK. That’s ridiculous on its faith. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s about Donald Trump turning the Department of Justice into the Department of Vengeance, his own attack dog.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. Yeah, it makes you wonder if those on the left have actually even looked at the Justice Department’s indictment. Well, I can assure you my next guest has looked, and he’s literally written the book on the SBLC. Here now to dive more into all of this is Tyler O’Neill. He’s a senior editor at the Daily Signal and author of Making Hate Pay, the Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Tyler, welcome back to Washington Watch. Always great to have you. Thanks, Jody. Always glad to be here. Okay, so I don’t think it’s any surprise the SPLC would try to spin as much as they could even before the indictment. What are they saying about all of this coming out of their own mouths at the SPLC?
SPEAKER 21 :
yeah it has been astounding to me how much they were willing to reveal so they knew that this indictment was coming but they decided to get ahead of it by get this you know that their damage control is revealing that they had this long-running program of paying informants inside the Ku Klux Klan inside the Aryan nations inside the National Alliance and they claim that these people were feeding them information Now, of course, the reason they had to do that or the reason they decided to do that is because the DOJ indictment comes out and it shows not only were they paying people in the Klan and people who organized Charlottesville, for instance, but they also were sometimes directing the racist postings and, in some cases, they were paying the very same people who they had extremist files on their website on. So it really is a, you know, they’re paying the very people that they’re citing as evidence of hate. So if you wanted a clearer justification and vindication of my original point in the book, which is that, you know, the SPLC props up hate, exaggerates hate in order to scare donors into ponying up cash, you couldn’t have gotten perhaps a better clear statement of exactly how corrupt this could be.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, I mean, that kind of corruption and fraud is just unthinkable. I mean, how do people even imagine doing such? Let me ask you this, because someone asked me about this. And I just want to be sure, when you talk about them hiring, even those that they declare themselves to be hate groups or whatever, Are they actually hiring those employees? Are they hiring people who were indeed associated with those organizations? Or were they hiring third party individuals claiming to be part of those organizations?
SPEAKER 21 :
That’s an excellent question. We need to actually see the ultimate evidence behind the indictment to get the answer to that question. What I do know is that in many of these cases, these are organizations that barely existed. One of the organizations here that the SPLC was trumpeting, they were saying this is a millennial rebrand of one of these old hate groups. And it’s, you know, it was a pathetic millennial rebrand. And even the SPLC kind of had to admit, like, these groups are not exactly, you know, this isn’t your 1920s or your 1950s or even your 1980s clan. And that’s the real reason why I think the informant defense is not particularly strong, because in the 80s, the SPLC’s office got fire bombed. In the 90s, you had the Oklahoma City bombing. These were threats at the time. But when you’re looking at the period covered by the indictment, which is 2014 to 2023, that’s not exactly a heyday of any of this hate. And if the SPLC was tipping off law enforcement using these people only as informants and not doing this double dipping thing that you and I are saying and that Kash Patel is alleging in this indictment, I think they need to put up the evidence for that. They need to say that there were violent threats that they were preventing in this period of time. Because quite frankly, that’s why their defenses don’t pass the sniff test with me. Because we don’t see the firebombing of the SPLC offices during this period. We don’t see the Oklahoma City bombing during this period. What we do see eventually is something like Charlottesville, where the SPLC was paying one of the people who organized it, and the SPLC was engaging in this process. As I describe in the book, they published a Confederate monument map that Carol Swain told me was exaggerating and really kind of activating some of the more ugly sides that came out in Charlottesville. So you could claim that the SPLC, in at least two different ways, was trying to make Charlottesville happen and make it bigger than it was. And if that’s true, if they were investing in Charlottesville, then they got a killer return. Because as soon as Charlottesville happened, they got tremendous donations. You know, $1 million from Apple CEO Tim Cook. $1 million from George and Amal Clooney. $500 grand from JPMorgan Chase. The hate map plastered over CNN. You know, the very same hate map that inspired a terrorist attack against the Family Research Council now getting legacy media boosting. And all of that is… off of the coattails that the SPLC had from Charlottesville.
SPEAKER 04 :
Unbelievable, where they were actually the gasoline throwing into the fire that they themselves lit. It’s stunning. So if you look at it, I opened this segment talking about people who may not be following the legacy media in all of this, and they may not be aware of some of the information we’re discussing. But for those who do see the legacy media, you would think by watching them that there is nothing to see here.
SPEAKER 21 :
with the indictment of the sblc it’s just there’s just a nothing burger is that the case or is there indeed something here no i mean this is an explosive indictment now i have yet to see the underlying evidence but by the plain text of the indictment this is something other than your traditional informant process and by the way i mean i also think we need to take a step back here and say The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a law enforcement entity. This is not the same thing as when the FBI has informants. And even the FBI informants is a questionable thing that they’ve done in the past. There are a lot of scandals regarding the FBI informants and what they’ve done. So let’s not just brush aside the concerns that people have about informants in general, but then the idea that a nonprofit is going to engage in placing informants. among people that are barely existing at the time. I mean, this is beyond a scandal. It’s a tremendous black mark on the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now we’ll have to see if the indictment ultimately stands up. I don’t believe that the Justice Department would have brought it without the goods, and of course this made it past a grand jury. So there had to have been at least probable cause. I do think that looking at the indictment, some of the charges are going to be difficult to prove in a court of law. A judge might not look favorably on the government’s way of interpreting how that wire fraud works. I hope in further indictments we’ll get it fleshed out stronger and we’ll see the real meat of that because I think there could be serious meat there. But I also think the strongest charges here are bank fraud. The SPLC stands accused of propping up shell companies and then lying to the banks that they used to create those firms. And if that’s true, if it’s in black and white that they were doing this, then it’s going to be very hard for the SPLC to wiggle out of these charges.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, I don’t know if you saw it. I want to play it again and get your response to it. But I played a clip from Senator Schumer at the top of this segment where he’s literally accusing the Trump administration as weaponizing the DOJ. But a play clip for for me again.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let’s be clear what this case is really about. It has nothing to do with alleged wire fraud or with the Southern Poverty Law Center somehow working in coordination with the KKK. That’s ridiculous on its faith. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s about Donald Trump turning the Department of Justice into the Department of Vengeance, his own attack dog.
SPEAKER 04 :
I mean, I just I got to get your reply to this. Yeah.
SPEAKER 21 :
Yeah. Was Chuck Schumer born yesterday? I mean, I wrote an op ed about how these Democrats are covering themselves in shame by their response to this, because what Schumer is saying, you know, sure, maybe it would be if he were born yesterday, it might make sense. We’re talking about an organization that not only puts mainstream conservative and Christian groups on a map with Klan chapters, a map that inspired a domestic terrorist attack against the Family Research Council and may have contributed to the Charlie Kirk assassination. But this is an organization that advised the Biden DOJ. So when the Biden DOJ was weaponizing justice against conservatives, was targeting pro-lifers for extra prosecution, was the FBI putting out a memo demonizing Catholics as radical traditional Catholics, citing none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center, and had DOJ prosecutors advised by and trained by the Southern Poverty Law Center to go after anti-LGBTQ threats. All of this is what happened under the Biden administration. So Trump has reversed that. Thankfully, Kash Patel has drawn a clear line and said there is daylight between the FBI and the SPLC. We are not working with them ever again. And he’s reversing the weaponization that the SPLC was at the center of. So by all means, Chuck Schumer, you can embarrass yourself further. But I think for those of us who know what happened in the last four years, for those of us who know how corrupt the Southern Poverty Law Center is, we’re going to remember that you stuck your neck out for them. And you’re going to be hoist by your own petard when this case continues, because this is just the beginning.
SPEAKER 04 :
Wow. All right. So I got your response to Chuck Schumer. What about the USA Today headline that said the SPLC paid informants without donors knowing? Feds pay them, too. All right. Look, the problem is not just that payments were made, but the SPLC tried to hide all of that, hide the funding. Can you just take us further into all of that?
SPEAKER 21 :
Yeah, so not only did the SPLC cop to paying members of the KKK and the Aryan nations, but the indictment shows that they created shell companies. The indictment alleges, I mean, we’ll have to see what ends up coming of this, but the indictment alleges that they propped up shell companies, lied to banks, to conceal those shell companies and use those shell companies to funnel money to these so-called informants. Then, according to the indictment, they used these informants to essentially prop up hate to convince donors that America was more hateful than it already is, which is the SPLC’s MO, so this stands to reason. It’s not like, I mean, Chuck Schumer says, oh, that’s laughable. And it’s like, no, it actually is the SPLC’s MO. They exaggerate hate. They put hundreds of Bombs for Liberty chapters on the hate map in order to scare donors to say, oh, look, we’re still in the midst of the civil rights movement. Hate is on the march. We have to oppose hate by any means possible. Give your gift today. And, you know, this is… no non-profit by the way this is a non-profit that has offshore accounts in the cayman islands this is a non-profit that unionized and had its union accused the non-profit of union busting and it’s a non-profit that had racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandals that led them to fire their own co-founder so you know this couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people the notion that just because the FBI does something a little similar that also a lot of Americans are concerned about, by the way, therefore there’s no there there, when the SPLC seems to be doing something far worse, that’s, again, this defense is insane. And I can’t believe that the left is covering themselves, finding themselves in this situation. uh… only about a minute left what what do you hope comes from this indictment yeah well ultimately of i’ve long said what i really want to see is justice i want to see all of the groups that have been defamed and slandered by the southern poverty law center when in court in defamation lawsuits and get that huge seven hundred forty million dollar endowment give it to the people who have been unjustly smeared The SPLC goes down because of bank fraud and wire fraud that would still be a win for justice. And hopefully we can get a terrified organization that’s hate smears have totally been discredited and wiped away that then can, in due humility, return to their actual mission of representing poor people in the South and stop smearing good people for opposing the left’s agenda.
SPEAKER 04 :
Thank you so much, Tyler O’Neill, senior editor at The Daily Signal and author of Making Hate Pay, The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Incredible discussion with you. Appreciate you joining us. All right, friends, that wraps up this edition of Washington Watch. Hope you have a wonderful evening. We’ll be back with you again tomorrow, same time, right here on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 20 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council. To support our efforts to advance faith, family, and freedom, please text GIVE to 67742. That’s GIVE to 67742. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information, please visit TonyPerkins.com.
