--:-- Host (John Bickley): Why shop at Burlington? Maybe it's the deals that are new each time you drop by. Maybe it's the brand names you'll be shocked Burlington has in store. Or maybe it's the quality of the items, the amazing selection, and the newest trends. If you like to save, but also like to stay in style, Burlington is your answer. And the question you'll be asking yourself is, why go anywhere else? Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Clashes on Capitol Hill yesterday as Special Counsel John Durham answered questions about his scathing assessment of the FBI from his recent report. Why are both Democrats and Republicans unhappy with the Special Counsel? I'm Daily Wire, Editor-in-Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Thursday, June 22nd, and this is Morning Wire.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Former President Donald Trump is having trouble finding a top-tier legal team. We look at the dark money group that's been targeting lawyers who consider representing Trump and his allies. I know one lawyer who was asked to represent him and is having doubts about that because of Project 65. And the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is facing blowback for new diversity rules for Best Picture nominees. I don't think it's a good idea because to me, in the end, it's about exclusion. What are the new rules and how is Tinseltown reacting? Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to need to know.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Former special counsel John Durham took heat from both sides of the aisle when he testified to Congress on Wednesday. Durham sat down before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time to publicly answer questions about his four-year investigation into the FBI and the origin of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy.
--:-- Daily Wire Reporter (Tim Pierce): Well, Durham walked through his findings with lawmakers. To recap, the Department of Justice released Durham's 300-page report last month. It found that the FBI used raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence to launch its investigation into the Trump campaign, and that, at its root, the problem with the FBI was one of accountability and ethics, not training or procedures.
--:-- Daily Wire Reporter (Tim Pierce): The GOP committee members highlighted some key points, such as the obvious bias of FBI officials that investigated Trump's campaign, and the lack of rigor applied to verifying information the FBI received.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Here's committee chairman Jim Jordan questioning Durham about the role high-level FBI officials played in pushing the investigation forward despite convincing evidence against it.
--:-- Jim Jordan: Mr. Durham, in the summer of 2016, did our government receive intelligence that suggested Secretary Clinton had approved a plan to tie President Trump to Russia?
--:-- Jim Jordan: Was that intelligence important enough for Director Brennan to go brief the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, the attorney general of the United States, and the director of the FBI?
--:-- Jim Jordan: And was that intelligence put then into a memorandum, a referral memorandum?
--:-- Jim Jordan: And was that memorandum then given to Director Comey and Agent Strzok?
--:-- Jim Jordan: Did Director Comey share that memorandum with the FISA court?
--:-- John Durham: I'm not aware of that if he did.
--:-- Jim Jordan: Did he share it with the agents on the case working the Crossfire Hurricane case?
--:-- Jim Jordan: Didn't share it with the agents on the case.
--:-- John Durham: Can you tell the committee what happened when you took that referral memo and shared it with one of those agents, specifically Supervisory Special Agent No 1?
--:-- John Durham: He indicated he had never seen it before. He immediately became emotional, got up and left the room with his lawyer, spent some time in the hallway, came back. He was ticked off, wasn't he?
--:-- John Durham: He was ticked off because this is something he should have had as an agent on the case. It's important information that the director of the FBI kept from the people doing the investigation.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): What about the response from the other side of the aisle? What issues did Democrats raise? They said Durham's report was a politically motivated defense of Donald Trump and an attack on Hillary Clinton.
--:-- John Durham: Your reputation will be damaged as everybody's reputation who gets involved with Donald Trump is damaged.
--:-- Steve Cohen: Yeah, my concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect, my family and my Lord. And I'm perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Yeah, that moment went viral online.
--:-- Daily Wire Reporter (Tim Pierce): What issues did Republicans have with the report? Republicans mostly avoided criticizing Durham, except for Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz.
--:-- Matt Gaetz: How about this fact, Mr. Durham? The entire Mueller team does a hard reset on their Apple phone in synchronization to wipe away evidence.
--:-- John Durham: I've read that.
--:-- Matt Gaetz: Why did you investigate it?
--:-- John Durham: Who gave the order on the Mueller team to wipe the phones?
--:-- Matt Gaetz: Yeah, that was not something that we were asked to look at.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): No, that's not true, Mr. Durham. We get after it was put in motion, the FBI did a bunch of wrong and corrupt things. Totally understand. We're trying to deal with that. But when you are part of the cover-up, Mr. Durham, then it makes our job harder.
--:-- Matt Gaetz: Yeah, well, if that's your thought, I mean, there's no way of dissuading you from that. It's the omission. It's the lack of work you did. And for the people like the chairman who put trust in you, I think you let them down. I think you let the country down. And you are one of the barriers to the true accountability that we need.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Do I get to respond to that or comment on that?
--:-- Matt Gaetz: Yeah. Well, I don't know if you've ever investigated a crime. I don't know that you have. You didn't investigate these, Mr. Durham. How about Andy McCabe? Did you charge him? Did you investigate him?
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Tell him the time has expired. The witness can respond.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Quite the day on Capitol Hill for Durham.
--:-- Daily Wire Reporter (Tim Pierce): Tim, thanks for reporting.
--:-- Tim Pierce: No problem.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Coming up, a dark money group targets lawyers representing Trump. Former President Trump has reportedly had trouble finding lawyers to represent him in his historic federal case. And some say the 65 project is behind those troubles.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): The group targets lawyers who represent Trump and others who've called into question the results of the 2020 election. Joining us to discuss is attorney Alan Dershowitz, who says he's been targeted by the group himself.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: Thanks for joining us, Alan.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: If you would, give us some background here. Why can't Trump find qualified attorneys?
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: Because Project 65 has taken on the task of making sure that no decent lawyer will represent Donald Trump. It's a throwback to Senator Joseph McCarthy and the McCarthyites in the 1940s and 50s. Project 65 threatens any lawyer who has anything to do with Donald Trump when they did that. And I offered to represent any lawyer who was subject to an attack by Project 65 free of charge. They immediately filed a bar complaint against me.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): And so they sending a message far and wide to every lawyer Don go near Donald Trump. I already spoken to at least three lawyers who are aware of Project 65 and have used that as a justification for not becoming part of Trump's defense team. They were asked to do so.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: Now, you know, Trump's probably not the easiest client in the world, but there'd be plenty of people willing to represent him if not for Project 65. Project 65 has as its goal the massive violation of the Sixth Amendment. If Project 65 existed at the time of the American Revolution, they probably would have gone after John Adams for defending the soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre. It's the most un-American group of lawyers.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Now, I'm a liberal. I voted against Donald Trump. But because I offered to represent people who they went after, Project 65 then went after me and let it be known to everybody that if you defend Donald Trump or defend people who defend Donald Trump, we will come after you.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: So what do we know about the 65 project? They launched in March of 2022. Who runs it and what are their goals? We're not sure. We're not sure who the financial backer of it. We're not sure all the members. They vary over time, but they're, As far as I know, all radical left partisans who have as their express goal to discourage lawyers from having any association with Donald Trump.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): And they're completely one sided. Imagine if there was a Project 64 that decided to go after only left wing lawyers. There'd be outrage. The ACLU, bar associations would be outraged by it, but they're not outraged by an organization that has its goal to go after lawyers who they disagree with politically.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: Is this illegal? Is this targeting of lawyers legal and ethical?
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: It's certainly unethical and it may be illegal. One would have to do more research to see whether a lawsuit could be brought against them. I think a lawsuit could be probably brought by people who have been denied counsel as the result of their threats. They would claim a First Amendment right to do this, and it would be an interesting case.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): But it's certainly unethical because under the rules of the bar, lawyers should be free to represent even the most despised criminals.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: One final question on this. What can be done to counter something like this, the 65 Project's efforts? And how could we better protect American citizens' representation rights?
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: I think there are many things that can be done. First, publicity, media like you bringing this out into the public. Second, complaints to bar associations. Third, funding, helping to fund lawyers who have been attacked and their bar association credentials have been questioned.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Well, always extremely important when we're talking about potential violations against constitutional protections.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: Alan, thank you so much for joining us.
--:-- Alan Dershowitz: Thank you.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): That was attorney Alan Dershowitz.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is under fire for new Oscars rules that will be rolling out in 2024. Going forward, all Best Picture nominees will now have to meet diversity and inclusion quotas.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham is here to tell us more about the new rules and the reaction they're getting.
--:-- Megan Basham: So, Megan, what exactly are the new requirements?
--:-- Megan Basham: Well, basically when film producers and directors go to submit a movie to the Academy for best picture consideration what they going to have to do is show that the film meets the qualifications of two of four diversity categories. So one, it can have a lead or major supporting character who represents a racial or ethnic minority. Two, the main storyline can center on what they're calling underrepresented groups. So that could be a racial minority or someone who identifies as LGBTQ or someone who's disabled, something like that.
--:-- Megan Basham: Number three, at least 30% of the cast has to come from two of those previously mentioned groups. Now, if a film doesn't qualify under those standards, it would still be possible to qualify if the production company can show that multiple senior executives do fall into one of those diversity categories. or if it can show that it offers a high degree of paid internships and training to people in underrepresented groups. But again, it has to qualify under two of those categories. One wouldn't be enough.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): How are these new rules being received? You know, there are certainly some who are welcoming the changes, but you are surprisingly hearing a lot of criticism. The New York Post reported on a number of Oscar voters who say that they're very unhappy about this, But they're speaking under the condition of anonymity, apparently because they're afraid of being canceled.
--:-- Megan Basham: They point out that under these new standards, the Godfather and Schindler's List, which are, of course, two of the most revered films of all time, would not qualify for Best Picture. And really, there's a very long list of former winners that wouldn't qualify under these new rules.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): This was what Oscar winner Richard Dreyfuss had to say about the new rules on PBS's firing line.
--:-- Richard Dreyfuss: They make me vomit. Why? Because this is an art form and no one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is. Are we really risking hurting people's feelings? You can't legislate that. And I'm sorry, I don't think that there's a minority or a majority in the country that has to be catered to like that.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): Now, do we expect to see any other kind of changes to the Oscars, for example, qualifications for winners? You know, it's possible that we could in those gendered categories, best actress, best actor, those types of things. So already some of the smaller award shows have introduced what they're calling gender neutral categories. categories. They say it's not fair to non-binary and gender non-conforming performers who then have to choose which category they want to be considered for.
--:-- Megan Basham: But the Brit Awards, which is the UK's version of the Grammys, actually made this change for the best artist category. And what happened was no women ended up being nominated. So that did receive a lot of blowback. And then some stars like Jamie Lee Curtis, have said that there should really just be third non-binary categories. But however they decide to handle it, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Oscars are considering a move in that direction.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): All right. Well, I predict a lot more actors are going to come out as non-binary. You heard it here first, folks.
--:-- Megan Basham: All right, Megan, thanks for reporting.
--:-- Megan Basham: Anytime.
--:-- Host (John Bickley): That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back This afternoon with more of the news you need to know.
