Frank Figliuzzi: ‘I View the Supreme Court as a National Security Issue’

Wallace: “Frank Figliuzzi, how would you — if you had to profile the court — I mean, they offer no specific example of when a president couldn’t do something bold. Some members of this court were there during the Obama and Bush presidencies, which were, frankly, both hallmarks of the national security, were bold, questionable in the case of the Bush Administration, terrorism, counterterrorism policies. The court offers no example of where anyone in modern or ancient presidential history has been reined in but they have this language about they need to be bold. And they also ignore all the real examples. We’re talking about an ex-president who incited a deadly insurrection across the street. We’re talking about an ex-president who stole classified documents and refused to give them back. What is the — what is your best guess, or your best theory of the case, on what happened here?”

FIGLIUZZI: “I must have missed the part in the Constitution where the president must be bold, that’s interesting. I — the part of the Constitution that I recall is that I took the same oath when I joined the FBI that the president of the United States has, which is to preserve, protect, and defend the United States and the Constitution. So — look, I’m not going to sugarcoat this. I view the Supreme Court as a national security issue. The certain members that we’re talking about, there is an agenda here. They went out of their way — I’m perfectly fine with disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision. Heck, I went to law school, I can argue both sides of anything, right? But that’s not what they did here. The reason we’re dissenting so much for this is they did things they didn’t even have to do. You know, when one of Trump’s lawyers during the argument for this decision said yeah, I guess there are — the business of alternate electors and fake electors, yeah, I guess you could say that’s a personal, private, non-official decision. They said no, no, it is actually, it is. So, they gave him more than he asked for. They went out of their way to make this happen. So, what do I conclude as an investigator? There’s an agenda among some of the Supreme Court justices. And, quite frankly, when they speak privately at so-called private speeches to groups and organizations, they’re at dinner, after a few drinks, we hear the agenda. For Samuel Alito, it is the belief that America is going to hell in a handbasket and we need to take a more theological, theocracy approach to running the country. We know Amy Coney Barrett, even she had to go off and write her own summary and decision, but she came from what is essentially a cult-like background where the cult had to approve who she married. This is — you can’t tell me this is not an agenda.”