Americans simply do NOT trust government agencies. After all, who would’ve thought before 2020 that even the CDC was political?! So, past executive orders that prevent government agencies from spying on U.S. citizens may not cut it anymore. Rep. Chris Stewart joins Glenn to detail his newly introduced legislation that goes even further than what’s already in place. Under this law, those responsible for unlawful spying would be PENALIZED: ‘You can't just say, well, we believe we have the [executive] authority to do it. No. We’re going to say very definitively: you DO NOT.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me -- let me switch topics here. Because I don't know how he defines freedom and repression either. Because we have had a growing surveillance state. In this country, for quite some time. And it is terrifying. There is no such thing as just metadata anymore. Everything can be tracked down, to the individual person. And you have just introduced legislation that is set up to prevent any intelligence agency from spying on American citizens.

Don't we already have that law somewhere in the Bill of Rights?

CHRIS: Yeah. Yeah. We do. And, in fact, we have it very explicitly in executive orders and in legislation. That's where it exists. But here's the deal, Glenn. And I'll try not to be sarcastic about this. But I have to make this one point. Is the U.S. -- U.S. does not trust government agencies anymore. Pick one. Who knew that the CDC was political? Well, we were informed five years ago, that the FBI and DOJ certainly are. And the NSA. And the CIA --

GLENN: The Post Office is spying on us.

CHRIS: Yeah. Yeah. So this is -- and this is -- thank you for bringing this up, Glenn. This is so important. This administration came to power. And they said, the greatest threat facing our security is not once again, China or Russia or the mullahs in Iran or Russia. They said the greatest threat facing our own security is internal. They said, it's white supremacy, domestic violence extremists. The DVEs, they call it.

Okay. So, well, then, they've used that, justification, which is nonsense.

As I think, the vast majority of Americans would agree. But then they said, okay. Well, the intelligence community, for example, the NSA, the CIA, they cannot collect intelligence. But now suddenly, under this administration, they can receive intelligence. Tell me the difference. What is the difference between collecting intelligence and receiving intelligence? And they then have used that new justification, that new jurisdiction -- you know, description of a word, which I think we would all understand. And say, okay. Now we are involved in the national counterterrorism training center. And the director of national intelligence to write reports on domestic extremists, which are by definition, American citizens. It cannot happen.

GLENN: Well, we are -- I mean, we found a very convenient way, we spy on England. And they spy on us. And I don't even think we need that anymore. I mean, the -- the problem is, the intelligence agencies, include almost every agency now. It's not that hard. To do, apparently. And we're working together, all around the world. And somebody told me, Chris. I said, when will a president shut this down? And they said never. Never. Because the excuse will be, everybody else has it. And we can't be the only one that doesn't know what our citizens are doing.

CHRIS: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Go ahead.

CHRIS: I think it's fair to point this out. You know, this type of attitude towards the American people. The incredible abuse the Department of Justice and FBI, that we saw in the Russian hoax, where they're literally lying to Congress, again and again. And they're lying to the FISA court, et cetera. That only happened under a Democratic administration. And this new redefinition of words, to where they cannot collect, they can receive. Once again, only a Democrat administration is allowing that. So I don't think we've got -- I don't think we've got equal concerns here. Certainly true the Republican Party, ironically, because this is a bit of a shift. Most of us were reviewed as being defense hawks, but now we are the protectors of privacy. It's the ACLU and our Democratic colleagues and others, such as them, who are saying, you know, they're the ones who are fighting our initiatives, our efforts to try to retain privacy and protection of the liberties for Americans.

GLENN: So what would be the punishment for let's say, Google just happens to say, you know what, we have all this data on people. And we just have to get it on our servers. Do you want to look at it? What would be the penalty for any government agency?

CHRIS: Yeah. So look -- if they have been -- the problem is, like I said, when I first started the interview. There's already rules. There's already executive orders. There's already legislation. But they don't attribute any penalty to it. It's like, hey, this is a bad idea. But if you do it, we'll just remind you, it's a bad idea. We'll never move on.

GLENN: Right.

CHRIS: And so. But there's no penalties attached. So there's no disincentive for it. And so this legislation would attach a penalty for it. It would attach a penalty to the person. To the individual.

GLENN: So let's just say you -- you reason -- you were involved in any of these -- you know, the Russia gate scandals. What kind of penalty would you receive?

CHRIS: Well -- and honestly, Glenn. They're kind of apples and oranges. Because the Russia gate scandal was just so clear. There was clear deception. There was clear lying to agencies. There was clear deception to the FISA courts. So it's actually against law, as you can imagine. And there are penalties attached to those kind of behavior. This is a little bit different in the sense that they're actually working is under, what they believe is executive authority. So it clarifies, if you don't have that authority. And if you continue to claim that authority, we're going to punish you. We're going to prosecute you for doing that. You can't do it and just say, well, we believe we have the authority to do it. No, we're going to say very definitively, you do not.

GLENN: Okay. Do you have time to hang just a minute? I've got a couple more questions for you.

KAMALA: I do.

GLENN: Okay. Good.

All right. Back in one minute.

GLENN: So we're back with Congressman Chris Stewart. And his book is the final fight for freedom, which is a must-read. It -- it just -- it encapsulates almost all of the stuff that we are fighting against right now. And that is a wide array. And it's all explained in a very simple, simple way. And it's a little -- it's a little breathtaking. But it is also written in a way, to where it takes you on a story, and then shows you the facts, of that story, and tells you exactly what's happening in our government. It's called the final fight for freedom. And you can pick it up at bookstores now. It really is a must-read. Chris, I want to talk to you about the maximum mother lode of personal information.

The programmable digital currency, that we're now, quote, studying in Washington. Who is the one that actually authorizes the currency? Is it Congress? Or is it the fed? Or who is it that says, you can switch to a digital currency?

CHRIS: Yeah. That's actually a good question. And I'm not an expert on this. But I'll tell you my view. And that is subject to one caveat. And that is, regardless of who is authorized, it may not be the actual individual or agencies who end up authoring a digital currency. But I think that Congress ultimately has oversight on this.

Clearly, we do. And, clearly, we authorize this. Now, the fed, as you know, more than -- certainly more than -- more than I do. But as you indicate, over and over again. The fed has taken powers unto itself, just like the president has over Congress. The fed has taken powers unto itself, that is just frightening over the last 80 years. And accelerating rapidly, a breathtaking pace, going back five to eight years. Going back all the way to 2008. And it's an irony. The one thing people wanted from cryptocurrency, was privacy. They wanted to -- you know, to have an ability to not be manipulated by fed policy. Or by monetary policy. And the creation of a government currency, does exactly the opposite. I mean, it -- it beholdens us in ways, to where, virtually everything we do. Including everywhere we go. Every -- every purchase we make. Would be monitored, potentially monitored. And if necessary, corrected by federal policy. By federal bureaucrats. This should frighten the life out of people.

GLENN: Okay. Well, Chris, would you look into that, for me? And see if there's anybody on the hill, that at least is even questioning the fed. Because I think this is going to come fast and furious.

CHRIS: Oh, Glenn, there are. I promise you. I sat down probably with a little more than an hour with Patrick McHenry, who will be the next chairman of financial services, just last week on this issue. And I promise you, he's intensely aware of it. He's intensely concerned, as we are.

He, sitting on that committee, and being the chairman, we pray in 2022 when we take over the house. He'll play a key role in trying to -- trying to restrict what I think is -- is just a horrible, horrible idea for this administration, once again.

GLENN: Wow. I am glad to hear that, Chris. Thank you very much. All right. The name of the book is the final fight for freedom. If you want to get into the fight, he's just introduced a new bill to prevent intelligence agencies from spying on American citizens. You can find all of his information at Stewart.house.gov. Get involved. There are no bystanders.