Leader of Trump Witch Hunt Goes After Jim Jordan

Today on Sekulow, the leader of the Trump Witch Hunt goes after Jim Jordan. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Folks, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

My dad's going to be joining us and the economy. Harry Hutchinson, the whole team. To discuss first, Alvin Bragg. You saw it yesterday probably in the news. The district attorney in New York who is leading the charge to, of course, indicted Donald Trump over what we still don't know is the actual felony. You know, we saw these state charges over and over again.

The falsification of business records. And again, that was a filing error, which would be a misdemeanor. But they said, well, it's tied to election issues, which would be a federal issue.

So point to the federal statutes and even the New York statutes, which I think would be overridden by the supremacy clause for the federal statutes that govern elections. The FEC passed on this. Didn't even think it was worth a fine. Remember they fined Hillary Clinton's campaign for saying that the Steele dossier was a legal expense because it went through, the purchase went through a law firm and they said, no, that was a campaign expense. And it was a fine. No criminal charges. They didn't even do that with Donald Trump here. They didn't even try to make a case that it was something FEC could send out a fine to a campaign, which is, you know, actually in our system of politics is not that unusual that there's errors with campaign filings. And sometimes you have to pay penalties, especially campaigns at the Presidential level, which are now billion dollar entities that get set up in less than a year, oftentimes in our, you know, these temporary entities. So we know that we've talked extensively through the indictment there in New York, but yesterday in a move to prevent not Alvin Bragg yet from being subpoenaed because he has not been subpoenaed by the house judiciary committee, but in a move to prevent a former assistant district attorney, Mark Pomerantz, who wrote a book after leaving the district attorney's office, after having a fight and a disagreement with Alvin Bragg over whether or not to prosecute and bring an indictment against Donald Trump.

He wrote a book called the people versus Donald Trump. And that is who got subpoenaed to testify to the house judiciary committee and Alvin Bragg is coming in and asking a judge in federal court. This is in the Southern district of New York. He's asking a federal judge to prevent, to prevent that subpoena and to issue in order to say there could be no additional subpoenas because it would interfere with his case and its intimidation, its political intimidation of a prosecution at the state. And this is at the county level. Now, I think what makes this very unique is that the person who got a subpoena is also a defendant in the case.

That hasn't been discussed as much in the news. Alvin Bragg didn't just bring this lawsuit against Jim Jordan as chairman of the house judiciary committee. He also brought it against his former assistant DA who wrote the book, who opened himself up. If you're going to write a book about prosecuting Donald Trump inside the office that did prosecute Donald Trump and you leave and you go on your book tour and you cash in, are you really going to be able to tell a congressional committee you can't talk about it?

I mean, he decided to write the book. He decided to open himself up, but interestingly Alvin Bragg also sued him to say he cannot actually comply with the subpoena. So we're going to talk about all of that when we come back for the break. We want to take your calls too, if you've got questions about this move. Now, this is in federal court. It's not a criminal challenge, a civil challenge, trying to preemptively stop the house judiciary committee from doing its oversight job. And we're going to explain why they have oversight of a DA's office. The quick answer, they take federal funds. So if you take federal money, guess what Congress has?

Oversight over what you're doing. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on the air. Share this broadcast with your friends and family. We're going to get into this when we come back to the break. Support the work of the ACLJ, double the impact your donation or matching challenge month of April at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secular. So we've talked extensively about Donald Trump's indictment in New York, but now the New York DA has brought a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. So in federal court against Jim Jordan as house judiciary chairman and a former assistant DA who wrote a book about why he wanted to prosecute, how he wanted to prosecute Donald Trump and his disagreement with Alvin Bragg quit the office. So he also brought a lawsuit against him. That's who actually has been subpoenaed to testify before the house judiciary committee is a former assistant DA who wrote the book People vs Donald Trump, same name as the actual case that was filed by Alvin Bragg.

So cashed in on it, did a book tour, did interviews on TV, exposed everything against internal workings of his office, internal deliberations and discussions. So he's no friend of Alvin Bragg. I mean, these guys are not friends.

They're not happy with each other politically. So Alvin Bragg also sued him and that has not gotten as much news, but he's actually brought a lawsuit against him and what he'll say is try to protect him from having to comply, but it would prevent him from complying with the subpoena. And then asked the judge to go a step further though and say that Jim Jordan can't issue any more subpoenas and basically to say, stop talking about it because you're somehow as a political official, this is interfering with their process. So we're going to take your calls on it, 100-684-3110, but as Jordan gets to and he's in here as well, it is a fairly interesting move because the person subpoenaed no longer works the DA's office and opened themselves up to, the reason why they're subpoenaing him is because the book he wrote. He told everybody he was so involved in it. What the book did that Mark Pamarot wrote, I read the book, he waived any privileges he might've had because he put everything in this book, at least everything that we publicly know about the case and the theory of the case. So it's out there. So the issue then is, does Congress have the authority to issue a subpoena when federal dollars, and this is what Jim Jordan is saying, federal money is being used by, because it goes from the federal government to these county DAs, they get federal grants and that money is then being used by the, the federal money is being used by the county district attorney to then go after a federal candidate for President of the United States, or at least for the Republican nomination of President.

So those are legitimate questions. The also, it looks, I mean, I think the argument is there is election interference. This is, you know, they could have brought this suit over the last two and a half years. They did not, could have done for the last three years.

They did not. And they all of a sudden bring it once he's declared his candidacy for President, Donald Trump. So you ask yourself this question, first, does Congress have the authority? What is the legitimate legislative purpose?

So I gave you two. One is election interference issues. The other is the federal funds being utilized and then going after federal candidates. So that's the big issue. But it's interesting here, one of the defendants in the case that Alvin Bragg brought is against his own former lawyer.

Andy? Yeah. I mean, this is a case in which he, Bragg, is claiming that to issue a subpoena to Pomerantz would make demands- He was the assistant, special assistant counsel.

Right. He was a special assistant DA, which I have been, that he has hired to help him in the prosecution. But he says that it would, and I'm reading from the complaint, which I have, the whole thing, 50 pages, it would be making demands for confidential documents and testimony as well as current and former and from current and former employees and officials.

Well, guess what, as we just said, he's written a book about it. What's confidential about it? What is going to come out of this that hasn't already been exposed to the public before? Why are you putting a restraint on him saying what he has broadcast all over the world as to what happened in the office and that led to his resignation?

What's the secret? And furthermore, how is it going to impede a criminal investigation? Look, when you indict, you should be ready to go to trial. You don't need to do any more investigation. Investigation is over. Indictment ends investigation. Indictment means the next thing you do is call your first witness, Jay.

That's what it means. And so when in this case, or Jordan, this does not mean that it is ended, the subpoena is in any way interfering with an ongoing investigation. That's over.

It's done. The man's been indicted. No crime was charged in my opinion, but they've indicted him and now it's time to try him. In the lawsuit Bragg writes, this is an unprecedentedly brazen and unconstitutional attack by members of Congress on an ongoing New York state criminal prosecution.

But at any point, they also say an investigation, which should be over at this point because you brought, you've gone to the grand jury, you've gotten your indictment, and now you're going to the prosecution. And then he says a former President, Donald Trump, what he doesn't like highlighting, of course, Alvin Bragg, is that he's not just former President, Donald Trump. He's also candidate for President, Donald Trump, and the assistant DA who actually got the subpoena, not just these ones he's trying to get the judge to prevent that are hypothetical at this point. But the actual subpoena that was issued was to someone, as Andy said, and I like to say, this guy decided, I'm going to leave the office publicly.

I'm going to make a stink about why. I didn't think we prosecuted, we should have brought prosecuted Donald Trump this way, my way, and I'm going to write a book about it and call it an inside account. Which is what he did. And then you're saying he can't testify to a committee after he wrote an inside account of what went on in that office that's already public. Yeah.

Let's look at exactly again, and Andy mentioned this. He tried to print the book, did he? Probably should have. He was very angry about it.

Probably should have. But he didn't. Here's what's interesting. If you break down what the district attorney Bragg said, Chairman Jordan's subpoenas is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine an ongoing New York felony criminal prosecution investigation. Ask yourself, what is unconstitutional about the Congress under Article I, under their constitutional authority, from issuing a subpoena to a former DA in an office that is taking federal money to investigate a federal candidate for public office? So what is the unconstitutional attempt?

So that's number one. Number two, as our complaint details, this is an unprecedented, illegitimate interference by Congress that lacks any legal merit and defies basic principles of federalism. So I heard a couple of senators talking about separation of powers. This isn't a separation of powers case. This is a clash between a local district attorney whose office takes federal funds and Congress who dispenses those federal funds. Congress has a right to oversee that.

That's what this is about. No one's saying the DA's office has to take the money, but they do. No, they take it and they're using it to prosecute a President. Yep. That's, I mean, a former President and a candidate.

Yeah. It's interesting because, you know, we're also getting a lot of questions too about still the indictment because people have learned a lot more about the legal process as well, I think, through this indictment, especially specific to New York. So we have a comment, Joe O'Rumbly wrote it, you know, Bragg never specified the underlying crime, which is not in the, it's not in the actual indictment.

It's kind of mentioned in the statement of facts. But so is that breaking the law? I mean, at some point you have to be able to defend yourself to the specific, what are the specific elements of the crime that they're saying that you committed so you can defend yourself.

You can have a file of motion for a bill of particulars, because if you look at the indictment itself, the underlying crime that bumped this from a low level misdemeanor to a low level felony, if there's such, and they do rank them in New York, is this whole idea and concept of, you know, false business entry, but there's another crime. And the crime they keep alluding to is federal election law. And it just, they have no jurisdiction over that, Andy. No, they don't. A specific provision, a statute.

Nothing. Just even in his press conference, he just generally said, well, there's federal election law and some New York state election law. He didn't say code provision one point, you know, one point. So how do you defend yourself when you've got your misdemeanor basically allegation, but not the felony allegation? Well, that's the problem that I see is the failure to allege the underlying crime. You say the election laws. Well, that's the New York code, the New York penal code with respect to election. What law did he break, Trump, that caused him to elevate this from a misdemeanor to a felony?

I haven't seen it. He's not running for, he wasn't running for state, you know, county commissioner or, or city council or, or governor. He was running for President. So the state had no jurisdiction over that in the first place. Certainly not a local district attorney. And then the FEC, I like how I say in the beginning, they already passed on even like issuing a fine. So did the department of justice. So they didn't think, DOJ didn't think there was a case to bring, but the FEC didn't bring even the lower standard, which is, did you, did you violate an administrative policy of the FEC and thus your campaign needs to pay a fine. Hillary Clinton's campaign did have to pay a fine over a very similar kind of matter over filing the wrong, saying something that was a legal expense.

It was the Steele dossier. They had a law firm purchase it for them and basically be the intermediary. Then they paid the law firm and they marked it down as a legal expense. And the FEC came back and said, no, that was a campaign expense. I think the charge, it was the fine was under 200 grand. So it was a nothing, nothing fine for a Presidential campaign.

And that was it. There were no charges brought. There were no possibility there would be, anybody would be brought up on criminal charges because of that very issue.

And so, you know, Hillary Clinton wasn't charged. I just think it gets, we'll continue this discussion. It actually, I think it makes Alvin Bragg look weaker. And he already has disappointed a lot of people on the left. I think that's why SNL was making fun of him. Saturday live was starting to make fun of Alvin Bragg because they realized they put so much hope into this case. And then what, what, what, what's the crime here?

And, and so liberals are also kind of upset. And now Alvin Bragg is trying to save face by bringing a federal lawsuit against Jim Jordan. Now you're opening yourself up to all the things that come with a federal lawsuit as well, which we'll talk about.

Give us a call 1-800-684-3110. If you've got questions or comments, share the broad, if you're watching the broadcast right now, if you're on rumble, uh, which our preferred place or Facebook or YouTube share with your friends and family as well. Uh, and again, we'll be right back on Sekulow.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So there's a lot of issues too. This brings back up, you know, again, it puts in the spotlight, Alvin Bragg's lawsuit, the district attorney's lawsuit against Donald Trump and the questions around it. We've already addressed one of those questions, which is the fact that it's still never named the specific felony, uh, charge.

And so how do you defend yourself when, when all you've got is this misdemeanor, uh, charge, but you don't have the underlying felony that you need to defend yourself, which has elements that you need to defend yourself against. I mean, these are the basics of law and that they're actually, you think that they're actually, you have to go and ask for it. Well, yeah, I mean, so they're going to have to tell Alvin as, as the Trump legal team has to go to, to a court to say, what is your felony?

File a motion for a bill of particulars. That's going to be part of what's going on, but there's a lot of issues in that indictment where I know we're going to talk about the statute of limitations and there's some thought that the statute of limitations expired here in New York's got these kinds of peculiar tolling statutes, but do you not understand what they did do? They waited, first of all, this lawsuit, they called it the zombie case, the indictment, because it would come up and then they would kill and say, well, we can't rely on this witness and that it's not enough there. What's the underlying crime. And then all of a sudden the case springs alive, but now it's raised and Harry just joined us the statute of limitation issue.

Absolutely. So if you look at New York law with respect to the felonies charged against Donald Trump, there is a five-year statute of limitation. In addition, if you look at the misdemeanors, there's a two-year statute of limitations. And so what Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, has done is that he has taken the misdemeanor charges and then added, if you will, a felony charge. And then he claims that there is essentially no statute of limitations bar to bringing a prosecution.

I'm not going to talk about prosecution. So if he's right, this case would proceed apace. However, if he's wrong, it's very possible that the statute of limitations would bar both the felonies and the misdemeanors. And it's also important to note that a prior member of the Manhattan district attorney's suggested there is no basis for much of this particular litigation. Now I concede as I must that under New York law, there is a slight wrinkle against the statute of limitations argument, which has to do with the fact that Donald Trump was not a continuous resident of the state of New York. And so then the question becomes, has the President, the former President, engaged in any conduct which tolls the application of the statute of limitation? And that, I think, is the crux of the matter.

I'd probably just explain it to people totally. It's like that time stops. And then the clock eventually restarts and it restarts. It's bizarre because when did it restart for them? Because they waited, again, 18 months after he left office and he was in Florida, but, okay, that didn't prevent them from issuing this one. So what was the issue that, again, there's so many ways to go after Donald Trump because he gets so many businesses, so many entities. Well, they had jurisdiction.

I mean, so he had enough business nexus to New York. The question is, first of all, I think the indictment is gonna be subject to a motion to dismiss. But you ask yourself those statute of limitations, and for our audience that are not lawyers, that means you have a certain amount of time to bring a lawsuit. If something happens 15 years ago, you don't get to bring a lawsuit now. If it happened four years ago, you might. If it happened three years ago, five years ago, even six.

Misdemeanors two and felonies six. Yeah. So here's the question. Did they bring this case in time with the statute of limitation? Absent the tolling, they are out of time.

Absolutely. It was 2016. So they were out of time. But they had three years in the last, since January of 2020, they could have brought this case and Andy, they didn't until now. So they've created their own statute of limitations problem.

Yeah. They've got a statute of limitation problems as Harry has really amply pointed out. But I want to say something about this lawsuit that Bragg brought against Jim Jordan and Pomerantz that really is precious. I mean, it says, and I'm reading, and if you don't have anything better to do, look at paragraph 117. It's a good paragraph. The subpoena served on Pomerantz.

I remember what this is. It's a subpoena not served on anybody, but Pomerantz, they give them a subpoena to produce certain documents. And listen to what Bragg says. The committee subpoena burdens the district attorney. It's not even served on you. And the criminal justice system, and this is what I love, by politicizing Mr. Trump's trial and undermining the public's faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Well, I have news for you, Mr. Bragg. This is a political trial. You have politicized it.

The public has no faith in the integrity of your justice system. And then it goes on to say that the committee subpoena to Pomerantz is plainly aimed at, quote, burdening the district attorney's office and trying to distract them from the preparation of your criminal case. What preparation?

You need to be ready. You indicted. What do you have to prove?

The entry? That it was false? That it violated an underlying law? I could try this case in a half a day. You don't have to do any preparation here.

That's massive or anything. And politicizing the case, you've already done that. They just don't want Pomerantz testifying. Let's get back to that for a moment.

They do not want the guy that left the office angry testifying. That's what this is really about. And yeah, go ahead, Harry. I would say you're absolutely correct. But I would also add that what we are dealing with here is what I call performative democracy. And what does that mean? It means that we have the markers of democracy. We have the markers of compliance with the Constitution. But the Manhattan district attorney is motivated by bias and hatred of the Donald Trump presidency and the people that he represents. And hence, it is not real democracy. It is not real compliance with the Constitution.

And I think that is the fundamental issue. I think, again, folks, when you look at all this, I mean, you say that, and it brings up the politicizing, a partisan DA, that's just our process. He runs as a Democrat, brings an election claim, law claim.

Exactly what we said down to. That the federal government, who does enforce the federal election law, didn't. And he gets elected to this office as a partisan. He then brings it against someone who's running for office right now as a partisan. It's politicized way before Jim Jordan gets involved. And they take money from the federal government. Well, you know, what we argued in this very room to the Supreme Court of the United States, okay, let me tell you, this is exactly what we said, 2,300 unelected district attorneys accountable to their local constituencies is the problem. And now you can interfere with the President or you can interfere with the federal election.

They had their moment where they could have done the other. He was no longer the President. He hadn't declared yet.

They didn't do that. But as soon as he declares, they bring this. And this is exactly, do we have that bite? Is it too long to play, Will?

Too long for the invitation. Yeah. But anyways, the idea was it's exactly what we wore in the Supreme Court when we represented the former President in three cases argued in this very room that we're coming out of today during COVID. Yeah, during COVID.

That's why they argued that way. So again, folks, we'll take your calls. 1-800-684-3110, second hour, half hour of seculars coming up. Support the work of the ACLJ. We have a matching challenge right now at ACLJ.org. You can double the impact of your donation.

So if you donated $20, we have donors that will match that. So it's like $40 to the ACLJ. And also, if you think you need legal assistance, we just want to make it clear for everybody.

Go to ACLJ.org slash help. We brought up the situation involving churches. And we're going to talk to Secretary Pompeo later about this because he thinks that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And if it was happening to Catholic churches at the FBI, I was doing it, it could have been happening at your church too. If you had someone show up and start asking questions, maybe contact the ACLJ, ACLJ.org slash help. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey folks, welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking calls, comments, 1-800-684-30. If you want to join the broadcast that way, we got extensively into Alvin Bragg's lawsuit against, I mean, the big headline was against Jim Jordan. And that should be the big headline. The sub headline, which isn't getting as much attention, is that he also filed the lawsuit against his former assistant DA who wrote the book, The People vs Donald Trump, an inside account. So he wrote a book, did a book tour, cashed in on it, on being involved in it, disagreed with Alvin Bragg, quit the office publicly over that very issue. He's the one who actually got subpoenaed to testify, but before the House Judiciary Committee. And he's now a defendant, so Alvin Bragg is trying to prevent him from even complying with a subpoena. What we don't know is how much Pomerantz likes the fact that Alvin Bragg is fighting this case out for him, or if he actually wanted to go and testify.

He didn't do so without a subpoena, but there are issues there if you're a former assistant DA that you might want to get the subpoena to cover you from people like Alvin Bragg who have now taken this move. So I think we got into that. We'll keep you up to speed on where that goes. There's a lot of issues. There's a lot of issues with the charges he brought against Trump.

There's a lot of issues with this. Now in federal court, this is not a criminal matter, just to make that clear to folks as well. I also want to let you know, our attorneys at the ACLJ, we just got out of a hearing against the federal government regarding our FOIA on the Disinformation Governance Board. So we were, again, fighting with DHS on getting information about that governance board, because remember though they fired Nina Jacobowitz, it then came back up that they were trying to continue the work of what that board would have done, just doing it in a way that wasn't publicly announcing and putting these people forward, but actually still trying to carry out that work. So DHS has made these arguments and a motion to dismiss in an effort, it's always to try to delay and prevent your access to records that you've requested. We have a legal right to those records under the Freedom of Information Act, but the federal government tries to slow you down, so they file a motion to dismiss.

That was thrown out. So the judge denied the DHS motion to dismiss it or they ordered DHS to meet with us in good faith to comply with the FOIA, because the court doesn't want to have to be the one always having to drag through all these documents. So this is the next try, is that they order the DHS and the attorneys representing them, which I think in this case would have been DOJ, to meet with us and get the documents that we are entitled to under law so that we can then make them public to you. And again, this is under an existing federal law, that's occurring right now. That is the work of the ACLJ in action as we speak.

I always say there's so much going on in the hour that we talk to you each day, noon to 1 p.m. Eastern time, on this broadcast. We've got so much work going on with our attorneys and teams, government affairs teams, all over the world, but in this matter, they literally just stepped out of court this morning. We won their beat back, they're trying to get a motion to dismiss, and have got that order for them to actually work with us to comply with those documents. What we really want to make sure here is how deep the disinformation governance board went and is it still ongoing, just under a different name.

So they're not calling it that anymore, and they got rid of Nina Jacob, which she was expendable. But we know, I mean, Mayorkas, I mean, you've seen him testify. This is a political actor that the Biden administration is still stuck with. I mean, usually someone that distracted you'd say, you know what, maybe this is not the person we want to keep.

So we need your help to fight these battles. I mean, when you're fighting against the federal government in court, it's not like it's easy. I mean, they have unlimited resources, of course, our taxpayer dollars, to bring in as many attorneys as they want to try to slow your access. And what they hope is that by the time you get the information, no one will care. They know you're eventually going to get the information. They know they're going to lose in court. They hope that by the time you get it, it's not relevant anymore. So what we want you to do is support the work of the ACLJ. We're able to go in there to get this information. Honestly, it's to get it to you.

It's to get it to members of Congress so they can act on it and oversight capabilities. Support the work of the ACLJ today. We have a matching challenge. You can double the impact your donation to ACLJ.org.

We want you to donate today. If you think you need legal assistance, you go to ACLJ.org slash help. You contact us that way.

An ACLJ attorney will contact you. And if it's something we can take on, that's at no charge. We come back. A new candidate in the Republican primary. If you want to talk about it, 1-800-684-3110. That candidate.

Welcome back to Secular. We do want to take a call real quick. Then we're going to talk politics, because there's a new candidate in the Republican primary, Tim Scott.

We just want to talk through it. I think it's interesting, because again, I like Tim Scott a lot as a senator. I've spent time with him in Washington, D.C. and in South Carolina as well. I think he's very dynamic and I think he's definitely going to shake up that race. Again, I don't know who's going to get to Donald Trump numbers right now, but I always remind people that Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus. And where Tim Scott comes in, I think he'd be very popular in Iowa and, of course, South Carolina.

So out of the first three states, he could have a serious impact on the race. We'll get into more details of that, but let me take Ward's call first out of Idaho on line one. Hey, Ward. Hey, guys.

Thanks for taking my call. My question would be, with Alvin Bragg using federal funds, what is the recourse for taxpayers to bring a lawsuit for him misusing our funds if he's not allowed to? Yeah, I think, again, there's two things to look at. One, Congress can look at their funding. They control the power of the purse.

That's what Jim Jordan's doing. So Congress doesn't have to allocate this money. But the reason why they do it, it's not huge amounts necessarily. The reason why they do is something you might like as a taxpayer. It's the reason why they have oversight.

You take our money, we can then ask you questions. If they don't, I don't know where their oversight would come. Maybe on the fact that it's interfering with the federal election, that might be enough in this matter. But in a lot of matters, the nexus to why we get oversight at these committees is because you take the federal money. And so the second part is the taxpayers, of course, in New York, get to decide who their DA is.

He's elected office. That's the best way to act is whether or not you like these radical DAs who are bringing political cases instead of actual criminal cases like against violent criminals. And there's people testifying right now next week to the House Judiciary Committee in New York who have been victims of violent crime, and there was no action taken. In one case, it was a guy who was a clerk in a bodega who got imprisoned because he fought back and killed someone who attacked him. And then he got charged by Alvin. So that's the kind of people they imprison and bring charge against, people defending themselves, self-defense kind of cases, because they don't have laws in New York like they do in some states like Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and many of the red states do with stand your ground laws where if someone comes at you, you can fight back, defend yourself. And if you end up even killing the person, they attacked you. So that's, again, you're able to defend yourself. And it points out why those laws could be very important. Now, Logan, I want to get into politics too, because Tim Scott's announcement, let's play it. Let's hear it from Tim Scott.

It came out this morning, Bite 16. Joe Biden and the radical left have chosen a culture of grievance over greatness. They're promoting victimhood instead of personal responsibility. And they're indoctrinating our children to believe we live in an evil country. And all too often when they get called out for their failures, they weaponize race to divide us, to hold on to their power. When I fought back against their liberal agenda, they called me a prop, a token, because I disrupt their narrative. I threaten their control.

They know the truth of my life disproves their lies. I think what is first unique about Tim Scott, because he's black, he's able to take those issues in a way that you cannot do if you're not black. And listen, I would hope we were in a political time where none of that mattered, but as he says in his own announcement, we know it matters right now. Yeah, absolutely. And he's been called some of the worst names by people just because he is a conservative leaning guy.

I'm really excited about this. I think Tim Scott- He has an R next to his name, so say he's an Uncle Tom. Right.

So he is 57 years old. You're talking about someone who's in what feels like the right age for a President somewhere in their late 40s to mid 50s, has a significant record, a significant time serving and being in the private sector. I really like this. I think this is a good move. It could be very interesting to see how this shakes up. What I like also is that unlike a Trump and DeSantis, this is a totally different tone. This is a guy, even some of the other candidates that are running come up with sort of a Trump style response, like the way they speak kind of is in that sort of- You're trying to out-Trump Trump, which you can't do. Right.

And it comes up a little bit, a little insincere or not real. What I think about Tim Scott is this is a guy who's been serving for a very long time now, well over what, probably 15 years, more than that. No, he's been in office, geez, some kind of office since 1995. He's in the house as well. So he has been in office for a very long time, is pretty much with us on most- I think it's because you're 57 in the Senate, you look young still because you're people that are in their 80s.

100. But he's been Senator for 10 years. So that's, again, enough time to learn a lot about what's happening here.

Not someone super green coming in. And I just, I like him. I think it's a good tone. I'll have to see how he does, obviously, in the debates and in the primaries, but we know where he stands on a lot of these issues. And he's with us on almost everything. I can't, off the top of my head, there's not one that I think of where there's a big disconnect. I have to go through and look.

I'm sure there's, everyone has something that's a little bit different. But the big ticket items, he's with us and he has been a proven leader. He talks a lot about his faith and that, again, that in Iowa is very important to voters there in the Iowa caucus, is being able to talk about your faith in a way that is genuine and off the cuff.

Not memorized, not, I got to figure out a Bible verse, but he could talk about faith. Honestly, I think better than most politicians I've seen, and he has this life experience, which undermines, like he says, the entire argument on the left when it comes to this, the race. And we know the racial division inside the left's politics and the way they tried to fight us on that is something we have to face. It's just reality. I wish we didn't.

I wish we lived in a country where that was, it didn't matter what this color of your skin was, but it does politically. And I think it's even been more supercharged in the last five or six years. Five or six years. Now, a lot of people are saying, is this a run for VP? You will see how much of that. I think Tim Scott, you're not going to see him throwing bombs against Donald Trump because you said he's a different kind of toad anyway. And when you really look at the others that are running, and let's throw DeSantis in there, Trump, DeSantis, even Vivek Ramaswamy, they have a bit of that Trump style. I don't really even consider the Asa Hutchinson's and those people. Nikki Haley would be kind of somewhere in the same- But she comes out of America first.

Yeah, she still was part of that. Obviously, South Carolina is going to be repping strong in this election season. But this is the first- Now, what's interesting there is does it divide the South Carolina vote up enough that Donald Trump ends up winning South Carolina because- The odds are right now, again, if the election was held today, we'd know where things would go.

Yeah, Donald Trump's winning. Right. But what I do like about this is that this is a breath of fresh air.

This is somewhat different. It's a good discussion. It's someone who will represent conservatives well, will be good on the debate stage.

You're not going to have to be that concerned about as far as I know. And a lot of people, I mean, we're seeing a lot of comments right now, people saying they love him. They see him on Fox all the time. You see him on the news.

He's been someone who's been a pretty consistent figure. He spends time with the activists too. He spends time with the base.

None of you could say on the chats right now that you can't go and see tips. He goes to the events. He's with the activists, the grassroots. He does the interviews. He's there.

And he's got a record that proves that too. I think, again, it adds an element to the conversation that is great. And whatever happens by taking this national step forward, at least with the exploratory committee, I think what we will see is we get added conversation. And then whatever happens with our primary, even if it stays the exact same as it is right now, the first thing I want to see is can Tim Scott jump up to the top two, three, where he's almost... Quickly.

Where DeSantis is. I'm not saying he's going to get to Donald Trump 50% numbers. I don't think anybody else could do that right now. Not now.

But could you get to 20? So are you getting a considerable amount of support? He does have the financial support ready.

So he's got that part pretty locked in. The second part is with the actual voters. And polls are important to this.

Yeah. And I'm trying to read through the comments. A lot of people are supportive of him, like him. A lot of people are saying they're going to support President Trump over anybody.

It doesn't matter who it is. We need someone stronger. And then some comments that, again, just say... Most people though, the negatives are, I like him. I'm just not sure he... President, well, he's going to have the opportunity to showcase whether you think he will be able to do it or not. So the reason we sound exciting, some people sound like you're just endorsing.

We're certainly not. What we're just saying is this is a breath of fresh air to this conversation. Yeah. I think it's good to add into the debates. It's good to have the discussions. It's good to have on the campaign trail for Republicans.

And he will be out there even more now. That's not a bad thing for Republicans. Big picture, look post-primary, having Tim Scott in those discussions, he can answer those questions in ways no one else can on that stage. Nikki Haley can to some extent as well, from an immigrant family. They go after her too for that. I mean, it's unbelievable.

She uses a fake name, all those things. Yeah. I mean, the attack she got from The View. So I think, again, having Nikki Haley, having the Tim Scotts, having those people, it's great for Republicans. You don't have to all hate each other in primaries.

That's not how the system always worked. You're not seeing people come out and immediately start throwing bombs at Donald Trump. They realize his stature as a former President and where he is in the polls. But they also want to join the national discussion.

The point in their careers where they want to take it national. And I think that's a good thing for Republicans and conservatives to see people like this stepping out. And it's not always to, again, it's not always to go to war with each other, but it's to grow the party and prove that we're the big Tim party. We'll be back with Mike Pompeo.

And welcome back to Secular. We are joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and Secretary Pompeo. Yesterday on the broadcast, we were talking extensively about the revelations of how much deeper this FBI plot to spy on Catholic churches went. We now know this memo went far and wide from the whistleblowers to the House Judiciary Committee and that there was at least some action on the memo.

So it wasn't just an idea, a bad idea as Christopher Wray initially tried to explain away that was quickly poo-pooed, if you will. But instead there was action that they, at least one undercover agent was planted inside a parish for these, what they're calling RTCs, Radical Traditionalist Catholics. We talk a lot and the world talks a lot about how what Putin is doing is an assault on freedom inside his own country. But when the world sees that the FBI is like taking a page out of the Soviet playbook or Putin's playbook, I think, again, it's very damaging to our country.

Internally, Secretary Pompeo and externally as well, because other countries will say, well, you do it too. George, you nailed both ends of the problem here, including the problem on the free expression and faith-based freedoms that we all hold so dear to have our Department of Justice, our FBI infiltrating churches in a way that is inconsistent with just basic law enforcement principles. And then to have the FBI director at the very least gild the lily, not tell the full story, if not worse than that, is damaging.

I've talked a lot, Jordan, I've talked on the show about the fact that Vladimir Putin hijacked the Orthodox Church to use as a tool of repression inside of Ukraine. This isn't that, but when the world sees it, when they see that you've got your premier national law enforcement agency actually infiltrating an American church, this case the Catholic Church, and then not telling the truth about it, I think this will be things that will show up in tweets from the Ayatollah, from General Secretary Xi Jinping in China. They will use this in a way that will continue to further undermine the basic foundational institutions here in the United States. It turned into the domestic side inside the memo, the FBI memo that was originated in Richmond, but we now know was disseminated widely throughout other FBI field offices. So it didn't stay in just Richmond, DC, the headquarters of the FBI was not able to shut it down before it was widely disseminated. Of course, a lot of this came to light because it was made public at the end of January of this year. I mean, this is all just happening in the last few months, but we now know that inside the memo, they were concerned with things.

I mean, they said pro-life judicial rulings, immigration policy, and then explicitly said that they were concerned about the next general election. So it's like the FBI cannot help itself from at least looking like they're trying to interfere with our elections. It's the damnedest thing to see that language used in an internal document inside our Department of Justice, inside our FBI. To have them even talking about these issues, these deeply political, widely different views inside the United States to say, we're going to go investigate immigration issues. We're going to go investigate these election issues, knowing that this is a one-way ratchet, that this is a political overlay coming from the very top inside the Biden administration is something that we haven't seen in the United States before, where it has become not just a handful of people at the very top, but now condoned or at least accepted that this is the way we roll. And this is, you know, Jordan, we've seen the tip of the iceberg. If this is the one that was discovered, found, leaked, whistleblowers moved forward, these aren't likely to be isolated incidents.

I hope they are, I pray that they are, but everything that we have seen, whether it's the misuse of the IRS that the ACLJ did amazing work on, or 501c3s that couldn't get certified because of their political views, these are viewpoint bias investigations, and it's really dangerous for our country. And they're very, very speculative. And when you read through even the memo, even when you try to look for any justification of what they're doing, there was nothing directly in Richmond. There was nothing they're tying to. It was all speculative that a radical group might try to infiltrate these traditionalist churches, which again, we know means basically they're pro-life and they take their faith seriously.

And there's some problem with that. And as you said, I think it's this cultural problem that is permeating inside these government agencies that they learn from the top, and then they think, okay, this is what the leadership wants. So we're going to do what we think the leadership wants, which is put out memos like this, targeting specific religious groups.

I want to turn to China as well. The CCP announcing sanctions against the Reagan Library, the Hudson Institute, which is an organization you're familiar with, the leadership of those organizations in retaliation of the visit from Taiwan's President. And you tweeted that you haven't heard the Biden administration say a single word about that announcement.

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats. The administration should unequivocally defend American institutions under attack from the CCP. What should the administration do? I mean, it seems like this whole issue, one, they talk constantly about that and we see the actions around Taiwan by the CCP, but they don't really give the American people a real clear plan on how to treat the Chinese so that possibly we could prevent conflict and improve diplomatic relations.

Well, Jordan, two things I think are worth talking about. First is your point that the Biden administration has been completely silent when the Chinese Communist Party applied sanctions against American institutions. It's worth noting those are conservative institutions. It's worth noting that that follows the Biden administration's near silence with respect to the killing and killings that took place at a Christian church. That would have been deemed a hate crime had it taken place any place else.

The Biden administration has been absolutely silent. That relates to our first topic we discussed too. There is this bias around people who have a traditional understanding of America and its founding who are faithful believers in a way that the leadership of the progressive movement and the Democrat Party are not. As for Taiwan, it's a symptom of the Biden administration's refusal to do more than just talk about the Chinese Communist Party as a threat to our way of life. Instead, they want to say, well, we're going to find places we can cooperate.

Back up one step. All these two institutions did, the Hudson Institution and the Reagan Foundation, all they did was invite a world leader to come meet with them. And in case of the Reagan Foundation, just to meet America's governmental leadership on American soil, for the Chinese to react in this way demonstrates that they are fearful of American power. And we should make clear to them that it's not free for you to do it, but we should impose real costs on them.

There are many tools, Jordan, we can talk about them all. And I'm counting on organizations like the ACLJ to be central to reminding the American people about our founding traditions and the reason that America has been so exceptional. The Biden administration has got their tongue on these things. We need to be very clear about what's at stake here.

And when we all are, I'm confident good things will happen. Secretary Pompeo, as always, we appreciate all of your insight and as a member of the ACLJ team, thank you for joining us today. And there's so much that we could ask Secretary Pompeo about this limited amount of time, because he even had the French President is now saying, maybe we should rethink support for Taiwan from the West. And maybe we should partner up with the Chinese. Maybe we don't need to go along with whatever the Americans are saying.

And I think it's, again, we still have this ability as Americans. There's a reason why the Chinese try to retaliate so quickly with sanctions. They do fear our power, but then you've got to do something with that fear and you can prevent conflict. So we don't have more foreign wars. If you utilize that power appropriately, but also quickly, you have to take advantage of those situations and defend American institutions. We're going to be at the front lines of this because this is how you prevent strong diplomacy, strong America prevents conflict, prevents foreign wars and promotes an America which leads the world, which is the goal, I think, of most Americans.

We got used to it. And now we have to save that because it's slipping quickly. Support the work of the ACLJ. You can double your impact right now at ACLJ.org, donating online at ACLJ.org. It's how we've brought people like Secretary Pompeo on our team. Donate today, ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.