Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: What Trump’s Appeal Means for Fani Willis

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
March 19, 2024 1:11 pm

BREAKING: What Trump’s Appeal Means for Fani Willis

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1064 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


March 19, 2024 1:11 pm

Former President Donald Trump and several of his co-defendants are requesting permission to appeal Judge Scott McAfee’s recent ruling, which failed to dismiss the Georgia election interference case against President Trump outright or to remove disgraced Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the former President. The motion noted that the Court found that DA Willis’s actions “created an appearance of impropriety and an ‘odor of mendacity’ that lingers in this case, but it nonetheless refused to dismiss the case or disqualify her.”

Jordan, Jay, Logan, and the Sekulow team analyze and discuss this challenge to Judge McAfee’s ruling, as well as a new ACLJ filing in the Supreme Court presidential immunity case, the White House’s shocking statement regarding Israel, and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders

Breaking news today on Sekulow, what Trump's appeal means for Fannie Willis. 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. Hey folks, this is Jordan Sekulow back from visiting and working with the European Center for Law and Justice.

A lot to update you on there in the next couple of weeks. But we want to get back to news right here in the United States that is being followed closely, I will tell you this, all around the world. The legal challenges against President Trump. We've talked about law fair before. The law fair he is facing, whether it is in state courts and state actors or federal courts and federal actors and these international leaders.

Elected officials are looking at how this could impact the election. And we now see, dad, one move against Fannie Willis and the judge is that you've got a group of defendants, including President Trump, asking for an appeal on this move with Judge McAfee, who said on the one hand, I remember we were talking about this once in France, that you can dismiss, the special counsel has to be dismissed to get rid of the conflict of interest, but that Fannie Willis herself does not have to be dismissed. Yeah, he split the decision, which was a mistake because the reality is the office is totally tainted. The judge found in the order that there is an appearance of impropriety, but he thought that impropriety could be eliminated by simply removing the one special counsel. But actually to remove the appearance of impropriety, it is the district attorney who is ultimately responsible to lay this at the feet of the deputy or the assistant isn't right. And the court also, remember, made that famous statement about there's an odor of mendacity that lingers in this case. That's untruthfulness on a criminal case against the former President of the United States. So what has happened is a number of the defendants, Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Bob Chealy, who's a friend of mine, Mark Roman, David Shafer with the former head of the GOP in Georgia and very well respected. Yep. Harrison Floyd and then Kathleen Latham, some of those are electors, have filed a defendant's joint motion for certificate of immediate review.

To get an appeal, you have to seek request from the district court and then it will be decided by the actual court of appeals discretionary. They don't have to take it. Right.

They don't have to take it, but it does give you this move. Again, this is the outrage I know was there and the confusion would be there. And then we were following it close last week because there's issuing orders about how the DA could move forward before he had even issued orders on the DA. And I think we were right that he was not going to remove Fannie Willis because he was already telling her how to make good on some charges he had to dismiss. So it sounded like he was doing something for Fannie Willis, but by taking away her special counsel, by removing him, and he was the one who was supposed to be in charge of this whole RICO analysis, how far back did it set the case?

Well, it sets the case back far. The problem is, as you said, is the day before this decision came out, he made the decision that dismissing six counts, but saying how she could amend the grand jury, go back into a grand jury and amend the indictment, which indicated that he wasn't throwing her out of the case because if he threw her out of the case, would go to a new prosecutor. So look, I think the court's going to grant review. I would like to file a brief in this case on the appearance of impropriety. I think if there's an appearance of impropriety, if that's a standard, and I think publicly, the fact that there is this known appearance of impropriety is the public is saying this isn't right. Yeah, I think that there has been so much, like you said, the odor that is within this whole case right now, it again, like what has become with all these cases against President Trump, it feels politicized. It doesn't feel real. It doesn't feel like the outcomes are going to move the needle either way, except for obviously an outcome that could involve any sort of sentencing.

But in terms of the audience, or even in terms to the American people, all it does is really showcase that this is another political moment. We are taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. Of course, we've got our Life at Liberty Challenge coming up now. Yeah, and by the way, we are 25 champions away from reaching our goal of 20,000. A champion is someone who donates each and every month. If you do it now, your match, your gift will be doubled. So, we encourage you to go to ACLJ.org.

We are literally 25 away from 20,000. Yeah, I'll monitor it live. So, if you become a champion, we'll know.

So, you know, let us know in the comments if you're watching on YouTube or on Rumble. We appreciate it. We'll be right back.

All right, welcome back to Sekio. So, we're focusing on the Georgia case, and we're focused there for a minute. We'll talk about some of the other cases as well. President Trump facing that big fight in New York and admitting that they cannot get together the fight.

So, what happens next? Leticia James could start, literally, she could start seizing Trump's assets Monday. Yeah, when the deadline comes.

Yes, once Monday. But his team has put forward the court that they cannot. They do not have the cash to do it.

Right. We've already got a call on that. Why don't we take the call, and then we'll go back to the appeal on the Fannie Willis. Michael is calling in New Hampshire on line one. Michael, you're on the air.

Yes, hi. My question is a three-part one having to do with Leticia James' threat to take those assets of Trump's. The first part of the question is, can she take everything he owns, all of his assets, or only the assets whose net worth would total the amount of the bond that he's being required to post? That's the first part of the question. The second part of the question is, who determines that value? Do they go out to some third-party objective source, like a commercial appraiser? And the third part of my question is, is there any precedent in the law for this happening?

Let me start with your third question. There's no precedent for a bond in this amount. That's outrageous.

So that's, you know, they're doing this because he's Donald Trump. With regard to who will set the value, they will have to go to a third party. They're not allowed to over-collateralize the bond. That's not allowed. But the other aspect of this, and I think this is important to understand is, she could start levying assets on Monday.

Harry Hutchinson just joined us. But a lot of those properties have mortgages on them. I mean, that was part of this whole thing. And because they've got mortgages, Harry, she'd have to satisfy those mortgages before she could sell the properties, which New York is not going to be able to do. I think you're absolutely correct. In addition to that, given the fact that the properties are mortgaged, then Donald Trump's net interest in the property would be reduced, arguably, by the mortgage.

And so the caller's question, I think, is appropriate. She may have to seek additional assets in order to satisfy the bond. Yeah, so Michael, the problem here is, one asset class, let's say 40 Wall Street, he owns that, may not have enough equity in it to satisfy it. So yeah, then she would be able to... Go to another, go to another.

But you could almost put together a collaboration of buildings. That's probably what they will... I would not be surprised, actually, if she leans everything in New York. I think that's what she loves to do.

I think that's what she wants to do. Lean everything in New York, which pretty much stops them from doing business. What happens to people who are working inside those buildings? Will the building still function?

Because they're talking about putting a padlock on Trump Tower, but that's not really... That would be absurd. Other companies are operating there. Other companies operate there?

Are there other residents that live there? So they cannot interfere with existing contracts. But I think you have to put this case, that's the New York civil case, and then let me go right down to the case in Fulton County. Nothing is going by the normal rules here. If you were to have a finding of an apparent conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety with an odor of mendacity in a case, Harry, the case would be taken to another DA. Absolutely.

If it was anyone else. So I think if you look at the facts and circumstances of the case, as described by Judge McAfee, this suggests that Fannie Willis has launched a compromise prosecution against Donald Trump, and that the appropriate penalty would indeed be disqualification. Nonetheless, the judge decides to do the opposite.

He simply talks about her misconduct, but then he lacks the courage to do the right thing, meaning he lacks the courage to disqualify. And so I think this is very puzzling to the American people. Now, you just came back from our offices in France, and you said there was a lot of interest in all of these cases, which you would think normally there would not be.

Well, absolutely. That's because right now in Europe, and also we've seen South America, political leaders who have fallen in elections become a target of legal attacks. So we shot Brazil with a conservative leader. Sarkozy is facing that in France as we speak. So his party leadership there just becoming the norm throughout Europe is that if you lose, somehow you violate the law and they come at you to basically try and ruin you from ever re-entering politics, especially in Europe where re-entering politics is pretty normal.

If you're a well-known name. And again, so you have to be ready, especially this new right in Europe that has been forming, and they've been forming a place like Hungary, Italy, Poland, and in France to realize the lawfare that is going to be coming at them from inside their own country. So they watch carefully how Donald Trump is being treated by the country that says equal justice under law. Yeah. So it's interesting because, and by the way, this new right that's forming is very pro-Israel.

It's a really different shift. We'll talk about that when it comes up. But Harry, the fact that we could be looked at, I mean, Israel has this problem too. How many prime minister? Benjamin Netanyahu is under a criminal investigation now, trial. Ehud Omert ended up getting convicted.

The former excellent prime minister ended up being convicted and went to jail for a year. The fact that we're now looking like these countries destabilizes the world, I think. It's a negative effect geopolitically.

Absolutely. And it begins to suggest that democracy has become meaningless. So if you look at our constitution, if you look at our history and tradition, the rule of law was paramount. Increasingly, the rule of law in the United States is becoming subservient to the political interest of the party in power.

So I think Jordan is precisely correct. If you look at Brazil, if you look at France, they in some respects are taking marching orders from the United States. And guess what? We just had an election in Russia.

Many people in the West, they criticize that election. Well, guess what? I'm not sure that Russia is any worse than what's going on in the United States in terms of its adherence to the rule of law. And at the same time, we have filed, let's put it up on the screen, our brief in the immunity case has now been filed at the Supreme Court of the United States.

So there it is. And that case will be argued with, I think it's April 24th. It's another big case because this idea that a President could be held criminally liable for official acts is absurd.

No other country allows that, by the way. I mean, most countries have those protections in place because if you don't, you can't govern. And all of these cases impact the ability to govern. And that is, to me, I think the biggest issue of what's going on with all of these cases. And then you had the Biden investigations going on at the same time. So this is a joke that what's happening. I mean, except it's very serious, it looks horrible on the world stage.

You were just there with a lot of leaves. There's a number of special councils that are being investigated. So you have Robert Herr giving that testimony. That is all seen now in real time in Europe. I think that we live in a different age now, but because of all the YouTube channels that the House Judiciary has, you don't have to wait for like Fridge News to start covering that. If you're in politics on the right, you're watching the moves taken by Republican leadership, like Jim Jordan and these names. They watch those channels to find out kind of what is going on in the larger conservative movement. So they see the investigations. They do wonder again, the strategy, how does this happen to Donald Trump, but not Joe Biden?

Because they hear the rhetoric about Joe Biden doing this, this, that, but then they see that Donald Trump is up against what in any of these other countries would be a legal tsunami that you could not survive. Remember also that this defamation litigation that's going on is another way to silence voices. And you're seeing that in media, Logan, you're seeing it in the political realm as well.

Yeah, absolutely. And we're fighting back against it. We were watching obviously last night, you had the whole situation with Don Lemon dropped his episode with Elon Musk and how that all played out.

We're seeing a lot. I didn't watch the whole thing. What was the story with that? I think that Don Lemon pulled his typical stunt, which was go in there, be obnoxious, ask the same question 40 times, try to get somebody to a gotcha moment. He didn't really get one. And it honestly made Elon, I feel like much stronger. And I think that not that many people watched it to be honest in general.

So it's not that big of a deal. I will say we are only 15 people away from 20,000 ACLJ champions, 15, 15, there are about three, six, eight, nine thousand people just watching on social media right now. And of course, you know, a ton more later on, but I'm talking about live right now, we're doing this 15 of you go support the ACLJ become ACLJ champion.

All that saying is that any monthly donation, you decide where you feel comfortable at. And that's $5 and $5 become an ACLJ champion. We want to do that right now, because we are in the final two weeks of our life and Liberty drive. And a lot of our fights are for life and Liberty are just getting started. And we need your support to meet a lot of the critical challenges that are really on the docket right now. So whether that is filing amicus currently at the Supreme court on Presidential immunity, or whether that is a lawsuit for the Smithsonian to the kids, you saw that got kicked out of the Smithsonian for just simply having March for life, you know, beanies on essentially, we also filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the state department over the issue of funds from the state department giving to Unruh, of course, which we know was aiding Hamas.

We do all of this plus help you specifically, if you need legal help, you can get it at no cost to ACLJ.org slash help. So do that right now. But we encourage you, we have a goal of getting 20,000 ACLJ champions before the end of this month. Hey, we are only 15 away. So what if we did it today? Only a little over halfway through the month.

That'd be pretty wild. We're in the 19th. We can hit our goal. So once you do that, go there, opt in, become an ACLJ champion. We really appreciate it. Support the work. And if you can make a single donation, don't want to sign up, that's fine too. All donations are doubled right now.

Yep. Again, go to ACLJ.org to get your tax deductible amount doubled and support these battles. Make sure again, you're standing with us and you pick that amount. You're comfortable with donating automatically each month. We again, 15 away from being 20,000 ACLJ champions.

Go to ACLJ.org right now. We can hit that number today with you. All right, welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I do want to play a soundbite. Do we have this? Again, this is from our national security advisor right now to President Obama, President Biden. There's the Obama team as well. About Israeli involvement in the US elections after Schumer called for the leader of the Democrats of the US Senate, for Benjamin Netanyahu to step down and call for elections in Israel. Let's listen to, again, what our own national security advisor had to say on this.

Jake Sherman. Well, first of all, inherent in the question is a kind of an interesting irony, which is you have the Prime Minister speaking on American television about his concerns about Americans interfering in Israeli politics. And then your question is, should Americans be speaking into Israeli politics?

Which in fact, we don't do nearly as much as they speak into ours. But that's not a constructive answer to your question. It's just an observation. No, it was not just an observation, actually. It was a slight, and that's being very polite. Israel is speaking to US politics.

First of all, the United States of America. What are you kidding yourself? I mean, come on. Jake Sullivan is in another planet half the time on these policies. Jeff Taliban was with us yesterday.

He's with us today because today we have more news. And the news is the White House says Israel is interfering with US politics more than the other way around. Your assessment on this. And you spent most of your time in Jerusalem, so go ahead. Yeah, I did spend most of my time in Jerusalem.

And yeah, it's outrageous. And it's actually flat out anti-Semitic, Jay, because this is something that started in the Obama administration. They would blame the Jews. They would blame Israel and American Jews for policies that were unpopular. So for example, the Iran deal was massively unpopular in America. Ironically, because at that time most Jews had voted for Obama, supported Obama and believed in him, actually supported the Iran deal.

But the vast majority of Americans did not. Israel across the board was against the so-called Iran deal because it was an existential threat to Israel. And so what Obama did and the White House did, he himself and others said, well, this is Israel and the Jews interfering with American policy.

Quite the opposite. We have this again where Israel has had a fantastic relationship with America and the defense relationship has been extraordinary, both in terms of intelligence sharing and in terms of actually upgrading because of all the wars Israel is in, U.S. military and defense weapons and tremendous. Obama, and of course, remember it was the Obama-Biden administration, created what they called daylight between Israel and America, meaning that no longer could Israel trust America to tell them what was going on, even in the Middle East, and then started blaming Israel, specifically, especially. They didn't want to say, oh, Israel is evil. They said Bibi Netanyahu is evil. And so on this rant, every time they have something they don't like that remotely could be linked to Jews or Israel, they will blame the Jews in Israel. And this is actually an anti-Semitic trope. It's part of the Jews have too much control, Jews have too much power. This notion that Israel, which is just trying to survive, Jay, it's just trying to survive after the most brutal attack imaginable, and America is getting in its way for America's domestic political agenda, and they're trying to flip it and blame their victims.

Israel is the victims of this administration, and this is American administration blaming their victims. Jeff, we filed a freedom—you'll remember this—we filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department because we'd gotten word that upwards of a million dollars had been sent of taxpayer money from the United States to Mahmoud Abbas's son to interfere in, basically, the Israeli elections. So we filed a federal lawsuit. We did find out, in fact, that Yasser Mahmoud Abbas, son of the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, was a senior leader of a group called OneVoice, which was an anti-Israel activist organization that used the U.S. State Department's million dollars it received during the Obama administration to launch a multimillion-dollar campaign to unseat Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, quote, replace the government. This is out of their own documents.

We got this because we filed a lawsuit. So when we're talking about this issue of interference with election, my goodness, the United States was funding it. Yeah, I mean, I don't understand, Jeff, the idea here is that, again, there are many Americans who care deeply about the position American politicians have when it comes to standing with Israel. Many of our viewers, listeners, donors, and supporters would care deeply about a candidate's view on supporting Israel. So I think they would take this as a slight, too, as somehow caring about the Jewish state of Israel is un-American because they're interfering with our elections. Is that just because, Jeff, occasionally some of these Israeli leaders are willing to say very carefully that some of the left's policies are anti-Semitic, wrong, and going to hurt Israel?

You made so many interesting points and correct points, Jordan. Look, remember, when Biden made a trip the time he didn't snub Israel, he went to Israel. Israel spoke very highly of him, gave him, in my mind, much too much credit for anything he had done or was going to ever do because Israel tries to be nice politically and diplomatically to whoever's in the White House. I don't remember the Republicans yelling that Israel is supporting Biden. I don't remember the Biden people criticizing Israel for being nice to Biden. This is diplomacy, right?

Diplomacy is this reality. And by the way, Jordan, we also, let's not forget, there are Americans who are now being held hostage still in Gaza. And so this directly affects Americans that this American administration seems to not care at all about. And so this idea that they're undermining Israel's credibility on every front, on every front since October 7th is, it's just, I'm sorry, it just feels evil. And by the way, that FOIA that we did, and we're able to get that information about money flowing directly from this administration's pools of money through to those people who are doing street demonstrations in Israel to try to oust Netanyahu. We got that because we are on the ground in Israel. And it first came to our attention through people on the ground in Israel. They knew there.

They were well aware that money was flowing from the US government to fund up these highly political operations in Israel against the sitting coalition. And so this is a one-way street. Israel's just trying to survive. The American administration seems to be trying to end it.

Tomorrow, we're not going to be able to do it today. We're going to go into the situation with this port in Gaza, which is a mess, and maybe we can get Jeff back with us. But Jeff said something very important you need to understand, folks, and that is because we're on the ground in Israel, we were able to get some initial information. Obviously, we had to go to court to get the actual documents. But then we were able to, our office in Washington, in coordination with Jeff in Jerusalem, put in together a FOIA request, which of course the State Department ignored. We went to federal court. We won. And then we got the document. And that's why your support of the ACLJ is so critical.

It does. Again, are we 15 away from 20,000? I'll get the current number.

That's where we were. Yeah, 15 away from 20,000 of you ACLJ. Seven away. Seven away.

19,993 currently. From hitting 20,000 ACLJ champions. So we absolutely could do it in the next half hour of the broadcast. Yeah, for sure. That would be amazing if we did it while we're on air. All people have got to do is pick a number they're comfortable with each month to automatically donate, and they go to ACLJ.org right now. They'll see it on top of the homepage, and they decide to do that. Yeah, and if you're one of the thousands and thousands watching right now on social media, you can even just scan the QR code on your phone. It'll pop right up. Or like Jordan said, go to ACLJ.org slash champions to become a champion right now, which again is just saying, I'm dedicating to giving to the ACLJ every month at a number that I feel comfortable with.

So it's not asking you for a guaranteed number. I think the minimum may be $5 just purely because of processing fees and all of that. But anything over $5, I believe you can become an ACLJ champion. As Jordan said, we are only a few away. We'd love to hit that 20,000 while we're on the air. It'd be an amazing accomplishment and an amazing thank you to all of you who have joined even today. So go to ACLJ.org.

And again, if you can't become a champion, that's okay. Support the ACLJ. Our bread and butter, how we make things happen is by individual donors like you who say, even when they just feel like they can, they make those individual donations.

You can do that today at ACLJ.org. It's a life and liberty drive. You guys have showed up for us. Know that we really appreciate it. And you're making a difference worldwide, as you heard, whether that's our offices here domestically or whether our offices in Europe or in Israel, you can be a part of that right now.

Join with us, ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Hold another half hour coming up. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right, folks, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. You want to start with the appeal?

Yeah, I think let me reset this for people. So Trump's lawyers and some of the other defendants have filed what's called a joint motion for immediate, a certificate for immediate review. You have to get permission from the trial court judge in Fulton County to file an appeal to the court of appeals, which is the intermediary appellate court in Georgia. And then that review is not mandatory. It's discretionary. The two basis of the appeal, which I think are very, very important for the fair administration of justice, is the fact that the judge found the appearance of impropriety and what he called an odor of mendacity that lingers in this case. Odor of mendacity means odor of untruthfulness.

The appearance of impropriety should have meant that he put Bonnie Willis out of the office. So I think this is a meritorious appeal. If the court of appeals grants it, we'll file a brief in it. But again, it's discretionary, so there's no guarantee that in fact they're going to hear it. So it's discretionary. This would go to state court of appeals, then potentially the state Supreme court, and then could it go to the US Supreme court? It could. Do they look at these matters much?

Not much. I mean, the chance would be you'd have to argue the violation of the equal protection clause or the fourth amendment due process clause. What about the eighth amendment? A lot of people are wondering if this is cruel or unusual. It's not punishment. I think the problem with that is I've seen those articles. Oh, you don't think it's punishment. And the civil case in New York is a civil case, so the eighth amendment doesn't apply.

Okay. They do have another provision inside the state constitution that's broader. They do. So you look at New York state constitution too, because that's who's bringing the case. And they've been known to broaden out their rights for those who are being charged with crimes.

They've been pretty soft. People have said, you're very soft on crime until it comes to Donald Trump, and they want to start seizing buildings. The thing with Donald Trump right now is the biggest thing is this bond issue is huge.

Yeah. Talk to me about that for a second, because his attorneys have said they're not going to reach it. They're not going to reach it. So if they don't reach the goal by the deadline... Goal, and it's adding $151,000 a day. And they can't actually make an appeal until they have that bond set.

How did they file this? Well, these are all separate. So the bond in the civil case is outrageous. Yeah. Almost $500 million.

Yeah. It should have been... $10 million would have been a lot. But they didn't. So now they've got to appeal that as not a rational bond, not a proportional bond. But in the meantime, if they don't get a stay, which they probably will not get, Letitia James, technically under the law, could start going after assets as early as Monday. And I think she would.

I think she would lean a bunch of the buildings in New York, at least put leans on them, so that he can sell them. Yeah. A lot of people are asking, maybe it's something that we take in the last segment of the broadcast, something you guys could explain, because you speak in terms sometimes that they don't know. It's like, think about how the bar works. People have asked that even. Just those sort of questions when you hear disbarred. What does that mean? Who's making that decision? I think that's something we get back, not necessarily this segment or next, maybe towards the end, something that you could answer to help explain to people what that all means. If you're not a lawyer, you'll hear these terms thrown around on the news. But what does that really mean to be disbarred? Because the judge put in his order in this case that the State Bar of Georgia may want to look into, Bonnie Willis and Wade, and whether they lied.

But think about this for a moment. He's suggesting that the State Bar might want to look into it while he's letting one of the people he thinks the State Bar should look into prosecute the case. Who is the State Bar?

State Bar of Georgia is a committee of lawyers under the Supreme Court of Georgia. All right. We'll talk about that when we get back. Look, we are like four now away from hitting that 20,000 goal. For the next half hour, I'm going to be talking about it, because I want us to hit this goal while we're on the air. So if you can become an ACLJ champion, do it right now.

Go to ACLJ.org slash champions. That's the direct way. Or opt in on your donation at any level to become a monthly ongoing supporter.

And what that does for us, so you understand, it gives us essentially a way to easily budget, to have an idea, a baseline of what is going to be coming in financially so we know where we can allocate funds, whether that's our media operation or whether that's more. We are actually, you know what, we'll have some breaking news when we get back. Let's wait.

Maybe you did it for us. We'll see. We're going to verify this before. I don't want to be jumping the gun here.

You lose some every day, so you got to make sure. Listen, go to ACLJ.org right now. Become an ACLJ champion.

We get back from the segment. We'll update you on that number. And what I hope is that we can make a big announcement and that announcement would be amazing. So do it right now. ACLJ.org. Again, do it right now.

Become a champion today. Joined by our special counsel, Craig Parshall, who's been with us for a long time and was involved in two cases at the Supreme Court yesterday and gotten as much attention as they should. I want to start with the internet big tech case and the Biden administration, Craig, the Murphy versus Missouri.

And then I think it was out of Texas as well. Let everybody know first what the case involved and then we'll talk about where you think it's going. Yeah, this case is huge and it should have gotten more attention and it hasn't. Back in 2020 and actually before that, but starting with the Biden administration coming in, suddenly you had agencies under the executive branch. And of course, as your listeners know, because they're smart, they realize that the President, the White House controls the agencies under it.

So we've got the CDC, the Surgeon General, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and its cybersecurity sub-agency all meeting privately under radar with Silicon Valley monopolies like Facebook, Instagram, Google, then Twitter. Now it's X under Elon Musk, things have slightly changed there. I think we may have lost Craig there. Yeah. Craig, you there?

Yes, I am. Keep going, Craig. Okay. We've got half a dozen federal agencies under the supervision of the White House meeting privately, covertly with Silicon Valley monopolies like Facebook, Instagram, Google, it's YouTube, then Twitter. Now it's X under Elon Musk. So a little different situation there, but half a dozen federal agencies, CDC, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, its cybersecurity sub-agency meeting privately, covertly, and then telling them basically, here's what we want you to take down on your platforms. Here are the voices we don't want to be heard. Here are the ideas that are conflicting with the Biden administration, whether it's the COVID-19 mandates and shutdowns, or whether it's the Hunter Biden laptop story, or whether it's election processes that have been revolutionized to the worst, not to the better.

All of these viewpoints that countered the Biden administration, they said, we want them down. And in most cases, the Silicon Valley companies complied. Now the federal government cannot do through intermediaries like Silicon Valley companies, what the White House and these agencies couldn't do on their own. It's unconstitutional to censor through intermediate Silicon Valley platforms. That's exactly what they did. The states of Missouri and Louisiana sued along with some private plaintiffs who could prove that they were part of the fallout, the collateral damage from all of this censorship in not only the 2020 election, which was very close from an electoral vote standpoint. In fact, one commentator said Biden won the electoral vote by a number of voters that wouldn't fill the Rose Bowl.

So it was very close from that standpoint, 2020 election this happened, and then again in the midterms of 2022. So they were sued, they meaning these agencies and the White House, the lower courts, both the district court and the court of appeals said, this is one of the worst misuses and this is a federal producer, American citizens in our nation's history. Now it's in front of the Supreme Court. All right. So what's your sense of the Supreme Court here?

What's your takeaway? The lower court imposed an injunction against these agencies saying, you got to knock it off. You can't do this anymore. And they were very specific about what they could and couldn't do. They didn't say you can't talk to people. What they did say is you can't influence them or demand that they take certain citizen posts down off the internet. That's absolutely censorship.

First Amendment doesn't allow it. The court of appeals upheld most of that. And then the Supreme Court now is looking at this preliminary injunctions, not a final injunction. Yeah. What do you think the Supreme Court's going to do based on the argument? Yeah.

Well, I'm going to tell you, it's going to be very, very close. I know that I look at three justices. I believe Thomas Alito and had very specific questions and sort of showed their hand in terms of the probing of the massive amount of power that the White House and these agencies have. They have incentives two ways. Number one, they threatened to get Congress. And of course, Congress is the one that passes law. But the White House has great influence there, as we know.

So Section 230 protects these monopolies at Silicon Valley. The hint was we could do something about that. We could get that. Craig, do you think it's a 5-4 case one way or the other? It's going to be very close.

It's going to be 5-4, 6-3, but it's going to be very closely divided. And the implications are staggering considering the election coming up this year. Did Facebook or YouTube or any of the other social media platforms file in the case?

No. In fact, it's important to realize that the Silicon Valley companies are not part of this case. First of all, they were not sued. The federal government was sued in its agencies. The Silicon Valley companies were brought in for discovery.

They had to give depositions and answer questions and give declarations. But they're not parties. They're not parties. All right.

Let me turn attention quickly. I just want to cover this for a few minutes. So we'll see.

We'll get a decision by the end of June. NRA versus VULIO. This was a First Amendment dispute.

Describe that one briefly, if you can. Well, same kind of thing, except on the state level. The state of New York, through its financial services agency, did the same thing that the Biden administration did. But they did it specifically against the NRA. They sent out a letter to all of the insurance companies in the state of New York, all of the financial institutions in the state of New York, and they regulate these. So they have the power of regulation, prosecution, investigation against them if they don't do what their bidding is. And they said, we think you ought to back off helping or providing any transactional help, whether financing or whether giving insurance coverage to the National Rifle Association, because we don't like their gun policy. And as it turns out, these companies did exactly what the state of New York demanded. And suddenly NRA can't get financing in the state of New York.

They can't get insurance coverage. And unfortunately, the Court of Appeals said that was OK. That really wasn't what we call state action, that these were independent. On this case, Jay, that there's a good chance NRA is going to prevail and that the Supreme Court is going to say what the state of New York said for different reasons, because it's a cleaner case as the facts are simpler and it's easier to connect the dots. Got it. Thanks, Craig. We appreciate it. Appreciate your hard work on both of these cases. And folks, this is another good reason for you to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice, very diverse cases, two completely different topics, but your American Center for Law and Justice there on both of them. Yeah.

And I think that this is, again, a great example of why you need to become an ACLJ champion. Or again, we've hit that over 20,000 and 31. Yes, we're making a big announcement here. Congratulations to everyone involved in this campaign. Because now we're getting towards that number that we can lose some and still be over 20,000. We want to thank you. We hit 20,000, over 20,000. Now, like Jordan said, 20,031 as of this minute. We really appreciate that. That is a big group even just added today.

It's 83 new champions today. So we couldn't do that, obviously, without your support. And now with this support, we're able to really make a huge impact. I do want to say, thank you here is very important. Because let me tell you what this does.

We've already seen it. We started this campaign in October and what we're at, 15,000? Just shy of 15,000. 14ish thousand.

Yeah, like 14,500. We said we could add 800 to 1,000 a month. It could have a dramatic impact on our work at the ACLJ. Well, we've already seen over the last five months, now we've added over 5,000 monthly supporters.

And at 20,000, it gives us at least a firm budget. Because you always have these cases you don't expect, where you got to engage. And like the Colorado case, I think about that one. I mean, that was out of nowhere.

When no one expected that, boom, it happened. And over a basically 12-week period, if you were to go to law firms on that, you'd talk millions of dollars in legal fees to put the case together like that. Point is, you've come through in a big way for us. So on behalf of all of us at the American Center for Law and Justice, I want to thank all of our donors, number one, anybody that's supporting the work at the ACLJ, and especially, of course, our ACLJ champions now at 20,031, which is great. I also want to acknowledge and thank the platforms that we're on, because we're able to reach so many people for pretty much no cost. Obviously, you have the big radio stations, all of those, that's at a cost.

I'll be honest, that's a cost of need. But we have direct access to you, thankfully. And thank God, the fact that we have the internet, honestly. We have social media platforms that are willing to not only show this broadcast, but we're able to get this content out to you. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people watch live, and we really appreciate them each and every day. So even if you can't financially support, I want to thank you for watching on any of these platforms. But if you can- We have over 10,000 people between all the platforms right now that I could see.

Yeah, yeah. On Rumble, it was over 4,000 at one point. On YouTube, it's pretty close to 4,000. On X, it's another three or 4,000. On Facebook, it's another 1,000 or so. It is a lot of people who we know- And then only play for hours. Oh, it's hundreds of thousands.

We know that we are in the palm of your hand if you're one of those two. It's a little different than even if you listen on radio. We want to thank everyone who listens on radio as well. But those that are dedicated and are commenting and are involved, I want to thank them.

And so many of them come up. By the way, this is not the end of the broadcast. It sounds like it. We're just celebrating here. We're just celebrating. We're just very excited.

Thanks to our team who put all this ACLJ Champions team together. And by the way, it doesn't end here. It's not like we hit 20,000. Great. No, the goal for the year is to get close to 30,000.

Get close to 30,000. So please continue to support the work of the ACLJ individual donations or become an ACLJ Champion. And we got a great segment coming up. We're going to hit a little bit more about the work the ACLJ is doing. So you guys have a good understanding. If you're new to this broadcast, if you're brand new on YouTube, if you're brand new on Rumble, we ask you to follow or subscribe, whichever it is on your platform of choice. Do it on both of you. Be right back.

Just thank you. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. You remember the situation. It wasn't this March for Life.

It was the one the year before. We had those students that were... Do we have the beanie? Do we have that in the... We could show it. I'm sure we can. Yeah. Okay.

We're going to get it. These students wore a beanie. It was both to identify them for the school, but also said pro-life, that's it.

They go into the Smithsonian Museum for Air and Space and to the National Archives Museum. And independently of each other, students are harassed. Harassed to the point where they're threatened.

It was nasty. We ended up going to federal court. And first thing we were able to do is get a injunction both against the Smithsonian and against the National Archives Museum. National Archives Museum, very good at harassing students who are engaged in free speech, not so good at finding... Keeping track of Presidential records, which is really their task. The Smithsonian, unrelated cases, this was so bizarre about this, of course, is also controlled by the federal government.

The Smithsonian is a quasi-governmental entity. And in that case, we got injunctions in both. But I'm happy to report now that we not only got injunctions, we got monetary damages for our clients. We got apologies for our clients.

The injunctions are staying in place so the students can exercise their free speech rights. And they're even being offered things like private tours of the museum, apologies from the officials. So this was a tremendous win. Now, it took a year and a half to get the result that we needed to get, but there it is. Voluntary stipulation of settlement release and dismissal. So it was a complete victory in both cases.

Huge win for the pro-life cause, but really also for student free speech. Yeah, absolutely. And I hope that really does hammer home the scope of the ACLJ. Not only that, Jordan was in our European office last week. We have offices around the world in Jerusalem.

You've heard from Jeff Balabon early on who runs our Jerusalem office. There is so much happening in the world of the ACLJ from sort of that micro and the macro in terms of we will be on the ground for you individually. And then we will also have these massive, big undertaking Supreme Court of the United States.

Sometimes those little cases become those big cases. Sometimes you are the catalyst that gets us to the Supreme Court of the United States or to the world. So what we love for you to do is not only support the work of the ACLJ, go to the website, look at all the incredible contents being put out by our team. We have one of the best media teams in the world also. So while we have illegal experts, we also have an incredible media team, whether this broadcast or the hundreds of posts that go up each and every week through all our social media platforms and on aclj.org. There's so much content and none of it is behind a paywall.

All of it is available to you at absolutely no cost. And we really couldn't do that without the support of the ACLJ Donors and Champions. And right now during this Life and Liberty Drive, as we wrap up today's show, just know that all donations are matched. So we appreciate that. Plus we become an ACLJ Champion, that's a monthly supporter. But we've decided to do that actively.

We've pretty much put things exclusively on our website, on our social media platforms to make sure we are everywhere at no cost to our user, which is amazing. And we're able to hire some of the biggest and best minds in this entire industry, whether that is the media, whether that is illegal, because we have the backbone of support from ACLJ and ACLJ Champions. Listen, this is a major day in that sense that we've crossed this 20,000. It's a major day on these pro-life cases that we're able to get a win for these students. You don't see that every day, and it took a year and a half.

It was a major win to get the document that showed that the United States was actually giving money to Mahmoud Abbas, the son, to overturn in an election the Israeli government. So these cases take time to do, but have a big impact. Yeah, they have huge, again, huge impacts in how the world continues to operate. So you can put pressure, get on a world leader. You can put pressure on their economies to try to make a change or for the people to rise up. But to call for an ally leader to step down and hold divisive elections in the midst of a war, dad, is like they want Israel to lose. And they can't stand the Benjamin Netanyahu is there to oversee the war. And you know why I think that is, is because they want to oversee wars. Well, I think they want to be the boss when it comes to war. They want to be able to tell Israel what to do exactly. They now realize, I think Israel realized too, with the rocket we tried to shoot up again, you could not rely on the United States for any of this.

You go out, go to the safest neighborhood you can. That again is kind of matches where your kids go to school, where it's going to help you because I mean, or else, you know, the whole public school system is falling apart before our eyes. The entire people that are going right now, you've got people that are from all these countries. Chris, I think the great question with all of this is, and I think we touched on this earlier and how the United States is looking globally right now. And it's not only weak, which is a problem, but the policies are sort of, I think, creating that we are trying to come down to the rest of the world's level politically. So as you said, in Europe, it's not uncommon for world leaders or country leaders to be indicted or criminally charged when they leave. But that was not the way it was in the United States.

We were above that. And the idea also, I mean, that, you know, when they were criminally indicted, they weren't being criminally indicted for, you know, 50 years in prison and $900 million. I mean, these numbers are staggering. They also realize with Joe Biden, I mean, you get a lot of questions of, okay, so who's really making the decisions in that government?

Because the last, they'll say the Israel policy, their policies don't line up with his words. And so who's really there? And you know what, I would usually say it's the younger staff. It's the same people you've been dealing with there from the Obama years.

They got 10 years older, basically, and they're still sticking around it. That's who you're dealing with. So instead, by the time he makes a speech, whether or not he's yelling at people or not, again, our countries are all facing the same issues. Immigration, the interest rates- How is the immigration issue viewed there? Well, of course it's different, a little bit different than our immigration issue, but it causes all the same problems, right? Schools get overrun, the resources get spent, you know, spent because you don't have enough place, no homes. It's a different area of the world, obviously, the migrants are coming from. So it's even tougher to somehow integrate these migrants over time into becoming, let's say, European or French. They are coming primarily for the Muslim world.

A lot of times it is the single men and single women with kids. And again, they look at a couple of issues. They saw what happened in Libya when we decided we'll get rid of Gaddafi without a plan, and now that's a failed state. Right on their border, that's a failed state.

They look at it, they look at it, they continue to look at Syria, and now they still look at Ukraine, not happy with the United States there, not having a game plan on how to put it into that because they had serious reliance on Russian oil and gas. Yeah, it's very, very complex. All right.

Huge thank you. Yes, just looking at the current number, we are at 20,043, so pretty exciting. Explain to people what can happen. Well, we want to discourage people.

There's obviously big swings each and every day with people who join, people that have to leave. And look, we do tell you that too. It's ACLJ Champion. Obviously, it's a recurring donation. We appreciate it. But if you need to cancel it anytime, you can.

So don't make that feel like you can't, but we encourage you not to. Please go to ACLJ.org. We have almost added 100 new champions today. We're only halfway through the day, so we really appreciate that. So again, go to ACLJ.org.

And you've heard from people from all around the world today, and you've seen the comments if you're on social media from people around the world, you're having a discussion. We couldn't do this without you. We couldn't do this without people who listen, who support, who understand the important work of the ACLJ, whether that is in the media or in the law or everywhere else around the world.

We couldn't do that without you and without the grace of God, really. So go to ACLJ.org to be a supporter today. I will also keep you posted as to what happens on this appeal. I think you'll probably get an order from Judge McAfee tomorrow, maybe even today, on whether he will allow the appeal. It's going to move very quickly because the case is proceeding.

So it's discretionary. We'll see what happens. We'll keep you posted on that again. Thank you for supporting the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org on our Life and Liberty Drive. Talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-03-19 14:37:57 / 2024-03-19 14:59:18 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime