BREAKING: Hearing On Whether Jack Smith “Unlawfully Appointed” Scheduled By Judge Cannon

Breaking news today on Sekulow as Judge Cannon sets a hearing on whether Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. We'll talk about that today and more on Sekulow. 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. Alright folks, so this is unique because again, you know, in Florida Judge Cannon, she has been under a constant attack by the left. But if you've seen how these other court cases have come about, I mean let's remind you in Georgia yesterday, the Court of Appeals yesterday stayed all proceedings in the lower court. Remember we told you they decided to take and hear the case on whether Fannie Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting the case against Donald Trump and the other defendants in that Georgia case, which at one point numbered around 16, I think it's maybe 14 now. And, you know, they removed her special counsel, but they actually, they didn't just decide to take the case. They even scheduled oral argument in October, which they usually don't do. But I think at this level of case, they probably will at the Georgia Court of Appeals.

And they stayed every proceeding. So we're talking about motions, any kind of movement at all. So that case now, you kind of say, okay, check that box. That one's not really going anywhere. You look at appeals on the Alvin Bragg case, that's going to take, again, a significant amount of time to go through the legal system. You look at what's happening in New York, the appeals system there. I mean, again, but then in Florida, and also with Jack Smith in D.C., the January 6th, that's going to be very much reliant on what are official acts and unofficial acts of the President, which ones become criminal. At what point can an official act become criminal by a President, and is that covered or is that not covered? And I think that's where the Supreme Court's going to go, which means sitting it back down to a lower court to say, you've got to determine act by act. What's an official act?

Okay, then at what point did that official act cross over and allow it to be something you could criminalize? But here what is being challenged and what Judge Cannon is allowing to be presented oral argument by outside parties, which is also unique in this. We're seeing, too, how the ACLJ technically could get involved. We've complained a lot about the appointment of special counsels. We've obviously dealt with those directly on behalf of President Trump through our separate law firm. And again, the size of the Department of Justice, why do you need 30 extra people to put together that then spend all this extra money and extra budget?

And it's kind of full of scandal. And you've got to say, can they really prosecute anyways? We had all of that whole discussion with Durham. Do they really have the power to go prosecute where they want to go, or are they stuck? Is David Weiss able to go outside Delaware? Can he go to California?

And so we've had all of those discussions. We don't have an independent counsel in the way that you do them under the Clinton days, so that is not available. The special counsel, again, what is being challenged here is, can the Department of Justice, through its rulemaking authority, which they did, have this office which operates similar to a U.S. attorney who would be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as an officer of the United States? Can someone be a special counsel who's not? And of course, we have special counsels who currently are not confirmed by the United States for that position. And so they're challenging specifically the choice of whether Jack Smith is actually legal. And she's allowing parties not involved in the case to present oral argument. So while the whole case is indefinitely on hold, remember the classified documents are all out of order?

The government gave you the glossary back, and it didn't match. Some of the documents are now missing. But we know that there will be oral arguments on June 21st on whether or not Jack Smith and his appointment is even legal. There have been other challenges in the past. We'll tell you about how those have gone.

But I don't know if any have gotten this kind of time in court and what that could mean to the future of this case. We're taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110. So big issues at stake when it comes to this weaponization of law against Donald Trump.

And what I'm most concerned about, too, is the American people. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110, an issue. And I don't know if it's the first time we're going to have oral argument on it. It has been challenged before and recently as well. Hunter Biden's attorneys tried this as well with judges in Los Angeles and Delaware. So both Democrats and Republicans in high profile matters, which is usually when you get a special counsel appointed. Paul Manafort's legal team tried this to challenge Robert Mueller's authority.

That did not go anywhere. And Andrew Miller, who was associated with Roger Stone, lost a challenge to Mueller's authority as well. That doesn't mean that Judge Cannon can't consider this argument, though. And obviously, you have serious attorneys on both sides of the aisle who have and do believe that these special counsel appointments are not lawful. And that's because one of the main issues—I'm going to Harry Hutchinson on this—is that, Harry, you've got an entire Department of Justice full of officers of the United States. So we talk about officers of the United States with the 14th Amendment case, but this is separate.

We're talking about confirmed. They go up for Senate confirmation. They're not the most necessarily high profile confirmations most of the time, nor should they be that controversial. So they're confirmed to take on their jobs, to lead prosecutions, really to direct their deputies to decide what cases we are and they're not going to pursue when it comes to criminal matters. And you've got a whole civil division as well. But then you have this whole world of special counsels that an attorney general can appoint when they believe the Department of Justice is not best suited internally.

So for really reasons of—I mean, I think it's just reasons of actually optics. They appoint someone a special counsel and they act like they have this authority to do whatever they need to do outside of the attorney general. What we do know is that's actually not true. They could be hired and fired by an attorney general at any time, and that means that a President of the United States can hire them and fire them. That doesn't mean there couldn't be congressional ramifications. Remember, Congress talked about that with Mueller. Like, well, if the attorney general decided to get rid of Mueller, you know, you're impeaching the President of the United States or impeaching the attorney general. Even though these—by the federal rule itself and the rulemaking, they're clearly appointed by the attorney general, not for indefinitely kicking one forever, but these challenges have been unsuccessful in the past, and we have criticized at the ACLJ the use of special counsels when we believe it's just unnecessary when you've got an entire Department of Justice. What are you afraid of having your U.S. attorneys handle this?

Absolutely. So if a U.S. attorney was handling the Mar-a-Lago case, the classified documents case in Florida, there would be no legal question with respect to his authority. In this particular case, Jack Smith was hired or appointed by Attorney General Merritt Garland, and if he is presumed to be a principal officer of the United States, he must indeed be nominated first by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

That did not occur. So the argument that the Trump defendants are making is that Jack Smith has no viable authority. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, at least in the person of Clarence Thomas, has raised a question as to whether or not these so-called special counsels are viable within the meaning of the United States Constitution. And so I think at the end of the day, this will be an important hearing, and it will indeed be a lengthy hearing.

Why? Because Judge Cannon is going to hear from so many lawyers on both sides of this particular question. And so I think this is a very, very important issue.

I hope that this issue ultimately winds up before the United States Supreme Court so we can decide this question once and for all. Yeah, I mean, this is not the usual criminal practice to have side parties come in, but the defendant here in the case, Donald Trump, agreed to it as well so that it was kind of the judge saying, look, we don't normally do this, so first the defendant has the constitutional rights. Do you want this even presented? Okay, you want these other individuals to present it. So that's unusual, but it can be done.

I mean, that's all you can say is it's unusual. Any other attack is just an attack on the judge herself. If you don't like the idea that she's even considered. By the way, we don't even know how she's going to ultimately come down on this.

She might not be convinced one way or the other. What I think is probably pretty clear, Harry, though, that is being set up is exactly what you just said, which is this is a trial where we can almost guarantee, unless she just says no and kind of goes with the past, that if she takes a position that it's unlawful, it's certainly going to be heard by the Eleventh Circuit, and then if the Eleventh Circuit issues an opinion that maybe is similar to hers, I think it's certainly going to be heard by the Supreme Court. It might take two levels for it to get there, but the other times it was challenged, it was thrown out so quickly, there was no way to really, it wasn't like an appealable issue.

I mean, it was just like, no, they just moved on. I think that is precisely correct. Ultimately, though, I think it's important to note, and for listeners to note, is that all of these issues are delaying the trial. So I think at the end of the day, however the judge rules, more likely than not, we will not see a trial in the classified documents case probably until the end of this year, perhaps going into next year, because there are many other unresolved issues that she has to look at. This is a high-profile case. It's important to keep in mind that Robert Herr, who was appointed as special counsel to look into the Joe Biden classified documents case, he was also in a similar position. And so one of the issues that's out there, at least from the perspective of a law professor, is you could challenge the legitimacy of his decision-making and virtually all special counsels going forward. So I think this is a very important issue, and I think the judge is wise to listen to outside parties on both sides of the argument, but it's also important to keep in mind that many of the individuals who are claiming that this particular special counsel, Jack Smith, was legally appointed are simply individuals who have been victimized by the Trump Derangement Syndrome. I also think it raises a broader issue with the way our government operates, and this is something that we at the ACLJ have pushed back against for decades, and that is the rule-making process and the regulatory process within bureaucracies as opposed to legislation by Congress. So the special counsel office and authorities come out of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the rule-making process, and they rely on a part of the U.S. Code, which would be legislative, that allows the attorney general to delegate some of his authority.

That specifically says to any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice, but the interpretation of the law by the bureaucracy takes it much further, and actually it raises questions of whether people like John Durham or Weiss, the special counsel that is prosecuting Hunter Biden, are actually within the rules allowed to be special counsels, because the provision says it needs to be someone outside of government, which automatically sounds like it sets up a constitutional issue on whether the regulations are relying on U.S. Code to say it has to be someone who is not a part of the government, and yet we also have two special counsels that have been a part of the government in recent history. Do you think that this shows, one, the terrible nature of the rule-making process that we struggle with when we have bureaucracies making this, but also it gives a lot of holes that a higher court could poke? I think that's precisely correct, and so it's a wonderful issue for appellate courts, it's a wonderful issue for the United States Supreme Court, it's a wonderful issue for law professors.

So at the end of the day, however, the bottom line is, you are absolutely correct, Will, that the rules were imperfectly drafted, and there are gaps, and lawyers like to use fancy words like lacuna to indicate that there are gaps in the rules and regulations, and this needs to be filled in by the court. So ultimately this case should result in a United States Supreme Court hearing and decision-making to clarify this particular issue. All right, folks, again, we're going to follow this very closely. I want to remind you as well, we're preparing to file a critical brief in Georgia, that's at the Georgia Court of Appeals, looking to disqualify Fannie Willis from her corrupt prosecution of President Trump, like her chosen special counsel was disqualified as well. We're prepared to file the New York appeal of President Trump's conviction to defend the Constitution. But it's not just about President Trump, it's about defending all of our constitutional rights in this constitutional republic and to save our country from this new weaponization of law. We call it lawfare. Please take action with us by signing on to our brief to remove D.A.

Fannie Willis and defend the integrity of the justice system. That's at ACLJ.org slash sign. We'll be right back with Tulsi Gabbard. All right, welcome back to Secula. We will get to your calls to 1-800-684-3110. If you have questions about those upcoming cases as well and these kind of side trials that are occurring, that's at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. But we're joined right now by Tulsi Gabbard, who is a senior aide at the Georgia Court of Appeals. And Tulsi, I wanted to go to you first. This is the 80th anniversary of D-Day. There's events going on around the world here in the United States and in France. And that's where President Biden is with President Macron today and a number of remaining, those remaining veterans, which is not a lot.

Who could give us those firsthand accounts of what it was like. But as someone who continues to serve our country, how important is it to you that we don't just kind of look past these days, which honestly, don't get as much attention when you get to 80th anniversary and maybe isn't getting as much attention today in schools across the country as it might have even 20 or 30 years ago. And we think about the significant sacrifice made to preserve our freedoms and the freedoms of our allies against the evil of the Nazis. Yeah, thank you so much.

I'm glad we're starting with this because you're exactly right. I actually got some friends who are over there in Normandy now, both those who are still actively serving as well as those who are veterans. And they mentioned I called, you know, been texting back and forth and saying, how's it going? And one of the things that they've said is, why don't we in America do these D-Day observations and celebrations like they do in Normandy every year? And then they said, it seems like people in Normandy are more patriotic to America than some Americans are here at home. The streets are flooded with families and children, veterans from different countries and different parts of the world, crowds of people, fireworks celebrations, some of these World War II veterans and D-Day veterans are going into classrooms in these schools where these French children are getting up and giving whole presentations about what exactly happened on D-Day.

And it's quite an incredible experience from everything I've heard. And it is such an important reminder to us here. You know, we unfortunately get so caught up in oftentimes the political games or it's us versus them.

And this is really what you and I talk about quite often. What about freedom? What about the cost of freedom? What about the Constitution? And also recognizing the threats to our freedom right here at home.

It would be an amazing thing for us here across the country to reignite that flame of liberty and freedom. And remember those who paid the price, those on Omaha Beach. Over 800 of our soldiers were killed on that beach as they offloaded those boats, as they jumped into Normandy.

Several, you know, many others, a smaller number made it through and they broke through and they ended up winning that fight. But when you think about those men, their families, I'm a huge fan of the series Band of Brothers. Now is a perfect time to see it.

If you haven't seen it, I think it's on Netflix now, but I've watched it several times. And, you know, those men are not so different from the men and women that I've served with. And knowing the families they left behind, many of them being, who survived serving in Europe for years before they were ever able to get home and see their families. We need to appreciate what is unique about our country and what is unique about our country is our fundamental freedoms that so many have sacrificed for. Yeah, I think that, you know, I had to start that way because, you know, some of these, and wow, this officially is not a day off your celebrations. But even when we do, Memorial Day, you know, becomes kind of like a pool party and July 4th, I think we do kind of have a more patriotic feel still. But we sometimes forget, Veterans Day even.

I mean, you kind of get the day, but it's also the holiday portion of it. But I did want to, because I did want to start there because I think it is interesting what you said too, that in Normandy you've got people telling you there's like more patriotism, you know, in France than it feels like there is in the United States right now. Though I think a lot of people can understand that and it's not so surprising if maybe you made a comment like that 20 years ago, people would say, nah, nah, nah, I can't believe that, but now you can. I wanted to talk to you too about, because you're talking about, you know, the threats at home. And one of those threats we're seeing is at our southern border because it's affecting everyone.

It doesn't really matter where you live anymore. It's like every state has become a border state. We talk about what's happened in, you know, Venezuelan cartels attacking police in New York and New Jersey. And so now President Biden, who came into office and said, you know, I can't do anything else. Congress has to act. He's got an election in a few months.

The crisis at the southern border, Tulsi, it just keeps expanding. So now he signed an executive order that says once we hit a seven-day average of daily illegal crossings of 2,500, we will then close down the border and only reopen after the figure drops to 1,500 for seven days in a row and stays that way for two weeks, so for 14 days. And when he signed it, we were already at 3,700 on average.

So I don't think that we ever really get to that 1,500 number. It didn't really explain how they would either. There are so many things that are wrong with this. And this is the reason why I came out pretty strongly opposed to the bipartisan border, the thing they call the border security bill that senators were working on. And President Biden's executive order actually goes a little farther than theirs. But the problem with his executive order was the same thing that the fundamental problem with their bipartisan bill is that it institutionalizes illegal immigration. I don't understand why any American should accept any number that's more than zero if we're going to have secure borders.

We need to have secure borders. All that they're doing, whether it's in the Senate bill or with President Biden's executive order, is letting the cartels know, all right, this is how many people you can send through every day at a minimum. That's 10,000 bucks ahead. And once you hit that 2,499 mark, then just wait in line and start once that clock hits midnight and send the next batch.

It's not going to do anything. The numbers are so out of control. I mean, these are all, of course, based on estimates.

These are not based on the encounters that have happened. So people that have actually been encountered by Border Patrol and actually taken into some kind of custody, this involves all of the kind of estimated numbers of what drones are picking up. And again, that number has been at 3,700 for months. So the idea that it could even drop, so like you said, now they kind of have the idea of, okay, this is what we need to do to get those restrictions lifted again, which is we got to cool down on it maybe for a couple weeks. And if we cool down on it for a couple weeks and maybe you'll see this drop, then we could go right back, Tulsi, and turn it right back on again. We only got 40 seconds left.

I'll let you finish up. All I'm going to say is don't fall for it. Don't fall for it. This is just a game because they don't want to secure our borders. We should accept nothing less. That's the bottom line. Yeah, exactly right.

I mean, listen, the goal should always be none, and you start there, and then you say, hey, what are our policies moving on? 1-800-684-3110. Okay, we can finally, we got time to take your questions, take your calls.

1-800-684-3110 will remind you too of some others. These issues we talked about earlier in the broadcast, we'll get back to again as well. And I encourage you to sign up to remove Fannie Willis from that Trump case at aclj.org slash sign. Support the work of the ACLJ.

We're filing a brief in that case at aclj.org. 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.

That's 1-800-684-3110 because I did want to again kind of recast because we got into a couple of additional issues with Tulsi as well on this 80th anniversary of D-Day. And Will, that is of course what is happening in Georgia, in Florida. Yesterday was about Georgia, Georgia Court of Appeals.

And I do want to remind people first there because we talked about it yesterday that the Georgia Court of Appeals had agreed to hear the case involving the removal of, potential removal of Fannie Willis as well from the case in Georgia. Which within that, I think, you know, ultimately that likely would potentially go to the Georgia Supreme Court and maybe another DA in a different setting could come in or something like that. They'd have to decide whether or not to continue a prosecution. This is after your special counsel has been removed and the DA's office would be totally removed as well.

Because that would kind of take out her entire office as well would be tainted by that, I believe. So we'll be filing that brief at the Georgia Court of Appeals as well. They've also scheduled oral argument for that in October. So what does that tell you?

It tells you that you're likely going to have any kind of disposition on that matter. Even if they acted faster than usual, their normal time would be sometime in March of 2025. So they could speed it up here. It is a single question about the disqualification of a single judge, of a single district attorney.

So you might see it quicker there. But they don't usually even have oral argument. We will see if that holds as well. But either way, we will be filing a brief in support of that removal as well. And we're doing this, it's not just because, oh, you guys must be conservative, you know, you support President Trump and that's all it's about.

This is bigger. And we said this, whether it was the impeachment, whether it was Mueller, we talked about special counsels earlier. We do this all because we've seen the weaponization against the American people, the little guys. Which is most of us, who we don't have the resources, we're not going to get giant press conferences every time we step out of a courtroom. We can't fight back multiple cases in multiple states and jurisdictions.

We don't have the resources to do that individually. And we've seen that kind of lawfare against Americans kind of start bubbling. That was with the IRS targeting all the tea parties and conservative groups. But they were trying to coordinate with the DOJ on, hey, it'd be great if we get a couple of these criminally prosecuted because then no one's going to apply to want to do this. Then we'll shut it all down.

But we shut it down instead. And that was very important because they tried to say, oh, let's go to the little guy. Now they said we'll focus on, you know, Donald Trump types and these higher-profile individuals. But we need to make sure their rights are just as protected because it's kind of a flip on the switch. Maybe it didn't look good when we were going after the smaller guy, but if we take on Donald Trump, then, well, that's more sympathetic. People aren't as sympathetic to him. So they know he has the resources. He can fight out these legal battles in all these different states, jurisdictions. But what they forget is the other 15 people involved in the case who are being bankrupted by this.

What I also think is interesting is this, no doubt, this move by Judge Cannon to hold this oral argument and have outside experts even participate in the oral argument on whether or not Jack Smith was legally appointed. It's going to add more fuel to the fire of those on the left that are saying she's 100 percent biased for Donald Trump. She's going to just throw the case. She's delaying it for him because she's doing all these unprecedented measures.

But I look at it the other way. This is an unprecedented case. This is a special counsel going after a former President.

I'm actually really glad she is taking this much care and time to look into these issues and figure them out to make sure that she doesn't set horrible precedent for every single former President in the future. Folks, again, that's why you want to support our efforts in this matter, in each of these matters. It's so important because ultimately, if we succeed in these cases, it protects our rights as well, which is so key. And that's your rights. And we're able to fight all these battles because of your economic support of the ACLJ, your financial support to the Americans for Law and Justice.

Whether it's for those whistleblowers, 13-month battles, whether it's the Bonnie Willis, whether it's these constitutional issues like special counsels, it's all because of your support. Alright folks, welcome back to Secular. We are going directly to Israel with Jeff Balabon who directs our office in Jerusalem. And Jeff, I wanted to go to you first. People who watched the broadcast saw during the break there's a lot of talk about tensions ramping up on the border between Israel and Lebanon.

This would, of course, be just to make it easier for people. It's Hezbollah. Of course, it's been on that border for a number of years, but they're starting to see movements that violate, by the way, UN resolutions already. I mean, that have already kind of crossed the line into what would allow Israel to respond. But as we hear from Israeli leaders, there is that concern that, you know, you're getting hit from all sides, the resource issue, the relationship with the United States, and the fact that even the PR issue of what it looks like again when you've got another group that will be hiding behind, you know, taking you into towns, taking you into cities, taking you where there's kids, and having to fight urban warfare like we saw in the last war with Hezbollah. But what is the feeling right now in Israel?

Is that second front about to open? The feeling is that it's inevitable that there will be a war there. The question is how big will it be, how limited will it be, what the goals are. And also let's just put this in a little bit of context, Jordan. You know, Lebanon was a Christian country. Hezbollah now controls it. And unlike Gaza, where the overwhelming population supported October 7th and cheered and celebrated the horrors of October 7th, it's fairly clear that most, well, certainly most of the Christians in Lebanon aren't interested in having a war with Israel.

But because it's really a proxy for Iran, it's controlled by Hezbollah, which is another giant terrorist group, it's another Iran proxy, they really have the control there. So now the problem is you have a population that isn't really even supporting this that, of course, Iran is driving to war with Israel. Yeah, I mean, this is, and again, now that we've seen the direct connection between Iran, Hamas, which again, we know that they had to feel emboldened enough and powerful enough with the current state of the world and what's happened. They look at Ukraine, they look at kind of what the U.S. will do, what the U.S. won't do, what will U.S. leaders say, how will we respond? They thought, okay, we could even support an attack like October 7th.

We might get the criticism for a week or two by the world. But once Israel starts responding, you know, the PR campaign will be, you know, unprecedented against Israel, and we've seen it go to the next level. And if they're looking at that and they're saying, well, we could get involved here in another conflict because it didn't work out so well when Iran tried to launch from Iran. I mean, they launched, you know, their thousand missiles and drones and not one really struck.

I mean, so that was not successful. So they've got to go back to this theory of use your proxies, that's much better, and then Israel fights back against the proxies. And it also creates this PR struggle of how you want to frame up who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. And it was totally flipped when it comes to the conflict that began after October 7th in Israel, which had to respond like any sovereign country. I mean, I would imagine, Jeff, at a time when Israel's already, you know, there's a lot of pushback on Israel at the international level that this even makes it, I mean, you can't really think about that as the leader. But certainly for the people of Israel, you kind of start feeling like you are alone in the world when these atrocities can occur and no one totally has your back.

Well, they used to rely on America and the current administration has taught them they can't rely certainly on America under this administration. And, you know, we started to talk about this, about how the war has been in the south and Gaza, but the truth is that there has been an ongoing confrontation on the Lebanese border since the beginning, since October 7th. Immediately, Israel had to send its troops up north and the north has been evacuated. Now they have to evacuate more. There are 80 to 100,000 people who have not been able to be in their homes because their homes have been under fire throughout this period of time.

Meaning all these months, the people up north are living, are homeless because they're being, their homes are under fire. The question is whether Hezbollah will use its, what they estimate to be over 150,000 highly sophisticated targeted missiles. Unlike what Gaza has, where it's much less targeted, these are, they have far longer range, they can reach everywhere in Israel, they can target things in Israel, it's much more dangerous. And so the consequences of that war are something that Israel always thinks very carefully about.

They've always tolerated some limited level of terrorism. What's happening now is they are elevating it, as you just said, thanks to Iran. They're elevating this into potentially what might look like a full on war. But what they're trying to do is tweak it, tweak it, tweak it so that Israel has to take the first step. This is how Israel started this war. And it's all, these guys know, and they've been, they just saw this, no matter how evil and horrific they do things to Israel, when Israel tries to defend itself, the world will still condemn Israel. Yeah, I mean, they videotape it.

They wear, you know, they wear cameras, they can show it. I mean, it's, again, we've seen the, we saw it, it was interesting because it, when we saw that kind of imagery out of Syria with ISIS, no one thought for a second that we didn't have to do something. And yes, we did see inspired, you know, ISIS inspired attacks, ISIS kind of reaching out using social media attacks in our own country that were horrific.

So it brought it home maybe a little bit more. But the fact is, I mean, we've got US hostages still in Israel. We know that there have been US citizens killed by Hamas.

That should bring it home just as much. And we've seen the level of violence, the level of cruelty that these, this is not soldier versus soldier, military versus military, when it comes to how these groups like Hamas or Hezbollah will act. And it's not even about how they will treat their enemies, which is horrific, what happened on October 7th, but even how they will treat the families in their own communities that they hide behind, the children, the women and children that they hide behind. So Israel has to take that into account at a time when anti-Semitism is probably at its highest level in recent history where it's so publicly on display without, you know, without serious consequence. I mean, you've got, again, a couple of university professors removed, you know, Presidents of universities and things like that, but still these protests continue and especially at the international level where Israel has continued to lose support for responding.

And I think about France, I think about Germany, I think about these major countries. If something like October 7th happened to any one of their cities, I mean, I don't think that the country that was responsible for doing that or the group responsible doing that would exist at this point or anyone related to them. I mean, I don't think there'd be any talk about rebuilding or what it looks like or what that group looks like or their governing group in another city. I think it would be wiped out like ISIS was totally wiped out.

They might try to come back, but in a different form. But Jeff, you know, when it comes to Israel, you know, they've got to stop, you've got to halt. And that's where we've gotten that call since a week into the conflict that there's got to be a ceasefire. I mean, you know, the Biden administration and the media, of course, but endless pressure yelling, you can't go into Rafah, you can't go into Rafah, you can't.

Why? Because the Biden administration coordinated with, I mean, I'm not saying officially with Hamas, but basically the same exact idea. We're going to keep these Arabs bottled up there. So you have a million people there instead of what we do in every other conflict, which is trying to get combatants out of the way. Meanwhile, what actually happened?

The media is not talking about this. The idea of despite Biden went into Rafah, they claimed there was going to be massive civilian loss. The actual statistics that have come out now is in Rafah, in this horrible urban warfare, jam packed with people that America was yelling about the kill rate of actual terrorists to civilians. It was 10 terrorists for every one civilian. That's point one to one, you know, non-combatants to combatants. Unheard of in history. Point one to one.

Usually it's like five to one, nine to one, 10 to one, 20 to one, point one. And that's what happened there. And so Israel is just trying to defend itself. It did the right thing.

Thank God it did not let the Biden administration pressure it to stop doing that. But, you know, Jordan, it's because Israel is just an avatar for the way Jews are treated. And, you know, what you just talked about, the hostages, Douglas Marius, a commentator who talks about this a lot, makes this point. He says, you know, if you put up a picture of a dog that was missing and someone ripped it down, everyone would get angry with that person.

Like, what would you, what kind of person rips down a picture of a missing dog? Meanwhile, in every single city in the world in which these pictures of the Jewish hostages, the babies are hung up, they're being ripped down. Every city in the world outside of Israel, they're being ripped down.

And so this is the problem. Israel is being treated as a pariah, not because of what it does, but because it's Jewish. And those who support the Jewish people support Israel.

But those who currently run America do not support the Jewish people and are hostile to Israel. Yeah. And you're seeing that hostility much more, yeah, it's public.

It's in the policies. It's in what we, what the U.S. isn't doing or what, and even what the U.S. is doing. It's like, you know, the Biden administration is trying to play almost both sides, which is just, I mean, I think they are trying to play both sides, not almost, by saying, maybe we'll let you have these weapons and we might let you replenish the Iron Dome, but not if you take this step and if you do this action. I mean, Jeff, I think what you pointed out is something we'll continue to talk about here on the broadcast. I appreciate you, everything you're doing in Jerusalem for us at the ACLJ. And again, in office, folks, that we're able to keep going throughout whatever's happening in Israel because of you and your support for the ACLJ. And again, standing with the Jewish state of Israel is so important for us at the American Center for Law and Justice. Through those times of peace and through these times when, again, standing with Israel is a bigger statement, even inside the United States of America, which is saying something about the state of our country right now, but it's true and you have to just be true and be honest.

It could even be happening inside your church right now. 1-800-684-3110 if you want to join us. We'll be right back.

Alright, folks, welcome back to Secula. I want to encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ, too. One, we want you to sign on to our brief.

We're working on it right now. And that'll be filed soon to remove District Attorney Fannie Willis and to fit the integrity of the justice system in Georgia. The Georgia Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument in October. They don't always schedule oral arguments. Sometimes they do schedule it, by the way, and decide to just issue their opinions on the briefing, which makes even the brief that we'll be filing that much more important in some matters. So the fact they have it scheduled isn't 100% that they'll have oral argument.

But usually in these higher profile cases, you would imagine that they would. And this is certainly a big decision because if you remove Fannie Willis, I believe that removes her entire office. So it moves the entire District Attorney's office. So then what happens when you've got 14 people on trial, including a former President who is the current nominee for his major political parties, one of the two people who's going to be taking the oath of office in January? There's only two people right now who are likely going to be doing that.

One is Donald Trump and the other is the current President, Joe Biden. So what happens to your DA that gets handed to you and you look at this and you go, okay, what am I going to do? What could I even potentially do with this before this all occurs and the political season, the political interference? So we want to make sure you have that opportunity to sign that brief. That's at ACLJ.org slash sign. And in all of these matters, whether they're these kind of highly politicized matters, whether it's Israel that you'll hear a lot about sometimes in the news, and certainly right now in anti-Semitism, or it's those whistleblowers who testified 13 months ago and were put on leave 27 months ago that we get the victories for. We're able to take on all of these cases and all of these matters because of your support of the ACLJ. And again, that's at ACLJ.org. And again, you can decide to donate today.

One time you can become an ACLJ champion and donate monthly. And it's why we are able to go through the cases that come in and the contacts that come in, and we don't have to think that this is going to cost too much or take too long. It's awesome that we don't have to consider that. And that we're able then to provide to people who would likely not be able to on their own secure the type of attorneys we've got, certainly not, for the amount of time they need to do their cases. And so we're able to do that.

And that's because of all of you. And I just want to say thank you to our donors and supporters and people who take that action for us at the ACLJ. Never forget that. That's how we don't just talk about these issues and all these long-term battles that will come back on it, you know, up that you want to win maybe a year later on or six months later on. That means there's a whole team at the ACLJ that's been working through that. And by the way, on the other whistleblower, Garrett O'Boyle, that continues the brief at the Court of Appeals is filed tomorrow, our reply brief there. So that's continued battle against the FBI via the Department of Justice to get his life restored as well. And that's right.

And we talk about all these issues and we also work on all of these issues. And you brought up the whistleblowers, which was so important, because it highlights that there are things going on at the FBI and the Department of Justice that weren't up to muster. When someone was trying to just bring forward through the proper channels concerns of the way that the department was operating, they were punished. They were put in a purgatory for their family where they couldn't earn a living. They weren't allowed to go outside and get other work to provide for their family.

They weren't able to have their full toolset needed to work their job and they weren't allowed to work their job at the FBI. And we fought. And we fought for the client that for 27 months, that client was unable to earn a living.

And then we finally got a good resolution. But it's only because of the ACLJ members and donors that are a part of this fight with us that we're able to do that. But we also talked today about the situation in Florida with Eileen Cannon. And we look at this extraordinary hearing that's been set where she's going to hear even from outside experts to hear whether or not even the appointment of the special counsel falls within the rule of law.

And that's what we're very proud of the work we do here is we want the country to follow the rule of law. And Congressman Thomas Massie actually brought this up in that hearing with Merrick Garland earlier this week, which the majority of that hearing was focused on trying to figure out if the DOJ had any connection to Alvin Bragg's office, which I thought was a little bit of a disservice to the hearing because there's so many other issues that needed to be brought up. And though Congressman Massie, a polarizing figure in and of himself, but he did bring this up. This specifically the nomination of Jack Smith in the hearing. And I thought that the audience should hear that because there are other people that are concerned about this as well.

Yeah, absolutely. Was Jack Smith nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the U.S. Senate? You're asking me about a case again, motions filed.

This is a simple question. No, I'm not Jack Smith nominated by President Biden. No, he was not. Was he confirmed by the Senate?

No, he was not. When was the special counsel statute passed? There is no special counsel statute. There was an independent counsel statute that was expired.

So it expired. So what gives you the authority to appoint a special counsel to create? You've created an office in the in the U.S. government that does not exist without authorization from Congress. And that goes to the heart of what the judge is going to hear. And we don't know how show rule making process. It did go through the rule making process.

There's federal rule making process. The difference is through the rule making, it created a new super U.S. attorney. And that's that's the difference here is that it's a super U.S. attorney who has like no jurist has basically the authority that the attorney general wants to give them, which could be. Again, there's all these people inside the Department of Justice that have been confirmed that you could give this authority to.

And I don't think there'd be a lot of questions about it. But but here you have someone who gets outside the system. Now, they say they do this so that that person isn't feeling pressure day to day from the office of the attorney general or the deputy attorney general that oversees the special counsels directly. And they have more independence to operate. They don't feel the political pressures. OK, but ultimately they don't exist without an attorney general choosing them.

They don't they don't they they they they they finish. They submit the reports to the attorney general who decides what to do with that report. They could be fired by an attorney general. Their teams have been we've seen how putting together these teams have been so problematic, choosing some people from different agencies and some people from the private sector. And the question is, when it's been challenged in court before, even very recently, the last few years, the challenges have just not been heard seriously. So it's been challenged by Hunter Biden's attorneys and it's been challenged by other Republicans, attorneys and conservatives, attorneys. So both both both individuals, both in the Senate, it's ideologically have legally challenges in court.

But what we haven't seen is an entire day like we have here that is going to be granted to the opportunity to put these these issues forward. And if Judge Cannon issues a ruling on it, it's likely she won't be the last voice. It's like especially if she declares that the special counsel himself is invalid under law in the Constitution. And then you'd have then you'd go to the 11th Circuit, of course.

And I think that's where it would depend on. Does it go to the U.S. Supreme Court? So I think if the issue was you're going to abolish this now and there's people who are who have who are in prison or served time and then you've got to outlaw the the the people who put them there. You have to look at the whole consequences of that for the whole country. I think that's how you end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. So certainly, again, we believe that the special counsel's office, who always believed we had to fight it, has been overused in the United States. And the question now is, is it even legal under law?