This Isn't Washington. It's Worse.

Today on Sekulow, this isn't Washington, D.C.

It's worse. 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.

Welcome to Sekulow, executive producer Will Haines joining you this Friday. And we've got a lot to cover in this show, folks, but I want to start here. And where I'm starting isn't in Washington, D.C. And it's not about the White House and it's not about the Department of Justice.

But in a way, it's much, much bigger than those things. This is about a city government in southern Illinois, Carbondale, where officials literally told a pro-life missionary, you don't have First Amendment rights. You heard that right. They told a pro-life missionary that they didn't have First Amendment rights.

And if that doesn't wake you up, it should. And I'm going to explain why coming up in this broadcast. Because this is a case that we've told you a little bit about before, but we have just filed a preliminary injunction in this case against the city of Carbondale, asking the federal court to block enforcement of a city ordinance, which is unfairly targeting conservative pro-life speech.

And it's so vague, it's unconstitutional. And we're going to get into the details of that, but it should fire you up. And it has me fired up this Friday looking at what we filed with the court, some of the exhibits, and we'll go through all that. And the details of what happened to this individual that was doing something that the ACLJ has been fighting to protect for decades, demonstrating against abortion, telling people they have options. What was so offensive that this pro-life missionary had out there, that this city official had to come and get the police involved and threaten citation and going over how they are violating this ordinance because of their speech? What was so offensive? Was it graphic imagery?

Was it something that parents maybe wouldn't want their children to see driving down the road? No, it was things like, we offer free baby supplies. It was, we will adopt your child.

It was things like, love your preborn neighbor as yourself. And that is the speech that the city officials in Carbondale, Illinois found so offensive. But you may be asking yourself, it's Carbondale, Illinois.

I don't live there. We know a lot of you watching California, you watching Washington State, New York, Florida, Georgia, Texas, all over the country. You either listen to us on radio or you watch us on YouTube or rumble.

Or Facebook or X or all those places if you want to find us, if you want to see the video version. It's a very robust broadcast. It's great.

We have an excellent team. But you may be wondering, why does that matter to me? Because it's not really just about this ordinance and it's not about this one individual in Carbondale, Illinois. It's about what they're trying to do, what we're seeing happening in municipalities all across this country. Where they are targeting conservative speech, pro-life speech, the very foundations of our Constitution. The First Amendment.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. They are going after if your speech is something they don't approve of and is too conservative for them. And we're going to explain exactly how because it's wild. This story isn't just they told us not to. We sent a letter and it was all good because we have the law on our side.

So stay tuned. I'll go into it in the next segment. But this is the reason you support the ACLJ. It is because we get involved on this local level because it protects all our rights. Because it's not just this individual in Illinois. It's you that they want to silence. It's your speech.

They want you to be scared that you're violating their ordinances and laws if you don't fall in line and comply. But we're not going to take it. That's why we are in court. We filed the preliminary injunction motion yesterday and I'm going to tell you all about it today on Sekulow in this jam-packed Friday show. Stay with me and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back after a quick break.

Stick with me because I got a lot coming up. Welcome back to Sekulow executive producer Will Haynes in the chair today and I'm going over this really fascinating and shocking case that we're handling in Illinois. And here's just kind of the rundown of it because you may have missed the first segment of what's going on here. But this is a case where a pro-life missionary has a nonprofit organization in Illinois was holding a demonstration in a public grassy area near an abortion clinic. There's a city ordinance that has signage laws that they had put up and restrictions on signage and the client had the ordinance with them that day. And they were approached by a city official who was acting on behalf of the city attorney to try and get this demonstration shut down.

This just happened a couple weeks ago. As a matter of fact, we were live on the air when a pastor in the area contacted the ACLJ saying we need help right now and our attorneys got right on it. But now as the case develops and we see what's really happening there, it's shocking.

And it's shocking not just because of what happened to these pro-life advocates, but what could happen to anyone if we don't stand up for the First Amendment and fight back in the courts. So he was out there with this group and they had signs, things that said free baby supplies and we will adopt your baby and things like love your preborn neighbor as yourself. And this official Carbondale Community Development Manager confronted our client, said that they were acting on the direction of the city attorney in that they were in violation of the city's temporary sign ordinance. They labeled the sign as commercial, the one that said free baby supplies, as if it were business for them. But our client was saying this is protected speech, even pointed in the ordinance where demonstrations were exempted from this ordinance under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. And this individual working for the city, when our client said this is protected under my First Amendment rights, the city official said no it isn't. Then the person working for the city got the police involved and the police get there and the police say oh yeah you can do this but you know you have to move the signs to this place and it's all good, everything's fine. And the city official said no that's not the way I interpret the ordinance and it keeps going. And then even the next day our client trying to comply goes and tries to get a permit for signage because that's what the day before they were told you would need to get if it were commercial speech of which they were deeming it. And when they got there the same individual who came and tried to cite them earlier and called the police on them says that we don't have a permit that exists for what you're trying to do.

So what did we do? We filed a lawsuit saying one, you got to get rid of this ordinance. It is unconstitutionally vague.

And what does that mean? It means that when the police can't figure out what the ordinance says, what the individual, the citizen can't figure out what it says, and what the city itself can't figure out what it says, it's unconstitutionally vague because the citizen can't understand what they legally have to do to comply. And that's what we see in this case. The Supreme Court has precedent on this. So the law is on our side there.

But we also didn't just stop and let the court take its time. We also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against them enforcing this ordinance last night. So that this pro-life advocate can continue their work while we fight this in court. Now, you may be saying to yourself, you know, I am pro-life, but I don't go to demonstrations or I'm not a part of an organization like our client has that goes and advocates for life. But if an ordinance is so vague, and it seems as you look at how many hoops they jump through just to try and silence the speech of our client, and when you see the other signs that are around there that our attorneys documented and have submitted to the court, things like a fish fry or home renovation or an Irish festival in Carbondale, these signs are fine.

There's no citation being issued. So it boils down to that the city didn't like the speech. It was the viewpoint that they were discriminating against, not the signs themselves.

It was the people and their beliefs and their First Amendment right to express those that they were upset with. And so, like I said, you may be saying to yourself, I don't know that this applies to me. I don't live in Illinois. I don't go out and stand on the side of the road with pro-life signs.

I get that. But if they can discriminate against one conservative viewpoint under the First Amendment that is protected speech, where does it stop? Where do other municipalities and the ones you live in, what do they try to get away with? What if you wanted to go speak out against the curriculum in your schools? And so you wanted to have a visible demonstration, talking about that, getting attention, because the attention is not on the school board meetings.

Very rarely are they. So what if you want to raise your voice and advocate for your children? What if that wasn't a protected demonstration because the city decided it wasn't? What if you wanted to raise awareness? You see all this rampant anti-Semitism across the country breaking into the library at Columbia, destruction.

For people that support Hamas, you just want to go out there and say, remember the hostages. And you had a sign that says, bring them home. What if that was decided that your viewpoint here, this isn't really a demonstration as we see it under the exemption that's in the city ordinance. So you're not allowed to do this and we're going to call the police. Or what if you decide to have a political rally in the exemptions in the ordinance that says that is one.

But what if they decided because it's against an incumbent, we don't think it is. We don't think it falls in the exempt category and they try to shut your speech down. That's how they try to silence you.

This isn't some broad national law. This isn't the failing Democrats trying to censor your speech. At the federal level, they're doing a pretty good job right now in the administration of shutting that down. We talked about Marco Rubio shutting down that global engagement center in the State Department, which was spying on Americans, keeping dossiers of their social media. The federal government's doing a pretty good job of that right now.

But you know what? It's not their job to go and look at every ordinance in the United States that could be coming after you. And that's all politics is local, as they say. That's where it starts, folks.

It starts where you live and where you work and where your children go to school. And if they're able to shut down your First Amendment right there, then you don't have a First Amendment. That's why the ACLJ fights for this. We will fight for you if you are experiencing something similar in your town. We have had thousands of contacts already this year through ACLJ.org slash help. And you don't hear about these cases every day.

But that's the work that we're doing right now. As soon as I'm off the air, our attorneys are in court in Ohio defending another pro-life advocate who was arrested. Because they don't like speech that makes them uncomfortable. They don't like the truth. And so we're going to keep fighting day in and day out to protect that, to protect the First Amendment.

It's sacred. It's what makes America great. And we are not going to stop. So how can you help?

How does this affect you? One, you can support the ACLJ because it takes a lot of work, a lot of lawyers. We have lawyers in Ohio right now, ones that are doing this work in Illinois. Yesterday, we were in Massachusetts. We heard Jordan will be at the Supreme Court next week.

We're all over the place. And it takes you to continue that. So you can support us at ACLJ.org. You can also share this story and remind people why it's not just about Carbondale, Illinois, a place many people may have not heard of, but why it's about your First Amendment right. And so you can go to ACLJ.org and read this article. ACLJ files motion for preliminary injunction to block Carbondale's unconstitutional ordinance from shutting down our clients pro-life signs. You can take this article and you can give it to your friends who care about the First Amendment.

And you can explain to them why it matters for them. And if they're experiencing something, if they have a government official in their town trying to shut down their speech, they can go to ACLJ.org slash help and they can get help free of charge. It's on you, the members and donors to the ACLJ and the ACLJ champions. You're the ones that help us provide this legal work to a pro-life missionary in Illinois for free.

I don't think his organization had in the budget a big law firm legal expense line item. But they don't have to because we are there fighting not just for our client, but for every American to have their free speech unencumbered by city officials who want to take it away. So, folks, we got a lot more ahead. Stay tuned. You can tell I'm fired up about this because this shouldn't be happening anymore.

It's 2025. This should not be what we're having to fight, but it still is and we still will and we will keep doing that. And we need you to join us.

Go to ACLJ.org and support us or just share this story with your friends. Welcome back to Sekulow. Executive producer Will Haines hosting today and I'm joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Mr. Secretary, there's been this news that has come out about intelligence reports that there's a discovery of another Iranian secret nuclear site.

This isn't very surprising. We know that they're working on this nuclear program, no matter what they say publicly. But you have an article up right now that is very timely for news like this and it's titled, seven years later, why withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal was the right call. And this is such a wonderful time to have you on because you have all of this information because you are the person who is at the forefront of this in many ways during the first Trump term. But as we talk about and we have talked with you about the discussions with Iran in Geneva, in Rome, and the many places that the Trump team is going, there's the equivalence that we're trying to see in the media that, well, we wouldn't even have to be here if the Trump administration didn't pull us out of that nuclear agreement. But you make the case why it was so important and the right call to take us out of that deal in the first term. And I just wanted to give you the floor on that and just say, you know, set the record straight for the media that seems to not understand why this was so important.

Well, thanks. Look, what we now have heard in reporting about secret sites, we've known all along. The nuclear deal that President Obama signed did not have adequate verification. The Iranians were still advancing their program and importantly, they became rich. We sent them hundreds of millions of dollars in pallets of cash. We let them off the sanctions list. We gave them all the capabilities. We allowed their ballistic missile program to continue to grow. All the capabilities that could deliver a nuclear armed Iran. Think about what would have happened on October 7th had Iran been capable of using a nuclear weapon.

It would have been a greatly different place. And so, look, we withdrew. We denied them resources. We put sanctions on them. We put real pressure on the regime and we slowed down their capacity to continue to enrich uranium, to have a plutonium facility if that's the path that they chose to go down.

And then to have the delivery systems, the weapons and missiles to threaten the world. Sadly, the Biden administration stopped enforcing sanctions. They made Iran rich again and now we face a very, very difficult decision in the second Trump administration.

That is, how is it we as Americans are going to ensure that Iran never has a capability that threatens Israel, that threatens the Gulf Arab states and the United States with nuclear weaponry. And just to follow up on that as well, there's also a new angle to this as well. We know that the Biden years, they were flush with cash. They were able to receive payments that were previously blocked and sanctioned. But is there also a new development because of those conflicts with Hamas, with Israel and Hezbollah and the Houthis and all these proxies that have engaged in wars and combat that Iran has started to have to push more resources towards? Could there be another opening with new sanctions renewed, with those blocks and all the money that they've spent on that to kind of put them in a corner and say, you're not as wealthy as you were now that the sanctions are back on and you've had to spend all this money.

Could the economic element of this help potentially get us to some sort of better resolution? Well, undoubtedly. And I would add to that, President Trump himself, right? His presence on the international scene has demonstrated time and time again to the Iranians, you're not going to roll this guy, right? When they started threatening Americans, we took out their number two leader, General Qasem Soleimani. We fired missiles when the Syrians were using chemical weapons.

This is a very different posture and your point is well taken. In spite of the Biden administration, not because of, but in spite of the Biden administration, the Israelis did amazing work to take down Hamas, to damage Hezbollah significantly, to take down a significant piece of the Iranian air defense systems that protect these nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow. So this is a real weak point for the Iranian regime and they're facing a strong America aligned with Israel. This is an opportunity to get a great deal, but it's got to be that it can't have any enrichment, they can't have a missile program.

And we should never forget, it has to have a anytime, anywhere inspection regime so that we can prevent the Iranians from continuing to cheat on that program on their commitments. I want to take a little bit of a turn here, but it's to a subject that is very much related and that's because we are seeing even on campuses like Columbia, which agreed to things with the Trump administration to save some of their funding. We're still seeing how horrific these protests, these protesters that are breaking in, taking over places, over 80 arrests at Columbia. We know the college year is winding up for most universities.

But we're at this point where these, quote, pro-Palestinian protesters, pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist, I would even say pro-Iranian regime at this point when you draw the line through the proxy. Is higher education at a point of no return where universities can make a deal, but they still can't seem to get this under control? Well, I don't think they're at a point of no return, but it's going to require real leadership and fundamental changes in the culture and attitudes on campus and changes in their hiring priorities. We've seen for an awfully long time these institutions of higher education, especially some of our most elite universities, became occupied literally by a left-wing faculty. And we see that manifest itself in what you're seeing today, this violence on some of these campuses. I am happy that Columbia arrested 80 students. I hope they determine the facts and prosecute them to the full extent of both the university policy by kicking them out and putting them in jail if that's appropriate, if they've committed an unlawful act that requires that. You have to restore deterrence. You have to create order so that every student, whether that student is a Christian or a Jew or a student of no faith, can walk on campus, be there, learn, and do what they need to do freely and without fear that violence is going to erupt at their library or someplace they're just trying to get to. It is dangerous, and it runs straight in the face of what these institutions claim they stand for. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us on this Friday.

I hope you have a great weekend, and we will talk to you next week, I'm sure. But folks, as we wrap up this first half hour of the broadcast, it has gone so fast today. I just want to remind you of what we were even talking about in the first two segments of the broadcast, about this fight that we have in these municipalities, where they are trying to hinder and block and issue citations for First Amendment activity. First Amendment is pretty clear. Congress shall make no law infringing on these things, and that's the freedom of speech, press, association. But yet, that's exactly what we're seeing happen when these vague laws are put in place, these ordinances, to stop speech, and it's not all speech even. It's viewpoint discrimination against specific speech, conservative speech, pro-life speech, and that's what we are fighting here every day. And we have a trial in Ohio, very similar circumstances there. That pro-life protester was arrested, and he's on trial.

And that begins right after the show ends today. So our attorneys are hard at work. Don't ever think they are not.

They are on the ground all the time defending the Constitution from those that want to take it away. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. Hello, and I'm just going to start where we started the first half hour, just to remind you of what we are dealing with today. It's not about Washington, D.C., the White House, or even the Department of Justice. We'll talk about some of that a little bit later. We've got Rick Grenell on in the next segment.

Stick around for him. But this is about a city, Carbondale, Illinois, where a government official told our client, you don't have First Amendment right. And we won't stand for that. Their ordinance is vague. It's unconstitutional.

It can't be upheld. Even the city officials and the police and the individual, everyone reads the ordinance differently. It's not clear what the ordinance even requires. But what is clear is that there was a certain type of speech that they didn't want in Carbondale, Illinois, and those city officials called the police and were ready to cite our client for using his First Amendment right. And also trying to do all the right things under the ordinance. Had a copy of it to discuss with the police, with the managers from the city. But that wasn't good enough.

But you know what is good enough? The ACLJ legal team. And that's what we are doing. We are fighting for the First Amendment. Wherever these censorship, unconstitutional ordinances, wherever they pop up, our legal team is like the firefighters.

They rush to it. They put out that fire so it doesn't spread to be a national crisis where you are seeing every little municipality trying to silence you. Because it's not just about this one individual pro-life advocate, missionary. It's about anyone who wants to use their First Amendment right to speak out about the things they care deeply about. What happens if the similar ordinance is used somewhere to stop people from protesting or speaking out against the curriculum being taught to their children? What happens if it's someone standing on the roadside with a sign that says bring them home advocating for the hostages that are being held by Hamas even still? Or what if you are just having a political rally trying to speak out because you want different leadership in your city. Maybe you don't like it that they put this ordinance in. And so you're rallying against the incumbent.

What if that's no longer protected speech because of the vague way they interpret their ordinance? That's what we're fighting back against. It's about all of us. It's about the Constitution. It's about what makes America free.

And we are fighting to keep it that way. Now we will have Rick Rinnell joining us in the next segment. We've got some great things to talk about with him.

But this, I just felt like I needed to bring this to you today. I just got images from one of our senior attorneys that is in Ohio. Pictures of the legal team about to walk into the courthouse. To do what? To fight for a pro-life advocate that was arrested in Ohio. For doing what?

Speaking out against abortion. They said he was too loud. It violated noise ordinance and so therefore it was disruptive behavior. But who wasn't cited? The people from the abortion clinic. They were out there with kazoos and noise makers and umbrellas causing a scene.

They weren't cited with disorderly conduct. Just the pro-life advocate. And so we're fighting there.

Defending him in a criminal court in Ohio. Our work continues no matter how much the playbook of the left is thrown at the American people trying to exercise their constitutional rights. And you can join us.

You can continue this good work. You can stand alongside these clients. You can be the hero for them. They don't get a legal bill.

But they get some of the best representation in the world. Go to ACLJ.org and support us. Stand with us and share these stories.

That, it's free to do. But we have great detailed information on our website that you can share with your friends and family and show what's really going on in these cities. All politics is local, folks.

In the constitutional crises, they start locally. But we're there to stop it. Join us today at ACLJ.org or become a monthly donor by being an ACLJ champion. Welcome back to Sekulow. Executive producer Will Haines hosting today. One thing I've forgotten to do this entire show. I've been so fired up about this case that I wanted to tell you about on this Friday is I haven't asked for phone calls. I'll be taking those in the next segment. You can ask a variety of topics.

Basically anything we've talked about this week on the broadcast if you've been joining us daily. Go ahead and call me at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. And I'll tell the team leave that lower third up that has the phone number.

Just so if people missed it, they'll see it. You know you can call that number and talk to me in the next segment. But I'm joined right now by Rick Grenell.

Rick, thank you so much for joining us this Friday. It's been a very busy week. I know you're very busy. But I did want to bring up that the President is going to have a busy week next week as if it wasn't busy enough already. But he's headed to the Middle East. And I wanted just kind of a preview of what you think we may see out of this big trip from the President headed to the region.

Well, it's a historic trip. And it's going into different countries who are incredibly influential in the current war that we see playing out. And Donald Trump is somebody who has been very clear-eyed about trying to find peace. And what I love about President Trump and his peace initiative is that he's never given up the mantra of being tough and unpredictable.

And we talk a lot about predictability when it comes to diplomacy. You hear from the media constantly that there's a threat of action, but it's really, as a diplomat, as someone who's done lots of diplomatic meetings, you don't just need a threat of action. You need a credible threat.

There's a difference. Joe Biden had a threat. Donald Trump has a credible threat. Other countries, other people, other entities think, you know what, he just may do that.

And I know that when he makes a threat, whether it's tariffs, military action or whatever, that it's a credible threat. And what we see right now is President Trump finding all of the different tools in the tool belt to put America first. And one of those initiatives that we are trying to do is bring peace to the Middle East. How do you bring all the sides together to stop the terrorism, to stop the funding of terrorism, which we've already stopped, but we're dealing with the billions of dollars that the Biden team gave to Iran and Iran has funded their proxies throughout the region. We've had problems with the Houthis, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, all because Joe Biden funded them through the Iranian regime, the Iranian government.

And so Donald Trump now is going to these other countries and trying to look them in the eye and say, we need your help. We've got to forge peace. We want peace. We want to be able to talk about the economy, business, jobs, growing the prosperity for Americans and not have to spend our hard earned tax dollars on war. We've got a war in the Middle East. We've got a war in Ukraine. And President Trump wants to stop both of them. And so this trip is really mainly about forging peace, but also looking at these countries and asking them to work with us to invest in America and to help grow our economy. It's an America first trip and it's really exciting. Well, and I think it's also fascinating because I know we talk about the media and I know you think I should probably stop paying attention, Rick, but I'm sorry, I got to look at it.

I got to see what they're saying for my job. But, you know, they try to paint President Trump as this vindictive personality that if you say something bad about him, he's got such thin skin. He's just going to come back at you and do things just to try to punish you because he takes everything so personal. But I think what we've seen even this week, the fact that this trade deal that was announced just yesterday with the United Kingdom, I mean, the ambassador to the United States has had very harsh things to say about the President of the United States. And yet he was right there in the Oval Office. And so if really President Trump is this vindictive man that he's so thin skinned that he will never do anything with you again, then that's the disproving evidence right there. The fact that those people are still in the room, the fact that the Canadian prime minister also visited this week who said not great things about President Trump, but he's willing to still work with these people who are saying horrible things about him in order to advance the agenda of the United States. Now, what they also may think is revenge or something is him just putting America first.

How dare he? But I think when you go to the Middle East as well, that personality, the one that can put aside what these Western politicians will say about him and actually go and try to make deals, we have to remind people this is the President that got the Abraham Accords done in the first term. This is now the opportunity to build on that greatness. And I think that's what his personality excels in. Yeah, there's no question about that. He is somebody who really I know personally welcomes a debate and wants to hear all sides of the issues. He's not afraid of a debate. We see that when he goes in the interviews with the CNN, Meet the Press, he just did last weekend. He's willing to go and listen to these very biased journalists and to challenge their premises.

And I love that. I mean, he just did for the 100 days, he sat down with ABC News. Now, Joe Biden never did anything like that. Joe Biden only stuck to MSNBC and the Atlantic, the far left outlets, because that was a safe space for him. Donald Trump enjoys having a whole bunch of reporters in the Oval Office and letting them ask questions.

Now he's going to give it back, which I think he should. He should push back on some of these far left assumptions. But reporters need to understand that we are in this situation where we don't trust them and we don't like their bias because they're the ones who have given up journalistic trademanship and instead gone and become activists. And we all see that in Washington DC is filled with activists and the rest of America watches in disgust. But I think you'll see President Trump have all sorts of different media on this foreign trip, and he's willing to take their questions and have a healthy debate. That's what America is about. Not silencing people, not canceling people, but actually having a calm debate where you get to state your position.

And many times it's challenging of the facts on the other side, but it's an important debate to have. Rick, I want to play a soundbite for you here at the end, just to get your take on this. This was a good friend of yours, someone you know well, but this is the FBI director, Kash Patel, as he was before Congress in appropriations hearings. And a Democrat on the panel tried to go after him, but I think he turned it around wonderfully.

But let's play bite one, then I'm going to get Rick's take on it. Mr. Patel, as you and the President continue to weaponize and investigate his perceived enemies as you follow this blueprint, when can I, a former impeachment manager, expect the FBI at my door? Ma'am, you want to know who was targeted by a weaponized FBI? Me. You want to know how and why?

You want to know what I'm doing to fix it? Let me move on. Well, you should read the book because there's no enemies list on that book. There are people that violated their constitutional obligations and their duties to the American people, and they were rightly called out. And you should give that book to every one of your constituents so they can read about it.

I won't be doing that. Rick, we've got about a minute left, but I just want to get your take on that because it seems that the staffers of that Congresswoman should be fired for giving her something, a little prop there, but having no context of what's actually in his book at all. Yeah, look, that was clear where Cash has the facts. This Congresswoman doesn't. She just wanted to have some headlines.

She got totally owned, and Cash completely used facts to show that she was being partisan, she was being political, and I think she was highly embarrassed and probably won't do that again. I love to see it. You can't turn down a good soundbite when you've got it, especially when the director of the FBI is able to flip it on the Democrat that easily. But thanks, Rick, for joining us. We look forward to talking with you probably next week and hope you have a good weekend. Folks, as we come to our final segment, I've got phone lines open. I want to talk to you. As Logan says, the most important voice in the room, 1-800-684-3110.

You want to know about Letitia James? We've got some news on that we'll talk about in the next segment. Call us at 1-800-684-3110.

If you want to talk about that case out of Illinois and what the implications are for you, 1-800-684-3110 or anything else that we've talked about this week. It's been jam-packed. We've got a lot to cover. Call me. I'll talk to you in the next segment.

Or not. If you don't call me, I'll play some soundbites. We'll have a good time closing out the show. But, once again, go to ACLJ.org and donate today to support our effort to defend the Constitution wherever they attack it. Welcome back to Sekulow, final segment of the day. Thank you for joining me on this Friday. Hey, if you want to talk to me on air, I've still got some lines open, 1-800-684-3110.

And I'll try to get to as many as I can. But I did want to bring this up because I couldn't end the show without talking about our friend, the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James. We talked about the issues when there was a criminal referral sent to the Justice Department.

We talked about her pushing back. But now it appears that the Justice Department, in response to that criminal referral, has opened up a criminal investigation into her actions regarding those real estate transactions. There's a report out of the Washington Post that a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has issued subpoenas over the mortgage application fraud allegations that came out over that. There's also news that a U.S. attorney in New York is looking into the matter. So it seems that there is action moving in the Justice Department. Now, when there's a criminal referral, what you will see is typically the Justice Department look into that.

So it's not necessarily surprising that they are looking into it. The allegations were pretty serious. What you saw in that criminal referral from that federal housing and mortgage body that sent it over, and they were documented. It had a lot of situations where there are alleged crimes, fraud, things of that nature. So they did the right thing. They turned it over to the Justice Department, which is now looking into that. They also had the almost circumstantial issues surrounding it that gave more context, however, probably would not be presented in the case because not directly related.

But even outside the statute of limitations now, but situations where she listed her father as her husband on some mortgage applications in order to get more favorable rates. But she spoke at a town hall in New York last night, and I want to play this for everyone because I heard one commentator say it seems like she's almost taking something out of the Donald Trump playbook, where she went aggressively after the former President and he stood strong and fought back against it. But here's what she had to say at this town hall as far as how she is taking these allegations and fighting back against it.

Let's play bite three from the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James. And each and every time he issues an executive order, we respond. We prepared for this moment prior to the election.

We all came together because I was there during Trump won, Trump 1.0, and so many others. We analyzed Project 2025. We analyzed jurisdiction. We analyzed claims. We analyzed standing.

We distributed all of the subject matter to each respective states. We're ready. We're prepared. Do not give in to fear. We are fearless. This is not the time to be afraid. This is the time to stand up and fight back and to resist any temptation for them to divide us.

We're in this together. The rule of law is on our side, and the one institution that has stood by our side is the courts. We will not give in, not give up. We will not capitulate. We will not bow. We will not bend. We will survive. All right.

She was fired up, pushing back. We will not give in to fear. We are fearless. It's not a time to be afraid. The rule of law is on our side. We will not give in.

We will survive. Here's the big problem for her right now. At the same time that she was pursuing this large civil case against the President, civil fraud, and was able to get a conviction in that and almost half a billion dollar judgment against him, it appears that the basis of what she was alleging against the former President, that there were falsified business records, inflated assets, things of that nature, that got him more favorable loans. It appears if the allegations are correct from the federal government, from a bureaucracy. This isn't coming from President Trump.

This isn't coming from Pam Bonney. This is coming from a bureaucrat that's in charge of looking over things like federal housing, the mortgage rates, all of these loans that are backed by the U.S. taxpayer. It appears if the allegations are true that Letitia James was in fact misrepresenting things on forms in order to get more favorable loan terms. You see the irony there?

It's what Rick Grenell says many times on this. Whenever the Democrats start pointing a finger, the left many times is doing that very thing that they're accusing you of doing. And they use that to run interference in the election because it was a multi-pronged effort, lawfare all over the country, in Georgia, in Florida, out of D.C., out of New York, in multiple cases to try and stop President Trump because he was threatening to their agenda. But what you have here is a very serious allegation against the Attorney General of New York, the very person who ran on taking down Donald Trump, may have been doing the very type of thing that she was accusing the former President of doing. And now she's still going out there, pushing back, saying we will not bend, we will survive, the courts have always been on our side. We'll find out.

We will. Because the Justice Department is looking into this now. They have taken that criminal referral, they've opened an investigation, there's reports that a grand jury has issued subpoenas over this in Virginia. Remember she allegedly listed residents in Norfolk, Virginia as her primary residence while being the Attorney General of New York. So she can't have it both ways.

Either that isn't her primary residence, like she said it was to get a more favorable loan term, or she can't be the Attorney General of New York because it's required by law there that you live in New York to hold that office. Justice Department will get to the bottom of it. And remember, when people want to see people held accountable for things that they've done wrong, it's not a light switch where you look at it and you say, day one, we think that you did something wrong so we're going to go after you. No, many times it is just the way the world works and when you believe in the rule of law and you allow that to play out.

It's not always fast, but it is the way that it should be. Because it isn't just saying, I don't like her, I'm going to go after her. It's when someone in the bureaucracy sees news reports that some of these things may have happened and then they look into it and they do a criminal referral and it takes time.

And many times we're not patient. But if you broke the law, this Justice Department is going to go after you. They're going to uphold the Constitution. They're going to uphold the rule of law. Unlike what we saw for the last four years, where instead of that it was, let's go after this pro-life protester and raid his home in the middle of the morning while everyone's still waking up and put him on trial for that or sending spies into churches because they didn't like their theology. That's over. Now if you break the law, you're investigated and we do it the proper way. And it may take time, but that's the way it's supposed to work if you want to do it right. Join us next week on Sekulow. We'll talk to you then.