INVESTIGATION: Big Trouble for Jack Smith

Today on Sekulow, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel opens a new investigation. Could it mean big trouble for Jack Smith? 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, Will Haynes here with you today. And I'm joined in studio by Jordan Sekulow. And we're talking about this new revelation that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is going to be looking into Jack Smith's probe and prosecution of President Trump in relation to alleged Hatch Act violations.

Now, the Hatch Act is U.S. law that prevents government officials from engaging in certain partisan political activity while they are a government official. And a lot of this stems from a referral by Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas. And we'll get into that as well. But Jordan, this is now what we're seeing, more oversight in looking back at the actions of the Biden administration in relation to how they weaponized government to go after a political opponent.

So we're seeing this. And I just wanted to get, what's your first take hearing this news at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which we'll get into later. It's not the same thing as what Jack Smith was, a special counsel under the DOJ. But just your first take when you see this news.

My first take is this is necessary for the American people, right? Is that the voters out there, especially conservative voters, but I think overall long term for our elections in the United States of America, people wanted to see action taken, investigations being done to know if the idea that this was potentially wrongdoing by these individuals, whether Was Jack Smith appointed just days before President Trump announced that he would be running for reelection? And again, you go from Russia and you look at that matter now being investigated.

Now you look at the special counsel's office. It's a bit of a different start to the investigation. But what I think is so important here is for how many years people, ACLJ supporters, listeners to this broadcast, people who watch the broadcast of the show, have been waiting for those who have carried out these actions, which we believe were wrong and potentially illegal. In interfering with our elections, when would they be held accountable? When would we even start the investigations?

And now, Still, I know it's hard to say, still pretty early on into this second Trump administration, we are starting to see the beginning of those investigations. That doesn't mean, and I don't want to put too much weight and to say that this means everybody's going to jail because I think that that's the jump. But I will say this. The difference here is that Is that in the past when we were investigating these or defending these, as I was part of that legal team for President Trump, when it came down to the Russia information, the Mueller team, and all of that? We did not have prosecutorial power.

Right. The Trump administration does. The DOJ does ultimately have prosecutorial power.

Now, through this special counsel office, it's a two-step process to go there, but they've got plenty of time, even in this one term of President Trump, to do the investigation. And if they believe charges should ultimately be brought into court, they can do so. And that is a big change from where we were just a year ago, where we could say this was wrong, we could have investigations, but ultimately, people may be even getting fired, but ultimately, it would be more difficult to see actual justice get done. This time around, I think that we actually have a much better chance of seeing people being held accountable. That's right, Jordan.

And we're going to get into that today.

So go ahead and like this broadcast, share it with your friends, comment. All that helps the YouTube algorithm and the Rumble algorithm and all those things get this out to more people because we're going to get into how these are all related. We're getting all this information about the Russia. Hokes and everything that the CIA and the DOJ and the FBI knew in what they did about it, but also this new revelation about the U.S. Office of Special Counsel looking into Jack Smith's activities.

It all goes back to weaponization of government.

something we've been fighting here at the ACLJ for a long time. And we're not done. We're going to keep fighting. We told you last month about our 35 years of justice drive. Today, we are telling you about our 35 years of victory.

Go to aclj.org, help us secure another 35 years of victory at aclj.org/slash 35. Welcome back to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, joined by Jordan Sekulow in the studio. And we're talking about this new investigation from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which is looking into Jack Smith, who was the special counsel investigating President Trump for, among other things, January 6th, classified documents, etc.

And what we're seeing here is: one, already, the Democrats trying to make this about Trump weaponizing independent agencies, which is a whole other rabbit trail we could go down about how the bureaucracy tried to isolate themselves from the President and being able to actually govern the country. But these independent agencies that. And the Democrats are now saying President Trump is weaponizing. What we need to also let people know is that this investigation stems from Senator Tom Cotton asking for an investigation into this. It wasn't President Trump that directed this office to do this investigation.

It was a U.S. senator who laid out a very compelling case of why this needs to be looked at. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel isn't a special counsel under the DOJ, which is appointed by the Attorney General to have independence over maybe a politically interesting or dicey kind of investigation that could look like there's some sort of retribution.

So they, you know, they have a special counsel that can be dedicated to that team. This is an office that primarily investigates things like whistleblower protection. They try to protect whistleblowers, the Hatch Act, which is where there's partisan political activity, and other things regarding really the employment rights. Of bureaucrats and people within the government. That's right.

And they also don't have prosecutorial power, Jordan. No, they have power to seek disciplinary action for federal employees, but they don't have the power to bring those employees or former employees to court, to a traditional court on criminal charges. What they can do is make a referral to the Department of Justice team that can do that. And that's the Department of Justice led by the Attorney General Pam Bondi.

So President Trump's choice for Attorney General.

So they're in a very different situation right now.

So while this is kind of a two-step process, separate from the process looking at Brennan and Comey, which is a one-step process because that's DOJ directly looking at criminal wrongdoing. This would be a one-two-step. And the reason why here is you first start with the Hatch Act, the Hatch Act, which prevents federal government officials from taking actions that would impact or try to impact federal elections. And in this matter, what they're saying is. When you look at the timeline, when you look at the race to try and bring this to court, when you look at the fact that he's appointed three days before, it was, I'm quoting here: Jack Smith's legal actions were nothing more than a tool.

For the former President Biden and former Vice President Harris campaigns isn't just unethical, it could be illegal campaign activity from a public office. That's from Senator Tom Cotton.

So that's where I think we need to look at: one, is it a violation of the Hatch Act? That's what the Office of Special Counsel will ultimately come down on. And then they can make a referral if they believe that there was further wrongdoing that can then be investigated as criminal conduct by the Department of Justice. This is so important to me for our election integrity moving forward in our country because. Let's just be honest.

We're not going to have President Trump again on the ballot. He was unique and is unique in his ability to take this incoming fire from kind of every side possible.

So, you want to make sure that these bad actors or potential bad actors know that if you try to do this again, there will be serious consequences. And I think that's the big goal for the American people: we don't just brush this under the table and say, oh, this was bad, this happened, but we moved on and we actually ended up winning again. We know this strategy. If it's not stopped now as something that is very dangerous to take on for those who want to try and utilize it to undermine, typically it would be conservative candidates, people who want to shake up Washington, D.C. And if you look at the current state of the Republican Party right now, the Republican Party is dominated by those kind of individuals, the kind that want to shake up the bureaucracy and shake up Washington, D.C., that you can't employ these kind of strategies without any kind of fear, especially if it's wrong to do so.

So fear under the Hatch Act that you could lose your job or face penalties there. And then criminal violations as well, because that is a way really to. To put an end to this, again, the lawfare, the politicization of our Justice Department has gone overboard. We can't allow it to continue. And yet, I kind of feel well.

And I'd love to get people's reactions on this at 1-800-68-430-110. I feel like this is still a main part of their playbook. Right. Not just for Donald Trump, but for whoever comes next. If they think we can muck you up by bringing charges and using the bureaucracy against you, even during a political time, even during an election year, even when we shouldn't be doing it, and even if we're making it up.

And we know what we're saying is not true, and nothing will happen to us. Why not? Use that. I mean, the interesting part of all of this is that ultimately here, what's the big Consequence, they went to battle using a system in our government that you were not supposed to use for political purposes, and that is our law enforcement. Law enforcement should never be used for politics.

And you know what I just kind of cringe at is that people on the left who are upset that this is being investigated. Right. Because do they really want? The kind of norm to become that whoever's in charge is going to criminally investigate, potentially prosecute people for. Meaningless crimes are made up.

Crimes like we saw with Alvin Bragg in New York, because they disagree with their politics or they want to impact the election. If we allow that to happen in the United States, long term, our system of rule of law falls and then the system of our government falls. And we've talked about that a lot.

So it's got bigger implications than just Jack Smith. It's got the criminal investigation has bigger implications than just the Intel Committee, just the intelligence community like Britton and, of course, Kobe and others. But they were bragging about leaking documents. I mean, all things that if Republicans did, they would be behind bars. That's right.

And we're going to get into some of that as well because the Russia Gate revelations that we've been seeing are shocking. And we've been talking about them here. I want to get your input on them. But another thing to remember is that why do we talk about these things on this broadcast? We talk about them when it's a government action or investigation so that we can make sure people know about this.

If they want to support their elected representatives and see. Speaking the truth in this manner, but we also fight in the courts. And as a matter of fact, We at the ACLJ just filed an election integrity case last week with an amicus brief going to the Supreme Court. And we are urging the Supreme Court to reverse a dangerous precedent that was set in Illinois. And so a lot of people don't want to be thinking about elections right now.

You know, we just got through one. The midterms are still a year and a few months away.

So they're kind of like, ah, let's not talk about elections right now. We don't have the luxury to just sit by and wait for elections to come and hope that we can protect our Constitution and our Democratic Republic. We have to keep fighting. That's what we do here. When you at home may not want to be thinking about the next election, you're like, I don't have to watch ads right now.

I'm good. Know that we are still working. That's why we're filing briefs, trying to protect the integrity of our elections, because we know what the attacks of the left have been. We know how they've tried to undermine them, how they've tried to use the government to go after candidates to try and ruin them before an election, to just try to cheat to get above, just to win. They're going to weaponize the government.

As well as pushing an entire narrative, an entire hoax for years about Russia to try and, once someone did get elected, they wouldn't let that individual govern properly because they ensured that they would be being investigated from day one by sending spies into the White House, by getting FISA court orders so they could spy on American citizens. You can try to do your job. Right. Any job. Uh you take happy President of the United States.

Think about the job you do or the job you did if you're retired. And imagine that while you're trying to do your job, And all the people who rely on you, that the entire time you're doing that, there's an entire government agency or let's say internal bureaucracy at your company trying to bring you down. And not just bring you down by removing you from your job, because they tried to do that through impeachment, but also criminally prosecuting you and putting you behind bars. And you've got to be dealing with the crises at your company.

Now, imagine you're President of the United States and you're dealing with the crisis of the world, of the U.S. economy. of the world economy, of terrorism. Of Islamic radicalism, of all the different wars going on, all the different potential conflicts going on. All the different negotiations that go into that, and you've got that hanging over you.

I will tell you because I was there. Most people the toughest politicians would fold. President Trump didn't. And not only did he not, he decided, you know what? I'm going to come back.

I think this election was a mess. And, you know, he made that very clear. But he didn't say, you know what? I don't think I can win again.

So I'm just going to step back and retire. He said, you know what? It's worth fighting back to set the record straight. I've got more I want to get done.

So I'm willing to do that. And so I think if he's willing to do that, we have to be willing to support these investigations, not for political purposes. It's actually the opposite. It's so that we don't have this in our political system as a norm. We talk about norms in law all the time.

Will, this should not become a norm of the American political system, using law enforcement to try and inflict political damage on our ideological opponents. That's right. And Jordan, over these last 35 years, the ACLJ has secured many landmark victories protecting your constitutional rights, churches, pro-life advocates, everyday Americans. But we are not stopping now. Give today in our 35 years of victory drive, and your donation is doubled at aclj.org.

Dr. Sekulow. We are going to get back into the Jack Smith news as well as talk about some of those documents that have been declassified related to the Russia collusion hoax and what that means going forward, as well as maybe some updates on that statute of limitations issue that a lot of people have been talking about, concerned about, but how many people in the government currently are viewing that as the DOJ investigates and reviews all that material that came from the Office of Director of National Intelligence as well as the CIA and the FBI. But we do want to take a little bit of a pivot here.

So stick around. You're going to want to hear this, but also know we will be getting back to that other topic. And you can call us at 1-800-684-3110 if you have questions or comments related to anything we're talking about today. But we did want to take a little bit of a pivot here, Jordan, because earlier in this year, you were at the UN. You went and you gave an oral intervention speaking out about the atrocities that we're seeing in the DRC and how Christians are being targeted by an ISIS-affiliated group and just the horrific nature of that.

And today, and we have C.C. Heil joining us as well, we're going to talk about these submissions that we have sent to the UN. We are filing them today on not just the Congo, but other nations as well. But, Jordan, I want to get your reaction to this: we saw another massacre of Christians in a church just last week in the DRC. While much of the world is now focused on a peace agreement or at least a ceasefire between Rwanda and the DRC, we still see ISIS targeting Christians, and we've known that that was happening, but we can't stop pointing this out and getting the world to react to this.

You're talking about 70 killed, you know, among the people. Ago, 40 plus killed just last week inside a church, children being killed because they happened to be Christian. And again, you've got these ongoing civil wars and these conflicts. And unfortunately, a lot of these international institutions, while they will condemn these as human rights violations and crimes against humanity, what they don't want to do is actually admit that this is targeting of Christians. And that's what we have to, again, continue.

And that's what I did at the United Nations. While we've had other regional organizations like the European Union and the Council of Europe acknowledge that the targeting has been religious-based, the UN has not taken that step yet. And so we need to see that being done as well to make sure people realize this is like dealing with how we dealt with ISIS in the past. They are specifically targeting and trying to eradicate Christians in this region of the Congo. And we're working on the ACLJ.

And I think that on all the issues that we work on internationally, At the American Center for Law and Justice and through our international affiliates. When it comes to protecting the lives of our Christian brothers and sisters, I think that that's priority number one: you've got to do everything you can to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, but are willing. to they can take the easy way out. You know, I always want to remind people this kind of a sober moment. They could always take the easy way out and say, you know what?

I'm giving up this faith. This is not worth it. I'm living in a tough place already. There's civil war. Putting another target on my back is unnecessary.

So I'll just convert to whatever I need to convert to to get to, so at least that, you know, I don't have to be worried about being killed. They aren't. They're dying for their faith. They're modern-day martyrs as we speak. And I believe as an organization, as a country that is blessed with resources, even in our toughest economic times, we're doing the best economically than the rest of the world, that we've got to help those brothers and sisters.

That's right. And CC, we are filing today at the UN. And I think it's important people realize, you know, the UN in the United States, a very contentious relationship, to say the least, especially with the Trump administration. But the importance of us being at the UN, especially when we talk about these countries that you're going to go through here. In a minute, they receive a lot of support from the UN.

And if we can get the UN to listen and start to realize they need to be protecting the Christians and other minorities within their country, there actually can be real pressure and real change. It's not like us having to go to Congress and try to see legislation passed or an investigation open. But when they're receiving a lot of aid, a lot of money, a lot of support from the United Nations, if we can get the UN to listen, then there can be change. There can be assurances of protection for minority groups. But you were just telling me some of the things from some of these other nations, not just the DRC, that we're filing today.

Tell our audience some of these atrocities that we are seeing because our lawyers, our team has contacts on the ground, is able to get a lot of this information. And this isn't anywhere in the news. You're not going to hear this anywhere else.

Well, and I'm going to start with the DRC first, going back to what Jordan just said. Yes, there are martyrs. There. And we point that out in our report about the. Young lady who was captured, and she was absolutely asked to renounce her faith in Jesus Christ.

And when she refused, they said, Well, then you will suffer before we kill you. And they horrifically tortured her before they did kill her. They left her for dead, but then she died hours later.

So, yes, there are martyrs, and we point that out again in the DRC. It's not just a humanitarian problem. The ADF, since July, has killed over 100 people and they've displaced more than 50,000. And those are Christians because the ADF is targeting them for their faith. They target you if you have a name Joseph or Maria.

So it's specific Christian targeting. We point that out. But like you said, we filed in other countries, India, Nigeria, and Syria. And in India, believe it or not, this is ridiculous. We point out that a BJP member of the Legislative Assembly, he literally.

He himself put out a bounty for attacking and killing Christians, literally saying, if you assault a priest, I'll give you $3,500. If you break his bones, I will give you $5,800. And if you kill him, I'll give you $13,000. This is from a member of the government. And then another shocking event in India.

Two nuns were just going to another state there, and they were traveling with three Christian girls who have been Christians since they were young, Christian girls, traveling with them to go volunteer at a hospital. They were stopped at a train station because of Hindu Just radicals. And they literally, those two nuns were arrested for human trafficking. They stayed in jail for eight days before they got out on bail. Two nuns, because they're traveling with three Christian girls.

But those are the anti-conversion laws that are going on in India. And those are the most ridiculous types of things that are going on. Bounties on Christians, nuns being literally arrested for human trafficking.

So we point that out again: that this is strict persecution of Christians. We do the same thing with Nigeria, where we know more Christians are killed there than anywhere around the world. All the deaths that are happening, the international or the internal displaced persons, we point that out. The same thing with Syria. We've talked about that.

We point at the Christian persecution, and you can't forget that. That's right. And Jordan, as we go into this break here, I just want to remind people why this work takes resources. Yes. We see results when we engage at the UN.

We have offices around the world. And when you support the ACLJ, you are supporting those people that we are advocating for that are losing their lives, being tortured, having a bounty put on their head just because they are a Christian. And that's why it's so important to support the ACLJ. Yes. And again, during this 35 years of victory drive right now, where you can double the impact of your donation, you go to aclj.org/slash 35.

You can go to aclj.org as well if that's easier for you to make that donation, to have it doubled. Remember, this is life-saving work. You know, I think there's two kinds of work that we do that truly is life-saving. One is on the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters. One is on the life issue when it comes to abortion here in the United States and around the world.

You're actually saving lives when you get victories. When you are, first you have to expose it and then you have to prevent it and stop it. And that's what we are always working on here. It never ends. And that's why the resources can always be utilized.

There's never enough resources. There's always more that can be done to save lives. Donate today at aclj.org. Have that donation doubled. We'll be back.

Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow in our second half hour, and we're going to get back into more of this news about an investigation into special counsel Jack Smith and whether or not there were violations of the Hatch Act in his investigation. But we're also going to get into some of the intel and issues and documentation that's been released over the past several weeks by the CIA Director John Ratcliffe or the Director of National Intelligence, our former colleague Tulsi Gabbard, Cash Patel, and all of the things that is starting to come to light. And I see comments, Jordan, on YouTube, on Rumble that there is a sense of getting jaded a little bit because, yes, it was 10 years ago.

We knew that it was very bad. We didn't necessarily know they were writing it down how bad it was, but we did know that it was bad. It was an attempted coup. Right. But if you're a skeptic that anything will happen, and once again, we have to let the DOJ do their investigation, but we believe that accountability is needed.

But if you're a skeptic that anything will happen, because you have unfortunately seen Washington be so broken before, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. I want to hear from you. I want to talk with you about this with Jordan on here because it does feel like a new era. Unlike the first Trump administration, which we know from day one. Had the deep state actively trying to undermine his administration.

We've seen the text messages from Peter Strzzok and Lisa Page. We know that James Comey tried to send in spies to investigate General Flynn in the early days. Why? Because he could. Like, those are actions that should never happen in America.

Those are third-world country actions where the two of the first Trump administration. I would say this: the first Trump administration had two dueling tasks, right? They had to run the country. And be the leader of the world, which we are in the United States, and also deal with the entire federal bureaucracy attempting to take down the presidency. And that could be also Congress through impeachment, that could be through investigations, and then when that didn't work.

They said, you know what? Let's let's try to end this guy politically and his movement forever. And so maybe he won't run again. And so we'll appoint Jack Smith three days before he makes his announcement. And I love this point, too, that we, you know, forget because this is, again, this is years ago now.

Jury selection was set, began just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Right. I mean, Jack Smith was rushing things way beyond the playbook to try and, I get it, not to actually get to any kind of conclusion. It never did. Right.

It was the whole idea was: how do you dirty up a political opponent? You start having grand juries. You start having in that selection, and the media starts talking about it just two weeks before people start deciding who they want to select as their nominee to take on. You know, at that time, it was Joe Biden.

Well, and you have to also think that Attorney General Merrick Gartland waited to appoint the special counsel. It's not like this investigation that he was originally tasked with, the January 6th investigation. And also the Mar-a-Lago raid, those happened. Earlier on. Obviously, January 6th happened before Biden was even President.

To wait until President Trump was deciding to run again four years later. And they are so obvious with their motives that this isn't about actually seeking justice. This isn't actually about an investigation we think that the American people need. It was all because of politics. And that's why this is a necessary investigation.

Now, as we mentioned, the Hatch Act violation from this U.S. office of special counsel isn't something they would prosecute. And Jack Smith is no longer a government lawyer, but they could also refer their findings over to the DOJ if they see that these are violations of the law that could be criminal in nature that could be prosecuted. Right. And that's what's important here: ultimately, the office of the special counsel can refer this to the Department of Justice for potential criminal prosecution.

So they have to find the wrongdoing on their end. And if they believe that wrongdoing went to even the next level, they pass that off and they encourage the Department of Justice to open an actual criminal investigation.

So it's a little different than what you guys were talking about last week with Comey and with Brittany. This is more of a two-step process, but still a very important process for the rule of law in our country. You know that we have been fighting at the ACLJ for election integrity, and those fights were. Work. Just look at the last election cycle.

You fight back, you get election integrity. Donate today at aclj.org. Double the impact of your donation. That's ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow.

Will Haynes here, joined by Jordan Sekulow in studio, and we are going to shift our focus a little bit. And I encourage you to call in at 1-800-684-3110. Remember, Jordan worked with his dad on the team that was representing the President during this special counsel probe from Robert Mueller. And really, a wealth of knowledge on this topic because you lived it more so than any of us could ever imagine. But as we look at some of these things that are being revealed, and once again, I encourage you to call.

If you have questions or if you're fed up with the way that Washington works and you don't think we'll ever see accountability, call us at 1-800-684-3110 because that is a common refrain we're hearing from people. You know, it's been 10 years. Why is this important now? Why is we'll never see accountability? But we can't live like that here at the ACLJ.

We know we have to keep fighting for accountability to protect the Constitution, to protect our republic. That's Benjamin Franklin. A republic, madam, if you can keep it. We're fighting to keep it. That's what we're here for.

This is an important time as we're seeing all this revealed. And I want to play this from the CIA director, John Ratcliffe. He was on with Trey Gowdy over the weekend because it also is important why, you know, while all of those deep state actors were helping Bob Mueller and everything was kind of at a stalemate at the FBI and the DOJ under the first administration, and then you had four years under President Biden's administration. Where obviously they weren't going to be doing anything to help out or get to the truth of this. Why, you know, even now, They didn't just walk in and release it on day one.

Why, even now, they are still finding things and discovering burn bags that had the classified annex to the Durham report that was marked for destruction in a burn bag, but was hidden and able to be found by Director Patel. Let's listen to the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, Byte 7, about why they are even now still uncovering these items in these classified documents, Byte 7. People need to understand that there is no Russia collusion hoax file cabinet at the FBI or at the CIA. We have to look for these documents, sometimes that are well hidden. You have to go trace through emails and look for signs and clues that would point you to.

That's how I found John Brennan's notes, and that's how we found additional documents. I've talked with FBI Director Patel. He and I will be declassifying additional documents that show just how sinister the FBI was in amplifying Hillary Clinton's steel dossier as real and credible to be included in the intelligence community assessment, but also in how they buried the counterintelligence referral memo that I mentioned before. How they went to great lengths to try and keep that out of the intelligence community assessment. Jordan, when you look at what we knew from the public side and also from the work that you were doing side, that obviously there was no collusion between President Trump and Russia, that it It felt manufactured that the the way that that James Comey, who was Justifiably fired, especially now.

And remember, they were wanting to impeach him, and they had triggered a special counsel all over just firing the FBI director, and now knowing everything he had done leading up to this, one of the most justifiable firings, maybe in the history of government. But you start to look at this and realize how coordinated it was, how sinister these actions were. That there's that old adage: you know, like whatever they accuse you of doing, that's what they're doing themselves. As they've repeated these cries of trying to destroy democracy, a threat to democracy. What is a bigger threat to our constitutional republic than the intelligence agencies, the office of the current President, the law enforcement agencies of this country?

Specifically targeting the incoming duly elected next President because they're a different political party and wanting to make sure you ruin their presidency so they don't get anything done. Yeah, I mean, it's huge. I mean, it is the biggest kind of scandal because you are directly impacting the way that the American people decided who they want their leader to be and how they want the direction of the country to be set by that leader, by the President. And then you come in as unelected bureaucrats and say, you know what, we're going to make it as difficult as possible for that person who was elected by the American people to do the job that the American people elected them to do, to carry out the policies, to put in force the issues and the people, the staffing, so that they can carry out the mission that they ran on, that the promises they made. We're going to make it as difficult as we can for them to do so by using the legal system and by using the criminal law enforcement system.

And I think it's also that reminder that if it can happen to the President of the United States, it can obviously happen to anyone in the United States.

So if his home can be raided, Your home can be rated. Our home can be rated. I mean, that's just, it sets that fear standard even higher.

Now, I'm proud of the American people for standing up and saying, you know what, strength and numbers. President Trump wanted to run again, most people would not have survived this. Even if you didn't go to jail, even if you didn't, nothing, because none of this was real, you would have just walked away, right? You're a billionaire in your 70s. You would have said, you know what?

I love my country. I tried to serve. People put me in the place to do so. And the government made it impossible for me to fully carry out my goals. We had a goofy election.

And I think what Tulsi Gabbard said, too, in her latest report, too, the fact is that what you find here is that the Russians had all this information about Hillary Clinton. And they also believed it's clear in their intelligence that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. They really thought that Donald Trump did not have a chance. And yet, If they wanted Donald Trump to win and they were afraid of Hillary Clinton, why did none of the information about Hillary Clinton get out? None of it.

None of that information. And instead, it was all about Hillary Clinton and her campaign and the law firms associated with it putting out information about Donald Trump being associated with Russia that Russia knew the Clinton campaign was going to try to do. But yet they supposedly had all this information on Hillary Clinton. They don't want her to win, supposedly, and yet they don't put this information out. Even though they're afraid of Donald Trump, they don't put information out that could have damaged even more so Hillary Clinton.

That's right. And I think we should take a phone call here because one of the issues that a lot of people are talking about are the statute of limitations. This is now goes back to 2015, 10 years ago, is when a lot of this started. And then, especially during 2016, you look at it. And a big question is statute limitations for many of these crimes on their face, lying before Congress or things of that nature, five-year statute of limitations.

But what we're starting to see the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, explain as well, now, once again, it's in the hands of the Department of To justice, but that he's a former U.S. attorney himself, John Ratcliffe. He understands statutory limitations. He's had to bring charges and be aware of that. Is that if this is a criminal conspiracy?

That extends the statute of limitations, especially if those people are still furthering the conspiracy by lying to Congress, obstructing justice. Is that because we're still talking about it and because they're still writing books about it, they're still doing, they work for media companies where they talk about this issue all the time, it's still a live issue. Right. And so it wasn't like they just all stopped talking about Russia once this was supposedly over. They've continued the narrative.

It continues to this day. And so I think that's why the statute of limitations issue is different than in a normal kind of criminal case. Nothing about this is normal. Right. And you can't treat it that way.

Let's go ahead and take a phone call here before the end of this break. And I encourage you to call in to 1-800-684-3110. If you have questions about this, if you have questions about even our topic, protecting the persecuted Christians abroad as we file today at the UN on Nigeria, the DRC, Syria, and India. But go ahead and give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.

Let's go ahead and take Stephen from Texas on line one. Stephen, you're on Sekulow. Hey, Stephen. Hi, how are you? We're doing well.

Hey, I'm wondering. Everyone's kind of talking about Obama and his Presidential immunity, but. It's quite possible that he could have still been involved post his. Presidential immunity because he's got the same cabinet. That Biden has, and there's allegations that he was probably the one running the Biden administration.

Why don't they pressure all the others into seeing if Obama was involved.

Well, I do think we have seen now reports about that. And I think that that is a new wrinkle that while we all believed it to be the case, well, it's now been confirmed: is that the initial intelligence report came back saying this is totally bogus. And this is after the elections. They know Donald Trump is coming in. And President Obama ordered the intelligence community to go back and rewrite a Russia investigation, Russia interference narrative.

It was a completely different narrative than what the entire IC, the intelligence community, had been telling the government. They wanted to, as they would in any of our elections, sow discontent. And they wouldn't really care about who it impacted. They didn't really care about Democrat or Republican. In this case, it was interesting.

They were more worried about Hillary Clinton, supposedly, yet they didn't put out any information about Hillary Clinton.

So maybe they were actually a little bit more scared about Donald Trump because he was not a known figure. They know the Russians know how to deal with the Clintons. They know how to deal with lifelong politicians. What they didn't know what to deal with is Donald Trump because he had no real political record.

So, again, when you want the expertise on this and when you realize how big these issues are for you, your kids, your grandkids, for the future of our country, it's much bigger than Donald Trump. It's bigger than President Obama. It's about will our country survive as a nation built on the rule of law. And that's what we're all about at the American Center for Law and Justice.

So as we celebrate 35 years of victory, hey, there's 35 years of more victories that we need to fight for as well. And we need the resources to do that. We go up against some of the biggest organizations, governments, corporations, or agencies in the world. We need your support. Donate today.

Double the impact of your donation. Donate. Aclj.org. It will be doubled. ACLJ.org.

Um Welcome back to Sekulow final segment of the day. Go ahead and get your phone calls in if you want to speak to us, 1-800-684-3110. And we are going to go straight to the calls. This is Kim calling from Colorado, who is a champion. Kim, you're on Sekulow.

God bless you guys and all you do. I. You asked if I believe that the Democrats will get punished. We're doing Wrong. And I've not seen it.

I've not you know it's It breaks my heart, you know, because If there is no punishment What's the deterrent? No, I agree. I think that you have to remember, Kim, that this takes time. And because of our partisan nature of our political system, we've just had a handful of months to even start these investigations from the executive branch, from the actual branch that can bring criminal charges against individuals, to even launch criminal investigations, to even launch the Office of Special Counsel investigation into Hatch Act violations that would then potentially lead to Department of Justice. That's only had a few months to exist.

I will agree with you that it does seem, and I think this is just the difference between Republicans and Democrats currently. I don't know if the Democrat Party is going to stay this way or not, but currently the Republicans are much more independent individually. Right. And we are more independent individually as voters as well.

So on some of those issues, we don't just line up and say, you know what? We should just. Let's just go to the bigger picture. I don't think most Republicans or conservatives think that the way our political process should work is that we should put in prison our political opponents. And that that's not the starting point for every campaign.

It should not be, can we dirty this person up to make them look like a criminal? And then ultimately not just use that for political rhetoric, but actually make good on that and try to, you know, bring charges against them. That's not really what we're about.

So we had to wake up to lawfare, defend it initially, defend against it.

Now we get to go on the offensive. And I think that the legal process, again, it takes time. We talk about that all the time here. And of course, at the ACLJ. But now we are able to go on the offense and we have, but it's still a limited amount of time.

Right. Well, and that's why I do like that Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe are, and Cash Patel are being forthcoming about what they have. They're trying to do because there's a week. How many times a week, Will, do you read an article about them going to push Cash Patel out, Tulsi Gabbard out? Why do you keep seeing those articles in the mainstream media?

Not because of the policy that they're working on day to day for the American people. That's their most important job, by the way. It's because of this work. Washington, D.C. wants to sow discord within the Trump administration so that these individuals who are smart, very capable, independent minds won't expose Their potential criminal conduct.

And so, if you can get the infighting that we've seen, and the commentators, and the influencers, and everyone else saying this person should go and we should fire this person, that person goes, guess what never happens? Investigations. Look at the difference between how long people serve in democratic administrations. I mean, it's like forever. Like the caller said, you go from the Obama administration to Biden with the gap in between, same people, or it's just their deputies.

And so the deputies of those people are now the directors. They don't eat their own. And what they know is that with a little bit of prodding, we have been a little bit, we've been a lot more open to eating our own because we hold our politicians and elected officials and government officials rightfully so to a higher standard. But we have to deal with reality right now. And reality is we've got to root out this corruption of our legal system.

Let's go ahead and take Bill calling in from Michigan on line four. He's watching on YouTube. Bill, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Mm.

Think or taking my call. What I'd like to say is the statute of limitations.

Now, these people withheld evidence from congressional committees. I know Debi Debbie Wasserman Schultz when they found her. laptop, these two guys that worked for her, they found it in a airport laptop where these guys were running and getting back to their home country and they left it there. And she was threatening the New York City police and I do believe the FBI do not open that, do not open that laptop, do not look at it. and come to find out she was talking with uh The Saurids Foundation, right.

Bill, you know, your point is that, you know, there's been so much obstruction, is what it looks like, especially when Cash Patel finds the classified annex to the Durham report, what was just declassified last week, that really detailed how the Russians had picked up on the Soros Foundation talking with Debbie Wasserman Schultz about Hillary Clinton's plan to frame President Trump as being an asset of Russia. And that's going to, the FBI is going to add oil to the fire and make this spread. And that is the entire game plan. They knew about that, and then they still went ahead with it. They almost looked at it and said, great idea.

They were trying to hide that. And I think that that's where. All of this comes down to it's not a normal investigation. I think they have a lot of leeway because of things like obstruction. If the conspiracy, if they're looking at it as a conspiracy, the conspiracy didn't end right before the election.

Right. The documents weren't provided. As you heard from Radcliffe, you heard Director Ratcliffe say that they are having to put teams on this to like forensically search for these documents and for these notes. That alone could amount to obstruction. The fact that you are not handing over the proper government materials to those who are incoming in the government to lead those agencies, that they are going and having to search for documents that now could be a decade old.

Now, Jack Smiths are not as old.

So I think this is the difference between looking at Jack Smith and looking at Brennan and Comey. But they did this so publicly. They still believe that you can go on TV as they do. Put this stuff out there. And talk about leaking, talk about sending agents in without the proper authority to talk to White House officials and serious advisors.

And really, what it does to me, I mean, end of the day. Is I would love to see justice for all these people. But what I really care about the most is that America doesn't fall into a trap and to where we just continue to do this to ourselves. And I see it bubbling up again with the Trump administration. And unfortunately, what I'm seeing right now is a lot of Republican infighting on issues.

And that is exactly what the Democrats want. Because if they can distract the American people away from what they did on Russia and what they did to President Trump by other, you know, what's Cash Patel singing? What's Dan Bongino thinking about this issue, that issue, or Epstein and this and that, guess what you aren't talking about? You aren't talking about the fact that the CIA, working with the rest of the intelligence community, was trying to impact and. Take down a President of the United States in real time.

That's right. And even those. And then continue to go after them, even when they were no longer President. I mean, a post-Presidential impeachment. Should never happen again in American history.

It should never have happened, but it should never happen again in American history, and yet I feel like it could. As of today, I do feel like it could. And that's why this work is so important. We can't let that happen again. We can't become a laughingstock of the world because they will say, you know what, you had a great experiment in America.

You had a great run. It didn't work. And you can even draw the through line of they were successful, even though they were not successful in not getting President Trump elected the first time. They were successful in really putting a damper on that entire first term. And then they were able to use the same playbook with the Hunter Biden laptop.

The same players went ahead and told a lie to the world that this is Russian misinformation. And what did you see the Biden administration do? They took it even further. They started sending spies in Catholic churches. They started investigating conservative school board parents that went to school board meetings.

They were like, if we can get away with it with the President, we can get away with it with everybody. That's why you local level to see accountability and you have to keep talking about this now that all this is coming to light. Be part of our 35 years. Years of Justice Drive, folks. Donate today at aclj.org/slash 35.

Your donation will be double, double the impact of that donation at aclj.org today. We'll talk to you tomorrow.