We got breaking news that DOJ launches a grand jury investigation into the Russia conspiracy. 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, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow as we kick off our 35 years of victory. Drive. We have some breaking news. And of course, you're going to hear that always here.
And I want to hear from you as well at 1-800-684-3110. You know, Will, I've always got to remind myself, and look, I got to back it up. I'm getting ahead of myself. My dad, Jay Sekulow, is going to be joining us here in just a few segments. We also have Jordan Sekulow, my brother, joining us towards the end of the show.
So it's going to be packed. Will Hainson's studio right now? I got to always remember: we have a different administration, a different kind of level of politics, a different kind of level of politician in office. Because usually, when these kinds of things happen, you know, when someone like a director of national intelligence outside of a Trump administration drops some sort of bombshell allegations or news. Months later, maybe you hear about it.
Maybe you never hear about it again. Maybe the Department of Justice sits on their hands. Maybe they will get around to it. But this has been an ongoing progress that you could watch very quickly over the last few weeks. As now, today, Attorney General Pambandi has directed her staff, and that is right, that the DOJ is going to launch a grand jury investigation into the Russia conspiracy, the Russia hoax, however you want to call it, saying that they were planting the seeds, the Democrats were planting the seeds.
To create that Russia hoax very early on. This is another big moment.
Now, no charges have been brought at this stage of investigation against any potential defendants, it says.
However, That doesn't mean that won't happen. And this is a big deal. I think we need to look at it from an outsider's perspective. Would you ever have thought you would have seen this from any other administration? That's right.
I think this is the turning point that everyone had been looking for because we'd been hearing things from Tulsi Gabbard for a few weeks, from the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, and a lot of it was like, you know, shocking, things that we assumed happened, but seeing it from intelligence documents and things like that that have been declassified. Was shocking to see what the government had in their possession and how they framed it and how they decided to stage this, as Tulsi Gabbard calls it, years-long coup. And then the natural thought was, well, what's going to happen about it? Will we ever see accountability? Because that's how Washington has worked for so long.
And I was on here saying probably not. You know, I was kind of one of those guys. I didn't want to be a negative nelly over here, Will, but I've seen too much. I've seen how Washington, D.C. works.
And often people are not held to any sort of accountability. Usually names are not named. And there are big moments that just kind of fall flat. But it seems like Pam Ponte's not doing that. Right.
This is the hopeful turning point where now a prosecutor, we don't know the name of which U.S. attorney has been tasked with this, which is normal. We are getting this because a source told the media that this has happened, but that they have been tasked with gathering the evidence together, putting it in the proper way to then present it to a grand jury in the hopes to get and secure indictments against individuals. This is something that many people even question if it would get to this stage because of things like the statute of limitations, et cetera. We'll get into all that.
With your dad, Jay Sekulow, why this is an important step in the next segment? Yes, we will. He'll be joining us, then Jordan will be joining us later on. I did want to say, currently, as you said, Will, this is a source that brought this an exclusive to Fox News. The Department of Justice has not said anything just yet, but President Trump has already kind of inferred about it.
That's right. So the Department of Justice normally does not comment on investigations.
However, they did give one statement that just said that the Attorney General is taking the referrals from the DNI very seriously and that we will see what happens. But now that they're at this stage, this is a big turning point and it is moving a lot faster than I think any of us ever expected. President Trump even said he's happy to hear it and later on on CNBC said he had nothing to do with it, but they deserve it.
So that is the official statement coming from President Trump. Phone lines are open from you at 1-800-684-3110 again as we celebrate 35 years of victory. And we are looking forward to 35 more years of victory. This is the big moment. This is sort of the gold month, as I've been saying.
This is what I've been looking forward to, because we're going to look back at some of the big victories we've had over the years because they have been big. They have been life-changing for so many people, even if you don't know. And again, my dad, Jay Sekulow, obviously played a pivotal part in that. He's going to be joining us in the next segment.
So stay tuned. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We, of course, are going over the breaking news item that a grand jury. Is being put together for the Russiagate conspiracy.
This is from the director, this is from the DOJ and from Pam Bondi. This is a big moment because, again, like I said, usually when you hear these kinds of reports coming in, even from a Tulsi Gabbard or a DNI, traditionally, not Tulsi specifically. A lot of times we've kind of become jaded or we don't really think anything's going to happen. But this is a big move. Our dad, Jay Sekulow.
My dad, Jay Sekulow is joining us right now, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice here, of course. Dad, I want to get your update and your thoughts on this.
Well, as you said, Logan, this is a big move. It's the most important, I'd say, critical move and holding people accountable. for the wrongdoing that they engaged in during before President Trump was President while he was a candidate in twenty fifteen and sixteen. And then, of course, for what they did Which included everything from lying to a FISA court, where a DOJ lawyer actually changed. Evidence that was permitted.
to the allegations of false testimony to the United States Congress.
So, what happens next is the grand jury will be in what's called empaneled, and that means they will come together. And witnesses will be called, and evidence will be presented. And you know, there's a couple of lawyers. that know a lot about this, and that's Jordan and me. both of us.
We have both been engaged in this case From the beginning, we knew it was a hoax. The Department of Justice at the time knew it was a hoax. And so did the intelligence community. But despite that, they brought these charges against, you know, or brought these investigations. against the President, which took up almost three years of his first term.
Well, people bring up, Dad, what's the difference between this and traditional campaign research going after somebody or doing all the things you do when you are working on an election? Of course, you have whole departments of people that are trying to dig up things or trying to find things to go after that potential candidate over. But there's a difference between that and, I guess, complete fabrication.
Well, that and complete fabrication, but also it's one thing if your political opponent's doing it. It's another if the Department of Justice is doing it. And here it was the Department of Justice working with the Flint campaign on the steel dossier. We know of the communications between Bruce and Nelly Orr. Remember that he was the number four ranked.
individual in the Department of Justice. We can't forget that for a moment.
So when the government puts its finger on the scale, that's where there's illegality. It's not allowed to do that. Both constitutionally and statutorily.
So, this will be an important investigation. We need to caution everybody. These things move at a regular pace. They're not expedited. But this is important.
And the ACLJ has a unique role here, and that is We know a lot of the evidence because we were the lawyers at the time. And there's ways for us to supplement. Get information out, not just on air, but legally as well. And we will be looking at all of those options. And that's why it's so important for our members who are celebrating this month thirty-five years of victory To let's get another victory.
We're on the beginning stages of what could be the ultimate. Victory as far as this politicization of the Department of Justice goes. And when you look at one, the way that Pam Bondi with the DOJ is handling this, they accepted a criminal referral from the Director of National Intelligence as well as from the CIA. They task people with it. They're going through the regular channels.
They're not all of a sudden just blowing up the system, trying to make something completely different, which is what happened before. But a lot of people also may be looking at this and thinking, you know, why is it so important now that there be accountability, that the truth does come out? And I think it ties directly in with the work that the ACLJ has done throughout its course, and that is protecting the Republic, protecting the Constitution. That if the truth doesn't come out about this, I think it's very damaging to the future of the Republic and the way that our government operates. I just want to get your take on that.
Yeah, it's not just that this has happened and this was bad and it shouldn't happen again. It actually interfered. with the Article two functions of the Presidency. Remember, I was involved in I think it was ended up being four cases for the President at the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with all of these issues of the government coming in and remember Congress subpoenaing his personal records, and we were successful in that and the court saying you had to meet a very high standard, which they had not met. But the end result is, and I think this is what's important, the activities that took place interfered with the President's capacity to govern.
or certainly made it more difficult. And that's what we can't have in a constitutional republic. And that's why people that do this have to be held accountable so that the next group. doesn't think about. interfering with the Presidential election because they don't like that candidate.
We're already starting to see some of the usual suspects in the more mainstream and left media say that, you know, this is a waste of time or that they're mischaracterizing this. One, we know that that's not true. But even we're starting to see some, and I saw it on Morning Joe this morning, where they said that this is so highly irregular that we know about this. But the reality of this is that. One, this is a source saying that there's a grand jury investigation.
This wasn't a press release from the Department of Justice. We don't know who the prosecutor is. We don't even know the targets. How many times during the Trump years did we get news that there was a grand jury impaneled?
So we're seeing this shock from the left all of a sudden because their narrative is crumbling. But in reality, it appears the Department of Justice is taking this very seriously and doing it through the proper and necessary channels.
Well, here's the proper and necessary channels. There was a referral from the DNI, our former colleague Tulsi Gabbard. There was a referral from our friend and former now current CIA Director John Ratcliffe. He was a member of Congress. He was on my our impeachment team.
So we've got a long history with him. And they made a referral to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice. then looks at the information that's gathered. And they take it.
Yeah. I will n I was in the n I think it was the uh Space and Science Museum, or one of the museums in Washington, D.C., when there was a phone call I got from the press, we've heard there's been three panel grand juries unpaneled: one in Florida, one in California. and one in New York against the President. And they were leaking this stuff out all over the place.
So look, I mean, this is Washington, things get out, but at the end of the day, What's important here is this is the beginning of the first phase holding people accountable. For actions they took which damage the Republic. Dad, I want to take this call. Bill from Wyoming, who's watching on aclj.org. He's got a question I think you'd have the expertise to answer.
Bill, go ahead. Yeah, thanks for taking my call. Um I appreciate given uh my monthly uh Oh, donations to help you guys out. I served on a couple of jury duties, and I understand how that works. But how do they assemble the members for a grand jury Especially in this case, you know, in Washington DC.
Yeah, so it's a little bit different than what you experience in a jury, where you were in a room with a lot of people and they do this and the lawyers ask questions. It's not that. You are asked to participate, summon, basically, to serve on a grand jury. You get a notice, like you got your notice to serve on a jury. The difference is it's then not up to the lawyers as to whether you're qualified or not.
There will be a presiding judge that supervises the grand jury. Remember the burden of proof in the grand jury you get A a indictment issued is only probable cause But to prove it at trial, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt with a different standard when it goes to trial. But that's how it works.
So it'll be a grand jury of peers. A grand jury of citizens of whatever a district, they decide to bring the grand jury in. Yeah, Bill, thanks for your call. And, Dad, as we wrap up this segment, I did give one to give you a minute because we are pivoted from the 35 years of justice drive, which, of course, was talking about all of what we were doing and what we are going to be doing in the future. But now we are celebrating this month.
This month, I wanted to make sure we were developing this whole program. I said, you know what? We're not looking back. We're not talking enough about the big victories that really have not only shaped the work of the ACLJ, but have shaped the world in general, have shaped the United States and around the world, thanks to people like you and our team here for the last 35 years.
So, I want to give you a moment as we celebrate 35 years of victory. uh of why people need to still support the work of the ACLJ.
Well, the work is ongoing. It's more complex. It's different. You change over time. Nothing is static in the law or in the cases that we take.
We had the unique experience of representing President of the United States, government leaders abroad. Uh as well as people that listen to this broadcast that had a child in school that was put in a very compromising situation with a speech that she was required to give, and we went to court. The same lawyers that represented President Trump are representing that represented that student. And I think about the overturning of Roe versus Wade and the change that that's made. But look, the battle continues, and we have to be aggressive here.
And that means not only exposing the truth, but also Changing or modifying the law as it relates to religious freedom and free speech. And when I say modify the law, make sure we're standing up for the First Amendment. Those cases don't change. As like I said, it's more complicated now. We've got a great team in place, a great group of young people coming up in leadership.
I'm very pleased. Support the work of the ACLJ as we celebrate 35 years of victory at ACLJ.org. That's right. The only reason we can be in these fights and help protect the Constitution and move forward is because of 35 years of victory. We make sure we do our best.
We take cases that we think, not only think we can win, that we know we can win. It's obviously a battle always, but we need your help. Make the next 35 years of victory possible. Have your donation doubled today. That's ataclj.org or scan the QR code right now that you see on the screen.
We couldn't do it without you. Welcome back to Sekulow. Again, we're going to take your calls, and I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. My dad was just on, so if you missed that, go listen to that later on. And my brother's going to be joining us in just a few minutes.
So make sure to stay tuned for that.
Now, Will, we were talking in the break that you wanted to go over a bit of how the media is covering all of this. That's right, because the media so desperately wants this administration to be authoritarians, that they're dictators, that they throw out the Constitution. But in reality, what you've seen is that they are going by the law and they're actually trying to expose and hold accountable those that did the very thing they're accusing President Trump of doing, using the executive power and executive branches and intelligence agencies to try and get after their opponents and ruin their careers, ruin their lives, and put them. uh hamper their ability to govern. That's what they did.
And now that the truth is coming out, and now that we're seeing the actual documents, they are trying to spend this so desperately. And this is a clip from Morning Joe. I referenced it earlier with your dad, but I just, it was so. Crazy to me how much spend they're trying to put on this about how bad this is that we're finally about to see some accountability. And that we're hoping we see accountability.
This is from David Rode. He was on Morning Joe. He was talking with Willie Geist, and he's the senior executive editor on national security for NBC News. And I want you to hear what he has to say, and then I'm going to break it down for you. But this is bite seven.
But the one thing we do know, Jonathan Lemire, is this is extraordinarily stupid. It's extraordinarily stupid on so many counts. If you look at the timeline, The timeline doesn't add up. It's like when Donald Trump is saying that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Hey, we're going to pull out of that.
That was actually the wrong bite selected. Let me know when you guys have the right one ready. Let me know. Just give it a minute. We'll keep talking here.
Let's go ahead and take a phone call real quick before we get that loaded back up. Let's go to Ann, who's calling in Pennsylvania, who is listening on the radio. And again, phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Hey, you know, we're live now. And go ahead.
Hi, guys. Thank you so much for all the work you do. I'm so glad that Jay is on the show. And I have a question, but we've been knowing this for a very, very long time. Uh and Obama, you know, was the Head honcho, if you will.
My question is, and we're hearing a lot of this in the Christian, I mean, a conservative media world. That President Obama most likely will have immunity, but then we're also hearing that he could be. compelled to To testify, and that if he lies, he'd be committing contempt of court.
Now, my question is. Could he be forced to testify if they grant him Presidential immunity?
So it is a good question, and obviously it's very complex because this, fortunately, this is not something that we've ever had to deal with. That's right. But so the theory, as Ann's discussing, is that because of the Supreme Court decision with President Trump, getting immunity, that he has Presidential immunity for official acts, and that him directing the intelligence agencies and the national security team to investigate something isn't in and of itself outside of his power as an official act, even if it led to this treasonous conspiracy and if he was the one giving that directive.
So that's where you start with the very novel theory that we're dealing with here that that would be falling under the Presidential immunity ruling. Even President Trump kind of admitted that, you know, I helped him out. He owes me a lot on this. When you extrapolate that out, there are people saying that if there is no threat of prosecution, Because of Presidential immunity. then you can't take your First Amendment, I'm sorry, your Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate before investigators, and therefore you can't plead the Fifth.
So that's kind of the theory that people are extrapolating out. Therefore, he would be compelled to testify. There's also people who have suggested the President, the current President, Trump, should give him or reiterate immunity or some sort of pardon or clemency. in saying you have to testify and therefore he cannot go before them and not say anything. I think it's a really untested theory.
I think there's a lot of these are. There's a lot of executive privilege issues that also come out of this. Things that President Trump for with your dad fought for saying you cannot force a lot of these things into the public because this is deliberative privilege. This is executive privilege. This is the inner workings of government.
Some of these things aren't decided on.
So you don't want that to taint the way that the world looks at the outcome. And things of that nature that would have to go through. There'd be a lot of scrutiny. And I think President Obama, who has done very well for himself, has a lot of money for attorneys to help fight this out in perpetuity. I don't know that they would be able to get what they want or need from him in a short term, that it would be able to prolong it for years.
We've only got a couple minutes left in this segment. Did you want to go back to it? I think we have the bite loaded. Let's go ahead and play this bite when one of them is. Reset it up, yeah.
David Rode, he's a senior executive editor on national security for NBC News. And this is how he was trying to spin this grand jury investigation that we're finding out from a source telling Fox News. Let's go ahead and roll that bite. We don't know what the crimes are that are alleged here. We don't know who is being targeted and we don't know where this grand jury will sit.
And all of that's very concerning. Normally in the prosecution process in this country, no one is indicted. No investigation is announced or anyone is indicted before a grand jury has heard evidence and a fellow citizen decides this other citizen should be charged with a crime. Here we have an approach where there's sort of a, you know, the director of national intelligence makes a sweeping allegation potentially that the former President of the United States was involved in a treasonous plot. And then you have the attorney general announcing that she is launching a criminal investigation of this plot.
But again, we don't know the charges. We don't know where they're going to investigate or who it's going to be. Here's why this is so disingenuous to me. All of that's very concerning. Then he goes on to say that the normal process is.
You wouldn't know what the alleged crimes are, who the alleged targets of the investigation are, or where the grand jury is going to sit.
So he's saying that that's the normal process, but because that's the normal process, it's concerning to him. He also goes on to talk about the director of national intelligence who laid out the evidence to the American people, but also did a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. All that is a very normal process. And then, what did the DOJ do? They accepted the criminal referral and they started looking into it.
This news about the grand jury investigation isn't something that they put a press release out about. It's a source told Fox News. How many times over the last four years, eight years, your entire lifetime, have you seen articles that are written because a source told them a grand jury's been impaneled? Or a criminal referral has happened. That is par for the course out of Washington, D.C.
But they are in such a tailspin right now because things that they wrote and got Pulitzer Prizes about, the lies that they perpetrated on the American people for years. And that they took as gospel truth that Russia and President Trump colluded together, no matter what any of the special counsels said, no matter what anyone after their reports put out, no matter all the clearing of wrongdoing on the President's campaign back in 2016, they still believe this lie. And if something happens that chips away at their truth, they are going into a tailspin. And that's what the problem is. They don't care about the truth.
They care about their truth, which was a lie from the beginning. With that being said, we got a second half hour coming up. I want you to join us whether you're joining us live. If you want to join us live, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time, we are available on YouTube, on Rumble, easily on aclj.org.
Of course, you can catch us archived later on.
Some of you don't get the full half hour or the second half hour on your live local station, so you can find us broadcasting live on all those platforms. But again, later on, it's archived. You can always go back and listen and watch our show, and you should watch it. It's full television stop production if you're just listening. It's a great way to do it.
Over 500,000, 512,000 views. Join us on YouTube alone.
So, I encourage you right now to give us a call as we head into this second half hour. And as we celebrate 35 years of victory, consider becoming an ACLJ supporter or champion as your donations are doubled right now during this golden month. That's right. 35 years of ACLJ victories. My brother Jordan Secular joining us in just a moment.
Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. It is a Tuesday, it's August 5th.
I looked over at Will 'cause when I said Tuesday, I was making sure. My days are all topsy-turvy. I know, I wasn't here to tell what day is which day. I was in Canada. I don't know if we're allowed to admit that.
Yeah, I think that's not a good thing to broadcast these days. Look at the falls. It's pretty cool. On the American side, we get that caller a lot. But you know what?
It was actually easier to fly in the other way. We are going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. And again, my brother Jordan Sekulow is going to be joining us in just a moment. He just walked in the studio.
And we're going to continue this discussion, Will, but let's start by resetting it because a lot of people join us just for the second half hour. The Department of Justice has announced they are launching a grand jury investigation into the Russian gate conspiracy. And of course, this comes on the heels of Tulsi Gabbert releasing all the content. Referring it, and now we're seeing real movement. That's right.
So, this is a source told Fox News. It wasn't like a press release from the Department of Justice. But what we're seeing now is that apparently. Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed her staff to act on the criminal referral from the DNI. And that is related to all that evidence that Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe have put out.
And we've seen the declassified Durham annex, we've seen all of these things. But this criminal referral is now in the hands of the DOJ. And they're starting this entire investigation with a grand jury. Which will the steps would be: they put it together, put the evidence together, they then present it to a grand jury after one is impaneled, and then. We will see if there's indictments to follow.
The old adage in the law is that you can indict a ham sandwich, that that is one of the least adversarial or difficult portions of the criminal case. The line out of three stooges. It is true, though. In most cases, except for the location of this grand jury, as you talked about, could be very indicative of is it as easy to indict? And especially if it originates in Washington, D.C.
I don't think it has to. Because there was movement in New York. That may not be a great place to go, but there was movement in Florida as well. I mean, you have locations where the President lives, where he's located. And so they know at the DOJ the different places where they're limited in bringing jurisdiction.
And that could play a very important role when it comes to the grand jury. And Jordan, on top of that, the U.S. attorney out of Florida was just confirmed recently in the past few days. And that was even amid all of the hang-ups when it comes to. To a lot of these nominations that the Senate Democrats have tried to block and stall, that there was a U.S.
attorney who is the first of President Trump's second term, first U.S. attorney to get confirmed. I know that Judge Janine Pirow also was confirmed after this individual, but that could open up an angle where a newly appointed U.S. attorney in Florida wouldn't have been a holdover from the Biden administration. If they were to go that route, it would be a lot more favorable for the government to actually pursue it there if that is the case and they choose to go there.
Yeah, I mean, this is exactly what was done in my mind, inappropriately with President Trump: you find these grand juries and you can't indict. It's easy. I mean, it's basically you send in sometimes just a couple of agents and they don't have the same rules of evidence. You know, it's not adversarial. It's just the government going in and saying, this is what we believe was illegal conduct.
Here's the evidence. But they can also present evidence that there would not be.
So, because this is to bring the indictment itself. And so, I think, again, for those who have been waiting for some action on this, this is the next step. This is the next step. There's actual action happening, which is pretty impressive. We're going to talk about that when we get back.
Phone lines are open for you. We got three lines still open at 1-800-68-430-110 as we are celebrating right now our 35 years of victory here at the ACLJ with our 35 years of victory drive. We want you to be a part of it right now as our nation faces a very pivotal moment. We need you. The only reason we can be in all these fights, Supreme Court, or even your local courts, the only reason we could be doing this show is because of people like you.
So, right now, help protect the Constitution, help represent our clients that could be you at no cost. It's all because of you. Make the next 35 years of victory possible and have your tax-deductible gift doubled right now.
So do it right now. Go to aclj.org, you scan that QR code that you see on the screen. And if you can become a champion. That's someone that says I'm going to be dedicated to do this every month. Of course, you can cancel at any time, like any other kind of a membership program, but we'd love you to be over the 20,000 champions that are joining us.
Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you. 1-800-684-3110. You take some calls and comments as well. My brother Jordan Sekulow is joining Will and I in the studio, as these are big moments we need to make sure that we tell you all about because you have been pushing and I've been pushing.
And we've been talking about the fact that it seems like when there were these criminal referrals, we kind of go back to a James Comey kind of universe. We go back to a universe where referrals happen, and that means nothing's going to happen. And now we have a very different administration. We have to keep reminding ourselves that we have a different group of people that are in there that are taking these things seriously.
Now, whether they end up developing into something more than this, who knows? But at least we're taking that next step, which is getting assembling a grand jury. Listen, if this was a Republican. Kind of if they're if they're if they were going after Republican executive branch officials, there would be no problem in getting indictments. No problem.
But because uh these are uh leftist actors, the location of the grand jury, which shouldn't be important. in in our system of rule of law Could be very important. And I don't want to put too much weight into that because some of that will come down to the evidence that is presented. And again, evidence can be used in grand juries that's not. That's not allowed in court.
It's a very different process. That's why they use the, you can indict a ham sandwich in a grand jury. It's just a different process. But this is action. This is not just talking about, this is not just writing a report or investigation.
But remember when John Durham went to that grand jury. Was not as easy to indict as a ham sandwich. And he had trouble. That was in Washington, D.C., and then in Delaware as well.
So I think what we have to see here is a little bit more of this kind of developing. Grand jury information is held pretty tight. Ultimately, we'll likely know the location of the grand jury, at least. And this could lead to, again, very serious legal actions and repercussions for those who we believe were at least engaged in wrongdoing. And then the next level is: does the executive branch and Department of Justice have the evidence they can use in court if they get through the grand jury stage and bring indictments to actually prove that it was not just wrongdoing, but criminal?
And of course, there's some statute of limitations issues they have to get over. But as a lot of people have said, because these are individuals that are still talking about the issue, they are still very active in the issue, and it's kind of ongoing. In my mind, because we're still talking about it, that those statute limitations issues I think can be overcome. Trevor Burrus: Well, and Jordan, as well. I mean, even if you were to go a little bit more strict, even if not like public statements, where they are calling out Tulsi Gabbard and saying this is all untrue in the public eye, I mean, many of these individuals testified.
To John Durham during that investigation under oath in 2020, 2021. His report didn't come out until 2023.
So, a lot of that, I know that John Brennan spoke with him August 29th of 2020.
So, that is still within the five years. If they were to move quickly, even that, that would be the furtherance of a conspiracy within the five years if he was telling untrue things to an investigator about this based off the evidence we have now. That would meet even a very strict scrutiny of this five-year statute of limitations, I feel like. Yes, this goes to the heart of what happened here. And what we now know what happened was an intelligence report came out a few days before the President was inaugurated.
The Obama administration redid an intelligence report and kind of said it wasn't just Russia that wanted to kind of disrupt our entire election, and they didn't really care who won. In fact, they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win.
So, if they really thought that, then why on earth would you put together, you know, if you want? Wanted Hillary Clinton to win because you didn't know who Donald Trump was. Why would they deny this information? Why wouldn't they want this information out?
So they changed the intelligence report just days before President Trump's first inauguration and changed it from Russia trying to cause havoc in our elections, which would not be so shocking. Yeah. To Donald Trump being an agent of Russia. I mean, think of it. That's what this goes back to.
That is a very serious charge made by the intelligence community. It failed in the Mueller investigation, cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. And we should still be talking about it today because the rule of law matters, and making sure this doesn't happen again matters as well. I think we should go ahead and take some phone calls. There's a lot of you on hold right now.
Yeah, exactly. 1-800-684-3110. That's it, 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Gene. In North Carolina, who's listening on the, you're watching on the Salem News channel, because I think, again, this is sort of some overall sentiment that happens in these situations.
Go ahead, Jean. Good. Thank you. Thank you for doing what you do. I wanted to say, you know, we've been the American public has been watching things like this for the better part of ten years.
And everybody's got an opinion. It makes a lot of money. It's very entertaining. But until the public actually sees an elected official convicted of a crime, put in handcuffs, put in the back of a car and toted off to prison for an extended term, None of this means anything. And it's really sad.
I think these people should be held to a much higher standard. I think their lives should be completely transparent. And if they don't like that, don't run for office.
Now most of these. If you and I walked into any bank branch and we took $300, We would have a line of police cars behind us on the highway that would make the O.J. Simpson thing pale. Depending on the Simpson. Right.
That depends on the $900 threshold in some cities in California. Go ahead and take the thing. Take what you want. It's fine. Go to your local pharmacy.
But the truth is, the people who are going to be looked at the closest here, there will be some elected officials, yes, are going to be political appointees.
So they are separate than just government bureaucrats. They are the next tier downstream. These were selected by the President of the United States, that President being President Obama. Always tougher to get to the President and get to elected officials. But listen, they did to Donald Trump.
I mean, let's not forget that.
So, I don't think it's not a tit for tat. It's not like we're saying we are going to do this because you did this to Donald Trump. It's because we don't want this to happen again. If we have to have trust in our intelligence community, trust in our law enforcement community at the federal level, this cannot be business as usual. And so, moving forward with this grand jury and moving forward potentially with indictments, I think could make people feel a lot better.
About our political process, at least not being corrupted from within, so that the bad guys who are trying to maybe impact and cause chaos during our elections, that they're the ones that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are focusing on, not people running for office. But the key here is. Real actions being taken, action that could not be taken by, well, was not going to be taken by the Biden administration.
So, this is really the first chance the Trump administration or a Republican administration has had to try and bring those accountable to justice.
Well, and Jordan, I think to piggyback off what you just said, is that the difference that what we're seeing with this is one, it has to be done appropriately and correctly. And we want to see the accountability because they weaponize the intelligence agencies to interfere with an election. They weaponize the justice system to interfere with another election by going after President Trump. What we're looking at here is not going after individuals like they were. They were trying to go after President Trump and, therefore, anyone who is a conservative in this country with both the election interference in 2016 and the Presidential governing interference that they perpetrated throughout his first term, as well as then the lawfare to try and keep him out of office.
Reminder: we won, we representing the Colorado Republican Party to keep him on the ballot. But these disingenuous people on like Morning Joe and all these shows that are talking about this isn't normal to know about a grand jury process like this. First of all, we know very few details, which is the appropriate way to do this. But when you look at what they did to President Trump, the grand jury four person out of Fulton County was giving information. Interviews saying she wanted to sit across from President Trump.
That was what we had when they were trying to take him out. With this, just the fact that we know that there's been a grand jury investigation beginning, and we don't know where, or what, or what the allegations are. Is the normal process, but they were out there putting these people on TV, making a circus of it to try and drag his name through the mud, to try and hope he wouldn't get re-elected again. We're trying to stop things like that from happening again. Yes, this is not going after.
I think there's the important. Key part here. This is not trying to take down people running for office and impact the next election cycle. This is going after bad actors who are inside the government at the highest levels of our law enforcement and intelligence community.
So it's not interfering in elections. It's not trying to impact elections. It's trying to bring people to justice if there was criminal conduct. I think all of us believe there was wrongdoing here. You know, you look at the impeachment on Ukraine because they couldn't find anything on Russia.
So they went to a phone call on Ukraine. I mean, it's been one thing after another. I hope what this does is it allows the Trump administration to go to the grand jury process, you move forward that process if you get indictments. But guess what? President Trump gets to continue to govern, and we kind of are able to move this one to the professionals, let them handle the investigation.
You know, it's going to take time, but there is a clock here. There is a clock here of just a few years. Yeah, I mean, that's the main thing we got to focus on, too, is that you only have a couple years in this presidency before we definitely have to move on. And we're going to look, we're going to see midterms really kick up, and then you're going to see back to the general election very soon. I mean, every time these issues come up, you could literally print out a hundred-page just timeline.
of bullet points Of everything done to President Trump that was wrong. And that we believe, that many of us believe, was illegal. And so Where they focus, we don't know exactly, but I think the grand jury, they will be narrowly focused on the strongest arguments they have. And at least we have a team that is willing to do this fight, at least engage in it, not just ignore it. And like you said, can push it off real easily.
That's why they're trying to push Pam Bondi out. Don't be fooled. The left doesn't want Pam Bondi there because she's tough enough. She's a prosecutor. Before she was the Attorney General of Florida, she was a prosecutor.
So she knows what she's doing here, and they're scared. Yep, absolutely. Hey, we're going to take some calls coming up. If you want to support the work of the ACLJ, you know how to do it. Go to ACLJ.org.
But phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. Three lines are open right now, and we'd love to hear from you. Again, 1-800-684-3110. Be right back. Welcome back to Sec Killo.
We only have one line open right now, but we do have one line: 1-800-684-3110. We can kick this off by taking some phone calls and we'll get into it. Let's go ahead and go to Bobby in New York. I'm gonna hold for a little while there, Bobby. Thanks for holding.
Go ahead. From Niagara Falls on the American side. I'm sorry, I broke your heart, Bobby. I visited the wrong side. A fellow rascal, by the way.
What sticks in my craw more than as much as what these people did is. Is it through it all the press has been so slanderous? And I want to know if there's a possibility that as the process continues, there might be a Jake Tapper moin or somebody in the press. Or a good deal of the press might admit: look, we did the wrong thing and we shouldn't have even taken a poet's surprise. I want your reaction to all of that, and thanks very much.
Thank you, Bobby. First Amendment protects the press. It also protects the pressure. If they were reporting information that was being given to them, even in leaks, from high level government officials, Even if they were wrong. They're allowed to report on that because it's not their job.
Nor could they ever fully go through and say, is the steel dossier fully correct? I think what they did do is they used it for the salacious details. Reporting on the news is different than creating news. And it unraveled as they were reporting on it. I mean, and then they got Bob Mueller and they thought they're going to take everything down.
And guess what? Nothing happened.
Well, and I think to Bobby's point, do we think that we'll see Jake Tapper have a second revelation as he did with the book that he put out about President Biden's demise? I think he's already got his one Mia Culpa out.
So I don't know if he'll do another one anytime soon, but we'll see. The press is the press, and they're in enough trouble as it is. And most of those networks are having enough trouble. I think what we need to focus on is the actual individuals that were at play at the highest levels of our law enforcement because that's the key to restoring faith in law enforcement and faith in our elections. Yep.
Thank you for calling. Let's go to Ronald now, South Carolina, who's watching On Rumble. A lot of great people watch on Rumble each and every day. Ronald, go ahead. Hey, thanks a lot.
Take my call. One thing I was wondering is that when all this thing was being planned out, like in the old office with Obama and Hillary and everything else, I'm sure that they had contemplated what would be the blowback if all of this just caved in. And you know what? I think they honestly said That, hey, nobody can touch us, nobody can do anything to us, and I got your back. And no matter what, we will help each other out.
And I honestly would think that they were so overconfident that nothing would actually come back to them later on. Ronald, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I doubt that was even a point of the conversation. Sadly, as much as you think it may be, I doubt they were sitting in the room going, what happens if this leaks out?
Well, I mean, they said that they had an insurance plan, an insurance policy. They wanted to leak out. Yeah, the assumption is always it's going to leak out. And look, what's going to leak out is you're going to get your base fired up, even if they think it's maybe illegal.
Now, what they did not expect probably was the way the Trump presidency landed, which is obviously a term on, a term off, and then to come back and to come back with an even maybe more aggressive administration that's willing to take this. If President Trump had won in 2020 and gone into the White House, I don't even know that they would have spent this much time on this. It's the fact that there was that interim period and that now the pandemic was over. Yeah. And now we have this new fresh team.
It's not holdovers in many cases. That they have the ability to look at this with a fresh set of eyes and see what was done and really go after it.
So, for many of those individuals, the way that they've gone after him for so long may have been their biggest downfall in the end because they never expected Trump 2.0 in this way. Yep. All right.
So let's go ahead and continue on. Let's go to Eric, who's calling on line three as we start to wrap up the show. Eric, go ahead. Hi, gentlemen. Thanks for taking my call.
You had mentioned the Mueller special counsel investigation earlier, and I just wanted to remind people that they were in on this scam, too. predominantly Andrew Weissman, who was kind of the ringleader. And I just wanted to remind people, in July of twenty eighteen, they announced an indictment of, I think, twelve Russian officers for interfering in the election. And That impacted the twenty eighteen midterm election. when it went in, you know.
the Democrats.
So is there any culpability For those who were on this corrupt Mueller probe to be disbarred, to be indicted as part of this grand conspiracy. Yeah, I usually don't like. uh going after attorneys, but Lord knows they did. Yeah. And they had attorneys disbarred for for reasons I believe totally inappropriate, but they also where did they go?
They went to states that they knew would have very ho hostile uh state bars. Yeah, but you'd be kind of under the uh the feeling that you know, a lawyer, they're doing their job. Your job is to defend your client. The question is. Because these are not just at large, they're also appointed to this job, and they're kind of political actors.
Was there wrongdoing? I mean, was there criminal wrongdoing? I don't think it's wrong to say should it be looked at. I think that the focus on the grand jury here needs to be at the highest levels, the highest levels of our law enforcement, the highest levels of our intelligence community, because that's the, what you want to do is, one, you want to hold accountable wrongdoers. Two, this should never happen again.
They impeached the President after he was done. after he was out of office. I mean, it was so unheard of. Hauling him off to all the state criminal charges, federal criminal charges, Jack Smith. I mean, the list goes on and on, and even trying to impeach him when he wasn't there, and the chief justice not even showing up.
So the politics of it, horrible, but the legal side of it, let's just be strong here, know that they are taking the step that they need to take to see that justice is done. But it comes up to the grand jury that ultimately, if they get past that stage, a jury. And Jordan, when you read that classified annex that's now been declassified from the Durham investigation report, it reads like what you hear about the CIA doing in third world countries, trying to manipulate the people and the way that they get different people into power. And you always hear about the old stories of the CIA-backed coups and things of that nature. It reads like that.
It reads like a spy novel. And they weren't doing that to further American adventurism or imperialism in other countries. They were doing it right here in the United States to protect themselves. And that's what's so shocking when you read it. You realize this was done here.
And they were very effective, even if their end goal of not getting President Trump elected that Hillary Clinton was putting forward, the after-action review that they took in shifting the narrative was very effective in that first term. Yes. And what they did was, and what I told you, and I saw it in person, what they were. They tried to disrupt that presidency.
So they didn't stop, as you said.
Well, they didn't say, well, we didn't get him. He won this big election.
So we're just going to lay down. No, they immediately, right, before he even came into office. The intelligence community report was changed, and then you also had you know Mike Flynn, two FBI agents show up. That was started just day two, I think, of the White House. And it kept going while President Trump was out of office.
Because they were trying to keep him from running again. Why? Because they knew, like most of us knew, that if he ran again, he had a pretty good chance of winning. Jordan, why don't you take this last minute as we head to the end of the broadcast today? We've been talking about the ACLJ 35 years of victory.
I'm sorry, Brian and John were not going to be able to get to you today, but this is an important moment. We just got out of the 35 years of justice, but it's always important to look back and talk about the victories because without those, the world is not as safe and not as changed as it could have been without us. That's right. And we are directly involved on these kinds of issues, and we have been for the last decade on election integrity, on the rule of law. I mean, you know how involved we've been, and we continue to be.
Now it's our allies who are in those positions, our friends and allies, some of our former colleagues who are in those positions, who are able now to do what we can't as ACLJ is to bring, you know. A grand jury, bring indictments, bring criminal charges. And a lot of that stemmed from work that our team was doing over the last 10 years. Got us to this point.
So support the work of the ACLJ. Remember, go to aclj.org, double the impact of your donation, so we continue to win those victories for you and the American people. ACLJ.org.
