BREAKING: Jack Smith Wants to Go Public

In a shocking move, Jack Smith says he wants to publicly testify before Congress. 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. I know, I thought I was going to have a day where I didn't have to start the show with saying the words Jack Smith. But these producers all around me said, Logan, you have no choice. I offered. I offered you an out today.

But the out was mediocre at best. That's fair. They said, Logan, we have to say Jack Smith. You say it three times like Betelgeuse. You do three shows in a row, and he appears before Congress.

What he wants to do. You see, you beat me to it.

Sorry, I still know that is what Jack Smith wants to do. As you may remember yesterday, and Will, you can kind of brief everyone. Old Jimmy Jordan, he said, you know what? I think it's time we hear from the man himself, but let's do it behind closed doors. We'll release the transcripts, all of that.

Let's make this a serious discussion. Hold on. Jack Smith says, I'll show up. But I want to do this in front of those cameras. I want to do I want to make this a spectacle.

And you know what? As much as it's political and as much as it's hacky and as much as I think that this is how you avoid actually having to answer a lot of the big questions, I kind of want to see it. And it's going to give us a lot of content to talk about on this show. It's going to give us some new sound bites. You know, I think, as a producer, like you do, that there are some benefits to this for us, but maybe not for the American people.

And for accountability, that's right.

So, what we have here is a response from the attorneys representing Jack Smith. And this is addressed to both Jim Jordan and Chuck Grassley. Chuck Grassley is famous for his oversight, going after the Department of Justice a lot of times because he has a very soft spot for whistleblowers. He has made his whole career about protecting whistleblowers and getting accountability in the federal government. And this is a response to the request that was made last week by Jim Jordan to the former special counsel, Jack Smith, to appear in a transcribed interview.

How is that typically work? They're not going to be able to do that. With dynamic closed doors. Yeah, a little bit less formal than a deposition, but more like a deposition. Because it's a call to transcribe interview, there's more room to negotiate what the topics are, the parameters, things of that nature.

It's a little bit less formal, but it also tends to be a more serious investigative step. Uh, it's it's one stop before a full deposition. Uh, they, if you ask for that, you're not going forward with a subpoena yet, which they had not done.

So, we've been waiting to kind of see what the Jacksmith response would be, and now we have it, and I actually think. For his attorneys and for Jack Smith, it's a very clever response. One, they're already starting to lay out. Giving themselves kind of some roadblocks to the congressional oversight by saying that. He's prepared to answer questions about the special counsel's investigation and prosecution, but requires assurance from the Department of Justice he will not be punished for doing so.

He's no longer a member of the government, no longer special counsel.

So he's saying, you can't punish me if I come talk to you. He also needs guidance from the DOJ regarding federal grand jury secrecy requirements and authorization on matters he may speak to regarding things, among which is volume two of the final report, which is not publicly available. He also, in addition to providing full and accurate answers to the answers of Congress, to the questions of Congress, Mr. Smith requires access to the special counsel files, which he no longer has ability to access.

So already starting to build this, like, hey, I need assurances from DOJ. I need the permission from DOJ. I need access to all my old stuff if you really want me to.

So already putting a burden on Congress and the government. But then here's how it ends it. With the guidance and access described above, Mr. Smith is available to testify in an open hearing. At your earliest convenience.

So, not what Jim Jordan was asking for. But kind of flipping the script and saying let's do this out in the open. I mean, I kind of dig it. I get that you want to push back, and your lawyer's like, let's figure out the best opportunity for you.

So I understand why they'd want to do that. I also understand why the American people would find it incredibly interesting. What do you want? Do you want this to be a closed door thing? Or hey, are you like us a little bit as just sort of.

Fan of the game, wanting to see a little bit on the inside, let me know. Would you rather me never say the words Jack Smith on this show again? Put that in the chat, let the producers know. And phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110.

I want to hear from you. Welcome back to Secula. Phone lines are lighting up. Open still at 1-800-684-3110. As we always do, we got to restate the facts here on segment two because a lot of you skipped segment one, you miss all the fun.

Really, you should go back and listen. That's when we have good times. This is the fact-based segment. By the way, later on in the show, Rick Rinnelle's going to be joining us. We're going to talk a bit about the outrage over the East Wing.

And look, sometimes. You gotta take back. What you said, we said, Hey, look, they're like removing a facade. I saw the construction pictures. It's a lot.

They took down the whole wing. Pretty big wing. Yeah. I have a picture in the east wing in the old movie theater. Gone?

But you know what? That's okay. The movie theater? It was like built in like the 70s. Built for, I think, the Carter administration.

It's a pretty tight, it was a tight square. Maybe you need them recliner chairs. They call it the real D, what do they call the 40X? Yeah, that's around. Yeah.

Trump's like, I want to move around. I want the smoke machines. IMAX only. Yeah. Oh, put an IMAX in the.

That's why the new wing is in the ballroom. Yeah. Someone called Jimmy Cameron. Right. All right.

For Avatar, I want it done before Avatar 3 because that's why the construction is so fast all of a sudden. He's like, I got to get it done by Christmas. Got to watch that new David movie by Angel Studios. I like that King David. All right, let's go ahead and restate the facts here.

Will, that's not what we're talking about for this segment. We're talking about old Jack Smith. And old Jack Smith, you remember yesterday. Jim Jordan said, It wasn't yesterday. It wasn't yesterday.

A lot of this runs together for you. That was last week. I politely corrected you in the earlier segment. I think you're wrong. I am not wrong.

Jim Jordan asked this last week. He did. He indeed did.

Well, Logan, if you would pay attention, you would know. I don't know. It was yesterday. Yeah. I have a feeling.

It was the words Jack Smith.

Okay. I'm going to figure it out. Guess what? There's a permanent archive so we can find out what it was.

Okay, that while you're looking up. I don't know. We did a video a day ago called Jim Jordan Bombshell Evidence. And that was John Brennan. Jack Smith's shocking attack against Ted Cruz.

We're talking about the shutdown, by the way, just so we're clear.

Okay, day before that. Jack Smith's shocking attack against Ted Cruz. That was earlier this week. But we was not Jim Jordan, though. The Jim Jordan.

I'm saying John. I love it. We're doing this right now. Jack Smith. This is the moment we need to do it.

You said yesterday, Jim Jordan. That's all I'm going to get. I meant yesterday, Jack Smith. All right. Here we go.

Jack Smith. Who was he? It's hard to remember other than uh another name we don't care for. Jack Smith. They want him to come up.

They want him to testify. They want to do it behind public or behind private closed doors. Release the transcripts. All of that. Make it very In a good way, though, professional, dark, seedy.

But what he wants to do is put it up in front of the cameras, make it all razzle-dazzle, make it a moment. Because we know, you know what these politicians do, including these guys, they love the cameras. They do. They need their moment in the sun. Because if you get another moment, you get another book.

That's how it works. Another book no one reads. But you know what? You get that advance, and that's all they care about. Let's go ahead and actually take a phone call about this because we have one coming in, and what I wanted to do is inspire you to call in.

Tom. Girl the air. Hey, good morning, gentlemen, or good afternoon. Thank you. Let me first say thank you for all that you do.

to expose this criminal behavior because Frankly, unless you hold these people accountable, They're going to keep doing the same thing over and over again.

So as to your question about should this be an open hearing or a closed hearing? Absolutely should be a closed door. But Transcripts taken. Because The the politicians are We're going to grandstand. and Shobo and try to obfuscate anything that Is it uncovered by Jim Jordan and the other reports?

Republicans. It's just disgusting what this guy has done. And The rest of the the weaponization of the government, they need to be held accountable. Tom, I tend to agree with you.

Now, to Logan's point, you know, I like the spectacle. I'd like to see it. I'd like to see it. I'd just like to see it to see it. But in reality, and that's part of the thing.

Logan, there's a reason people get tired of hearing about Jack Smith because it's over and over and over again, because we keep seeing more and we know the corruption. But it is, as Tom points out, important to keep telling people about it, especially as new information comes out. And in reality, what Tom is saying is exactly correct. The reason that John Brennan was referred for criminal prosecution by Jim Jordan this week. was because of things he said in a transcribed interview.

If it were before Congress, where you have members of Congress you've never heard of trying to make a name for themselves, shouting at a witness on the stand, you don't normally get to the substance of stuff. You don't get to get in the nitty-gritty, the timelines where you find out the real facts. And that's what. I think Jim Jordan was wanting to do. We even said that.

I like that they were not saying. You're coming before Congress in an open hearing, and we're going to find out and get to the bottom of this. He was doing real investigative accountability oversight work by calling him in for a transcribe interview. I think it's extremely smart of the attorneys for Jack Smith and Jack Smith himself to ask for this to be an open hearing. Also, he's getting ahead of this by sending it to Chuck Grassley as well, because the request came from Jim Jordan.

But he says right at the front, we have received Jim Jordan's October 14th letter and are aware of Chairman Grassley's interest in testimony from our client as well.

So already getting ahead of it, trying to show to people that, look, we're willing to talk. We'll do this. We'll even do it in the open. We're not afraid. But in reality, they know what those turn into, and they know that with also this big list of requests.

These are the type of things you would negotiate out in that transcribe interview format. Like, hey, here's what we need from DOJ. Here's the assurances we need. But they're putting all that in the open. It's a faux transparency really to throw people off and be like, look, he's got nothing to hide.

In theory, it worked how it should work. And these events, like you said, don't become just one person being yelled at. Uh or being able to really avoid the questions. Yes, in theory, this is the way that it should be done. I believe a lot of this should be transparent in front of the American people.

You also don't have to worry about not understanding the tone. You can't be taken really out of context because everyone's heard it. You know what they're saying. It's like, you know, a text message will never be as clear as a phone call.

However, It's just simply not what we live in. It's not the reality we live in.

So, while, yes, the broadcaster and me and the. curious American in me wants to see it happen. in front of the public. I understand why it shouldn't.

However, that should be something we need to look at getting better at as well. Maybe need electing better officials.

So in these big hearings, It's not all grandstanding. That things can happen in front of the American people and not turned into everyone gets their minute for their ad later on, for their sound bite that they can put in a commercial to hopefully get re-elected. We live in this constant cycle that sadly we have to now fight back against these things happening in public. That sounds ridiculous. It feels like we should be able to say, have all of this out to where the American people can see it.

You work for us, not for, it's not the other way around.

However, Again, that's not the way things are. You have to look at reality. It's like the idea of war. Do I like war? No.

Do I wish there was no war? Yes. I wish that we could say that as someone who is non-violent and would like to push anti-violence, that there should be no war in the world.

However, that's not realistic. There is war in the world. And because there is war in the world, you can't just live in a world of being a complete pacifist who says, Well, I'm an anti-war person. I don't believe in war. It's like, you can, you don't believe in it, it's happening.

We can get to a better place. But that's going to be a long-term thing. I understand why Jim Jordan wants to have a serious conversation, one that can be also, like you said, seriously.

Some white It's not more casual, it's obviously more serious, but it can be treated a bit more. Um less uh combative.

Well, and as well, another thing that I take away from this from the attorneys representing Jack Smith is if you remember back when Bob Mueller testified right after the Mueller report. He didn't know where things were in it. He was able to get around. And at the end of the day, he didn't really say much of anything in an open hearing. I feel like a lot of these requirements, whether it be guidance on federal grand jury secrecy requirements, things like that, the DOJ can't waive things like that.

He wants assurances he won't be punished. He's already building the case for in an open hearing. of saying a lot of nothing. Whereas behind closed doors, there probably would be more opportunity assurances that, and a lot of times those transcripts aren't made public immediately, or sections may be, or they may be redacted. That if it were behind closed doors, he would have a lot less escape routes.

But when it's on TV, it's be like, I can't put this out publicly, or even I don't have access to special counsel files.

Okay, you've got them and you have a week to go through it, gives you a lot of opportunities to be like, I don't recall that. I don't recall what you're referencing. Could you get me a copy? I'll get back to you in writing. It's a very savvy way to get before Congress and before cameras and say a lot of nothing.

I think the other factor here is that what Congress is now looking at, last night, Chairman Grassley did release some documents that were given to him by the FBI that showed Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, as well as the FBI Director Chris Wray signed off on Arctic Frost Investigation.

So, a lot of what they may be getting from Jack Smith is what was being shared with them. What did they know? They may be called to testify now as former government employees. They also can't say as much because they aren't in the government anymore. But it makes it a lot more interesting when you see that the FBI is discovering more files, turning them over to Congress, that is giving us a more full picture of what was going on at this time, all while Jack Smith is saying, I want to talk in public.

All right, we'll keep continuing that conversation, but we're also going to talk about the amazing work of the ACLJ. I think you need to hear this. What we are doing at the Supreme Court right now, you're not going to want to miss it. Stay tuned. This is why things are important.

We got to cover the news. I understand that. The ACLJ work is why we're here. We're going to get to that coming up next segment, and then Rick Rinnell. Welcome back to Secula.

We are going to take a lot of calls coming up in maybe later this segment, definitely in the next segment, because a lot of you called in. We're going to get to that. But I did want to pivot just a moment. You know, the work of the ACLJ continues, and we got to cover the news of the day. We got to talk about what's going on.

We know a lot of you tune in, a lot of you brand new people tune in because you want to get the facts from us. Maybe you're watching on the Salem News channel. Of course, we're going to discuss one of the top topics of the day that at least was within our wheelhouse.

However, that's not the ACLJ's primary function as an organization. You may go, hey, you may not even be brand new to us. We don't know what that even is. The ACLJ stood for the American Center for Law and Justice. It is a non-profit law firm for religious freedom and free speech.

And of course, bound by the Constitution. But it was founded by my family. It's been something we've been doing for over 35 years. This year, we've been celebrating 35 years, but even more than that, if you talk about the work before it was officially branded the ACLJ, we've been around for a long time, really representing everyone from you, the individual who maybe has problems in their local school district. Maybe you wanted to celebrate Christmas, or maybe you want to start a Bible club in the 80s.

The ACLJ was there, or maybe you were the President of the United States, the ACLJ. Is there, and that's precisely what's going on right now. And I wanted to tell you more about this because, also, the ACLJ's legal work is at zero cost to the client. That's right.

So if you ever need us. And it's within the wheelhouse of what we do here, within our sphere. All you gotta do is go to aclj.org/slash help, fill out a very simple form immediately. You're not going to some call bank or something like that, you are immediately attached to a lawyer who will let you know whether they want more information or whatever it may be. But that happens immediately, and it's never at any charge to you.

And the way we're able to do that is because we are a nonprofit, you are able to donate and support this work at aclj.org that not only supports. That part of the organization, our incredible legal work. It's with the best legal minds and youngest, brightest legal minds, too. We bring in so many new, great lawyers each and every year. But also our media side, our operation, which includes this show, every time you've ever seen us post anything, anything that goes on in the world of the ACLJ comes out of this.

And all of it is at our work internationally, all because you donate to the ACLJ. But Will, I wanted to give a moment here because ACLJ is once again filing at the Supreme Court. We have appeared in front of the Supreme Court dozens of times. Supreme Court United States, obviously your district courts and all of that. But this is a very specific one.

And this is one that has to do once again with President Trump. That's right.

So this case is captioned Trump versus Slaughter. What does that mean? That kind of sounds like the main event at WrestleMania. I feel like we should have given that title to the guy who writes the titles for YouTube. Yeah.

That would have been. Trump v. Slaughter. YouTube may be like too scary.

So now the name is a lot better than what kind of the case itself is. This is when President Trump fired one of the Federal Trade Commission commissioners. And this happened earlier in his term. And that. Commissioner.

Correct, correct. This is at the beginning of the year. The Federal Trade Commissioner Slaughter sued, saying, You can't fire me because we are an independent agency in the executive branch, and Congress set it up that way. Therefore, you can't fire me. And a court actually said you must reinstate this commissioner.

The President then took to the Supreme Court, got a stay on that.

So, this individual has not been reinstated yet while the Supreme Court hears the case. We are filing on the case, the merits of this case. And what we really get into is something that the ACLJ has fought for for a long time, and that is preserving the Constitution from the intrusion of the kind of quasi-fourth branch of government, the bureaucracy. When Congress has set up all these hurdles for the executive to do their job and faithfully execute the laws of this country, which is in the Constitution, by putting up these things that block the President from being the executive over these agencies, whether it be the Federal Trade Commission, the FCC, the Federal Reserve, even the way they say, no, you can't really get too involved. And it actually sparked an entire special counsel investigation of firing the FBI director.

The executive branch is the President himself. And all those people report to him. And when Congress tries to put up ways to make independent agencies like the FTC. And set this up so that the executive can't be the executive. That's really flying in the face of what the founders wanted.

So, what we argue here. Let's now brief on why we get involved and what we're doing. That's right.

So, we have filed a brief in support of the government's position that the President is the unitary executive and should have the ability to. Do these things, do things like be the executive over these agencies, even though Congress has set it up, because it is the duty of the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And so they need this oversight and authority over these independent agencies. And there was actually a case that we are arguing that would be overturned as a part of this. This was Humphrey's executor versus the United States from 1935.

Which permitted Congress to shield federal trade commissioners from removal by the President.

So it would be a very much a precedent-setting case by reversing something that was decided in 1935 by the Supreme Court when the Federal Trade Commission was completely different than it is now, before the bureaucracy was so bloated, before they had all this rulemaking process and investigatory power that is shielded from oversight of the executive, the President himself. That we are wanting it to be a way forward.

So, that there is not this fourth branch of government. This is what even the book Undemocratic that your dad wrote years ago. This has been a long fight for the ACLJ to preserve the co-equal three branches of government in our Constitution and push back on the deep state, the fourth branch of government, this quasi-bureaucratic state that has so much power, has so much power to investigate people, to ruin lives, to regulate, to create law through the rulemaking process outside of congressional legislation. That's why this is so important.

So, you may hear Federal Trade Commission like, I don't even really, what does it even do? You know, what is that really? Do I really care? It's not so much about this individual being removed as it is about the preservation of the original intent of the Constitution itself to strengthen the three branches of government that are co-equal branches and to push back, as we have for decades here at the ACLJ, against a bureaucratic state that is able to operate outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

That's right, and the ACLJ is always involved in these kind of cases as well as look. That's a big and broad one. Always important to have our team. on these. But remember they were also available to the individual Who's there at absolutely no cost?

So, again, if you're one of those people, You know, this may be something that doesn't directly impact you on the most personal level. Of course, there is the constitutionality side. Of course, that affects everyone. But maybe there is something that affects you as well. That's why we have such a broad group of legal minds here.

We have senior attorneys that have been with us for decades. We have advisors that have been with us for even longer, people that are with us and they've retired and they've gone on to still help us. But then we have a brand new group of lawyers who maybe just graduated law school. who we've been able to select some of the brightest minds. And we're only able to do that.

Because people like you support. And as we head into the end of this first half hour, I want to give you an opportunity to support the work of the ACLJ as we head into this back quarter of the year, when we are about to hit our most the most impactful months, which will be November and December. There's still the time to give though right here in October. Do it today. And when you do it today, I'll make sure that we know and we earmark, hey.

That donor that came in today during the broadcast. That is because they believe in the legal work, they believe in the media work, the whole encompassing vision of the ACLJ. Whether we're doing Work here in Washington, D.C., Nashville, Tennessee. around the world. Remember, we have offices.

We have the European Center for Law and Justice. Funded by the ACLJ. We have ACLJ Jerusalem funded by the ACLJ. What I mean, funded by the ACLJ, I mean funded by you. People that give on a small level often.

$50, $70, $10. All of it matters. No big sponsors, no corporate overlords, just you. We're back with the second half hour coming up on aclj.org, YouTube, or however you get your podcasts. Yeah.

Keeping you informed and engaged.

Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Luke. Logan Sekulow. Second half hour of Sekulow coming up.

If you don't get us live, by the way, and you're listening to this later on, our kind of join us live each and every day, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. We're live on aclj.org, YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, however it is. But on YouTube and Rumble, I know the conversations kind of break out. People have their own breakout conversations in the chat.

It's always fun. I'm a part of them. I'm always watching what people are saying in the chat because I like to know if it kind of refers back to what we're talking about. If you guys like what we're talking about, it's a great bell weather for us. It's a great way to even just like check on, hey, is this something that's important to you?

Is this Jack Smith situation? I'd say the numbers always say that it is. Is it important to you? What do you think? Put it in the chat if you're watching right now.

Of course, you can call in. We're going to take some phone calls. Might as well take some phone calls right up the top because in the next segment, we're going to be joined by Rick Rinnell as well. And there's an ACLJ champion who's been on a hold for a while. Which is not usually the case.

If you're an ACLJ champion, something that gives on a monthly basis, your first step, I put you. To the top of the list, just my rule. It's not anything in like no official paperwork that says that. I just like it as a little perk. But Martin's been on hold for 20 minutes, still the first person on the show.

Martin, go ahead. Thank you, sir. I want to say that I understand both of the um sides of having closed door or an open form with Jack Smith. I think that the committee can be more savvy than he is, but the thing. I think that we need to think about is driving home the point.

of where the real constitutional crisis is coming from. The Jack Smith. Yeah, yeah. Willises, the Rogue Judges.

So people And make me Right affect right choice. To follow what is right and the Constitution has been the right guidelines for that. abused by the left. And of course, they're always talking about constitutional cris and Jack Smith was part of that crisis. He was not constitutionally put in office.

He did not constitutionally follow process.

So those things can be brought out in an open form for everybody to see. And I know that there are going to be obstacles that They want a grain stain in everything. Yeah, Martin, again, in a perfect world, a lot of this could be held in public. Right. Well, and when you also think that there is also a difference in the way the House hearings run and the Senate hearings, a lot of times the Senate hearings are a little bit more tailored and serious.

Yes, they are still looking for their moments and they pop, but there are a lot more members of the House. These committees are larger and a lot more members that are firebrands that really want to get up there and just make a show of it. But I agree with you. I think there is benefit to public hearings. I think that there is benefit to sunlight on the process.

I do have concerns, though, if If this is the end of it. Do it in public. If they are genuinely looking. For accountability, I think have the hearing behind closed doors and get that out there. Maybe do both.

You can. They can do both. They can do a portion before the committee and open session, and then they can take it for further interview behind closed doors.

So I think that maybe that could be a way forward. Because it is something the American people are interested in. And Martin even brought up the process. I mean, it was Justice Clarence Thomas that brought up in a brief, in one of the concurring opinions on a brief, an opinion from the Supreme Court, that it was even questionable whether or not Jack Smith and the Office of Special Counsel is constitutional.

So there are a lot of questions around this, and Congress can make adjustments and legislation in their oversight to even go beyond these individuals to make sure this never happens again. And I think that's just as important as accountability if there was malfeasance and criminality that may have arisen out of some of these investigations. I think Martin's very on point with that. That, yes. Accountability isn't just with these people.

It is also with the entire process as well. All right, hey, phone lines are still open for you. In the next segment, we'll be joined by Rick Grinnell. We're going to take a call or two. And then the end, last segment of the show, I take as many calls as I can.

So get on hold, get online. We'll do our best to get to all of you today at 1-800-684-3110. In the next segment, we're going to talk about the outrage. What's the big outrage, of course? The remodeling of the White House.

I'm sure you're losing a lot of sleep over it. But it feels like the left is. They're just sitting up there and they're going, I can't believe they took. down a piece of plywood and um That was our East Wing. Yeah.

Very painful. Welcome, my secular. Rick Rinnell is joining us today. As always, always good to hear from Rick. And Rick, of course, the outrage of the day seems to be really related to people's.

emotional connection to the East Wing Of the White House, something that I have a feeling 95% plus of Americans couldn't even tell you what was in it or what it was or who cared. I mean, this becomes another one of those stories that they're running with. And of course, you see the construction pictures. And yes, it looks like a construction site, as you'd expect. And people start throwing out allegations.

How do you know some of my friends who post I've worked on these kinds of renovations before? How is he able to get it done so fast? What is all of these theories start happening, Rick? And I'm sure you're sitting there and you're just as upset. about a a building of a ballroom.

It's what's keeping you up all night. Look, I could take some of this criticism. More seriously, if it wasn't from the people that are outraged about everything, it doesn't matter what it is. It's like a different six hours. Every six hours, they have a new outrage.

And so I kind of get over it. I see my friends on Facebook and I see my friends on Twitter. You know, it's the same people who are outraged about this, and then they're upset about that. And so I kind of dismiss it. What I think is being lost here is that you do.

Demolish when you rebuild. And I don't see a single person saying that Donald Trump doesn't build beautiful things. I see people just saying, why is this being torn down? It seems extremely limited. This is the next point that I'm going to make is extremely inside baseball, Logan, but it's.

Very important point. The White House has very limited capacity to do big events. It's a small space. If you've ever even seen the White House, most people look at it and go, that's it? Wow, that's really small.

And so it's needed for a long time. I've been around since the George W. Bush days, and there's very limited capacity to be able to go to the White House for a big event. And President Trump has done two things to try to improve that. Try to improve so that there's more space for people to attend and more people get to experience the White House.

Two things. One, the Rose Garden, I'm sorry to tell everybody who's complaining about it, was unusable because it was grassy, swamp, wet. What President Trump did is literally be able to use it, and it's now a patio because he put. Very Beautiful marble and pavers down. And so now women can walk on it.

Women who had high heel shoes couldn't even go in the Rose Garden area because they're Shoes would sink into the grass. And so, therefore, it wasn't even really used that often.

Now, you can use the rose garden. The second part is. There's a space. on where the East Wing uh lobby part was That is now going to be expanded quite a bit. And you're going to be able to have this huge ballroom.

That's going to be fantastic so that more people can come and do dinners or events, and more groups can participate. This is really, truly going to be a greater accessibility for the people of America to try to get more people into the White House. I'm glad you brought it up. And I felt that way too, as someone who has spent a little bit of time, not near as much as you, but same thing. Started going to the White House during the George W.

Bush administration, later on, was there, obviously, during the Trump administration. The idea of it, the visual of it, again, it's inside baseball and it feels very elitist when you talk about it, but you're right. I mean, these events have been to Christmas parties where the room that you go and meet the President in, the photo line, if you will, smaller than this studio that I'm sitting in right now and uncomfortable and maybe dangerous, you know, just in general, just because the way they haven't formatted, you know, the hallways were crammed. They were putting tables in hallways because you couldn't have people where it is. I know it sounds a ridiculous thing that we're sitting here, me and you, having to sit here and defend a ballroom because, in general, of the.

Problems that America faces. It's the least. But you are right in the sense that now, if you want to say it's the people's house, you will actually have an opportunity, potentially, like you said, to have a much larger amount of people to have that access. And of course, a comfortable environment more fit for the United States of America. This is kind of a contrast because there's unlikely voice of reason in this whole debate.

And this was a tweet that came out yesterday. This was from Sean King, who never thought I would be showing a tweet in a positive light or quoting, but he of BLM fame in the whole that era says, I actually think it's a great idea to build a big ballroom on the White House grounds. It's virtually impossible to hold events of any size there, and they are always wasting millions on tents and heaters and chairs and lights and everything else. Stop acting like you have some emotional attachment to the East Wing. You don't.

So voice of reason. Coming from not a place I'd expect, agreeing with Rick Rinnell. But then you have the minority leader of the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries. Going on on the media, on MSNBC, saying this about it by one. More likely, this is part of what Donald Trump has been doing since day one of his presidency, running the largest pay-to-play scheme in the history of the country, and probably soliciting donations from people who've got business before the United States government.

And all of this is going to have to be investigated, it will. All of this will have to be uncovered. It will. And these people are going to be held accountable no matter how long it takes. That's going to be the reality of the situation, and that's our warning.

to all of these people participating in this scheming. to manipulate taxpayer dollars and of course, to destroy the people's house. The White House belongs to the American people. It doesn't belong to Donald Trump. Rick, what bizarro world are we in where Sean King is the voice of reason?

And Hakeem Jeffries is basically threatening investigations and the inference there, holding accountable if he were to become the next Speaker of the House, maybe an impeachment over a scheme. It's not like this is building a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago. This is the White House. He's not taking this with him. This is for the American people.

I wanted to get your thoughts. Look, I hope Hakeem Jeffries is the leader of the Democrats in the House forever. He's so fantastic because one, he's completely unlikable and two, he never makes sense. And he's as radical as they come. I would just say to Hakeem Jeffries, you lost Sean King in your argument.

I think game over. When MSNBC and Hakeem Jeffries sit around trying to make. arguments and Sean King doesn't agree with them. you know they're going to get wiped out in the midterms. They don't have any ideas.

All they do is attack Republicans and attack Trump, and they're completely devoid of ideas. They they literally are left to say, We don't want a big space at the White House. It's almost like they think they're never going to get back to the White House and be able to use the ballroom because they just think Republicans are going to own it forever and they will never get a chance to invite a whole bunch of people to the ballroom or to the Rose Garden. I hope, again, that Hakeem Jeffries continues to be the spokesperson for the Democrats. Every time he speaks, we get more people on our side.

Rick, just the final question here. And I think this is what gets to the heart of it. Obviously, you're seeing outrage across the board on the left, except for very notable exceptions there. But even Gavin Newsom tweeting a picture saying he doesn't want you to see this. He's destroying the White House.

Is it because People like Hakeem Jeffries, who has been trying to make the shutdown about Republicans, when in reality they're having to own it as we all predicted they would. Gavin Newsom seems to be struggling on maybe his Proposition 50 redistricting plan. They're trying to pivot. to some other story because they've got some big things they were fighting for and are now losing the messaging on. They got to pivot to something else and this just happens to be what they think is easy but absurd.

Well, there's no question that the Democrats are reacting and playing defense. They don't have ideas that they're pushing. They're just a perpetual outrage machine. And people see it. I mean, you can get people outraged on a couple of issues.

But if all you're doing is trying to be the party of no, and that's not good, and I'm mad, and you don't give any single idea. The public notices, remember, most of the people in America are not nearly as political as we are. And so they're just watching these negative Nancies that just constantly, you know, complain about everything. And they see them not giving out good ideas. And that's a disaster for our political party.

Absolutely, Rick. Thanks for joining us. And I think you're right. Most people, as I joked about the beginning, are not sitting up at night. Especially if they're worrying about anything going on in their country, their family or whatever.

They are not concerned about the ballroom at the White House. They're not concerned with these issues. And we need to just make sure that we keep our priorities in check here, folks. Phone lines are open. Three lines, 1-800-684-3110.

Of course, the work of the ACLJ continues. Like we said, we filed today in Supreme Court. Dave critical deadline in a FOIA case involving FBAI Director Comey placing spies in President Trump's White House. We've successfully filed briefs to get Jack Smith disqualified from his unconstitutional prosecution against President Trump. The work keeps going on.

Days ago, we filed again on the Trump v. Slaughter case.

So much in that same world. and we'll continue to fight for your constitutional freedoms. Today. And we only can do that because you go to aclj.org. But in the next segment, as I said, I like to hear from you.

A few of you have been a hold for over half an hour. We're going to get to you first and then give me a call: 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Sekulow. Time to hear from the most important voice. In the room, of course, that's you.

We got two lines open: 1-800-6A4. 3110. Let's go to William. In Nevada, watching on YouTube, been a hold for a long time, William. And the rest of you have been holding two for a while.

We're going to get to you. William, go ahead.

Okay, thank you guys. My question is. Do you think Jack Smith would be pleading the fifth more? In a open or closed forum, Harry? Would either one be more ad advantageous over the other as far as being an open or closed hearing and him using the Fifth Amendment.

Probably a little easier to do it real quick on a public hearing because it's like, well, I got to pull up information. As Will said, you can kind of buy your time a little differently. I'm not pleading the fifth specifically, but you can manipulate the system a bit more. I feel like also he's very savvy. He is an attorney, a prosecutor.

He knows the system. As far as the Fifth Amendment, I think a lot of it, as you said, he can rely on procedure, not being able to answer things because he's no longer in the government, secrecy around grand jury requirements because it was a prosecution. I think he's got a leeway of not having to just take his Fifth Amendment right and not testify. I think to some degree as well. A lot of times, with the hearing, if you remember back to the Lois Lerner hearing a long time ago, she was at the IRS, was in charge of the whole targeting of the Tea Party, and weaponizing the government against them.

They tried to get her on a technicality where they made her, they asked her to confirm. in front of her which was almost saying that she was testifying and then tried to when she took the fifth, tried to use it, tried to play a little bit of games there.

However, she did end up taking the fifth, but she was using it as a blanket. I am not testifying. I think because he is willing to testify, you're less likely to see the Fifth Amendment. Protection him taking rather than just relying on procedural rules and laws surrounding secrecy and grand jury information, things of that nature, would be more likely to be raised often in both a public and private setting as it relates to this, as opposed to using the Fifth Amendment. That's my personal take.

We'll have to see how it shakes out. All right. Thank you, William, for calling. Go from a William to a Bill.

Okay, we got William, Will, and Bill. A lot of people, a lot of Liam Colin coming in next. Bill from Wyoming, you're on the air. Hi. Just real quick before I say something.

If I can't get you on the ACLD site, I go to YouTube because that gets me to watching your quick. My question or thought is after hearing what you've been discussing all this time about Jack Smith, I'm thinking going both ways, like Martin says, in private and then in public. In private, we can get closure and accountability. In public, I think that would probably rain him in so that he wouldn't be able to grandstand or anything like that. And maybe even put a monkey wrench in his uh book deals.

And if anything, he might even just back out of the whole deal. What do you think? Bill, we've heard him when he had that Andrew Weissman interview. He's not the most compelling guy as far as tone. He doesn't seem like someone that wants to grandstand.

Scary looking. I mean, yeah, I mean, the guy spent a lot of time at The Hague, so very dystopian. You can't trust a man in a beard. That's what I hear in the comments.

Well, I know one. I'm very will has a beard. That's not true. That's impossible.

So we're going to go. It's impossible. I was a Star Wars line. I was very manly. I was a Star Wars line.

I was being Luke Skywalker. That's fine. Whatever. Bill, complete me. Neal in 37 minutes.

It was fine. Jeff, you're up. Jeff in Ohio. We've got to move on from that one. Jeff, go ahead.

Thank you. Could discovery provided in the Comey indictment and possibly one against Brennan in the Eastern District of Virginia the create yield material useful to the Florida Grand Jury investigation, which originally tied to Mar-a-Libo, but could possibly be broadening into the wider criminal conspiracy inquiry that doesn't have a statute of limitations that apply. Wasn't it the Donald Rumsfeld that said there are the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns? I feel like that's in the unknown unknowns category.

Well, Mika, here's the... We're not killing time at all here, guys. Headlines are up at 1-8006. Talking to Jeff here, Larry. Jeff Stalehold.

I think the point here is that the James Comey Lying before Congress. I mean, none of that material. That's all related to the Russia gate. I don't think that's related to Jack Smith, things of that nature. But it rings true.

Well, now you're bringing up John Brain, the John Braining case. Once again, that's just a criminal referral at this point. We don't know whether or not a grand jury has been impaneled or what investigative steps the Department of Justice have done there.

So that's where I got back to my. Unknown unknown slogan. We don't know what would come out in discovery when it comes to those cases.

However, I feel like the James Comey one is removed enough because it was about leaking. That's what that indictment is about. It's actually about. Lying to Congress about leaking.

So I don't know how much would come out of that. But Stranger things have happened, as you've said many times before, Logan. To quote Operation Ivy. All I know is that I don't know. All I know is that I don't know nothing.

There you go. I think that's to me the version of what that quote is you said. Who said the quote? I'm a Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, see, I go more, Tim Armstrong.

That's who I would quote if I was going to quote that. Michael in Florida, you're on the air. We may have time for another call: 1-800-684-3110. Michael, go ahead. Gentlemen.

When it comes to our beloved brothers and sisters in the Democratic Party, how sadly overused is that bullseye on the wall, which says Bang head here. Yeah, I mean look I I I find a lot of these Political moments ridiculous. Not to say the Republicans don't do similar things when the Democrats are in office. But the outrage of whether it's this situation, of course, it's going on, Jack Smith wanting to make this more of a public spectacle, or really, when you go back to that ballroom situation, that is where I don't understand. I understand that No, I don't.

I don't understand how you have this emotional attachment to something you've never even heard of, knew it was there, ever experienced, been a part of. If they were tearing down the entire White House, sure, I'd have a concern with maybe the main house. You know, there are certain things that have historical significance, and you want to make sure you retain that. But when you're talking about building something that's necessary, if this was done under Obama, much like the basketball court, Did anyone care? No.

If that's what the President wants, that's what he can have. The ballroom, like I said, is not just going to service just the current President of the United States, it's going to help us all out in the future. Democrats and Republicans. And at the end of the day, we're really going to spend our time arguing about building a ballroom that is being funded, by the way, by major supporters, not by your own taxpayer dollars.

Well, and to Michael's point as well, when you look at the cycle of the political fundraising that you're seeing when it came to just a few weeks back when they were releasing quarterly fundraising numbers, the RNC had about $80 million cash on hand compared to the DNC's $15 million cash on hand. That's where people are responding to your messaging. $80 million compared to $15 million. That shows you what Mike was saying: that they are trying over and over again to find a foothold with their base. that will get them to fund their candidacies as we go into a midterm year.

And they haven't found that messaging yet.

So, yeah, are they gonna try the ballroom now? Because they tried the shutdown, they're starting to lose the messaging on that. They thought they had it there, not working.

Next is the ballroom. Maybe they're going to try to impeach him over bettering the White House. We'll see what they come up with next. But thus far, they have not found something that is taking hold of the American people. That's going to do it for the week.

Thanks for tuning in. Always watch, subscribe, do everything you can to get engaged with the work of the ACLJ. And if you can, support us at aclj.org. No, we really appreciate it. Talk to you next week.