Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Encore Presentation: The ACLJ Fights Back Against California’s Ban on Church Singing

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
July 10, 2020 1:00 pm

Encore Presentation: The ACLJ Fights Back Against California’s Ban on Church Singing

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 571 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


July 10, 2020 1:00 pm

Encore Presentation: The ACLJ Fights Back Against California’s Ban on Church Singing.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Steve Noble Show
Steve Noble

Breaking news in two cases, the Supreme Court temporarily blocks the release of prison tribes financial records will talk about both of them today.

Jay Sekulow one live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow phone lines are open for your questions right now. one 806 843-110-1800 68412, your host, secular headlines this walk Congress from obtaining present drugs, tax records cases would sit back lower court. It's also sent back to lower court. Another case involving the New York district attorney in a grand jury's attempts was state proceedings from tried to get the present financial records, including tax records. It also said that back to a remainder that back to lower court's raised issues in the case like this involving grand jury's grand juries are prohibited.

This is quoting the opinion from Chief Justice Roberts, grand jury's are prohibited from engaging." Arbitrary fishing expeditions and initiate a initiating investigations out of malice or intent to harass and he goes on to say that that includes bad faith. These protections disinterred himself puts out apply with special force to a President, and in the event of such harassment. A President is entitled to the protection of federal courts, the policy get up the policy against federal interference in state criminal proceedings while strong allows court intervention.

In those cases where the District Court properly finds the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to you've heard this one lot harass or is conducted in bad faith.

So these cases to the chagrin of many of the mainstream media.

There are no tax returns may release the grand jury's not getting any financial records today they go back and it's and they start back over the District Court with the Supreme Court pointing out what issues to raise now, in the case involving Congress.

The court was even clear saying that it out.

The congressional subpoena has to meet an even higher burden that a judicial state court subpoena. In that case, it vacated the Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit and remanded the case back to the District Court so a lot to talk about here.

This is the statement for my dad a Jay Sekulow course counsel to the present.

He should be joining us just a bit odd of the broadcast. You can tell log opinions is a lot to digest here because involves the present United States involves course the current present present trumpet involves future presence as well. So in both these cases, they were 7 to 2 reactions initially for the media was did who one who lost and really what this is about is the constitutional authorities that really do so by that, but I would say this present trumpet one today.

The district attorney lost Congress lost why they're not getting the documents they sought they got to go fight again in court to try to get those documents, the Supreme Court, the doctors had them over for them and make it very easy for them. They gotta go read fight to try to get these documents and now they gotta show that it's not a political witchhunt that's not politically motivated, that it's not a get in bad faith. And so you can kinda flip this on this and they've got to make sure they've got to prove that their motives are not bad it, whether it's the grand jury in Congress with even a higher burden. The statement is this, though, I want you to understand I'm see your right on television. As I read it out to you from my dad Jay Sekulow counsel to present trumpet. We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President's financial records. We will now proceed to raise additional constitutional and legal issues in the lower court statement from Jay Sekulow counsel to the President. I want to hear from you. I don't think there's any place else in the country or world where you can actually be talking to the President's legal counsel about a case of just came out of the US Supreme Court. Two of them, one of which was argued by one of those legal counsel to present so give us a call now on the year 1-800-684-3110 at 2000 684-3110, but for now, the Supreme Court has blocked Congress from obtaining trumps tax records also exit that case back to lower court.

It's also prevented the grand jury from getting the financial records as a trump without having to relitigate as well. Back a lower court as legal issues will be raised will take your call 2000 684 31 to be right back.

The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift comes 20 oh $50 gift becomes 100.

This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do.

Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online ACLJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally like publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the motion and what Obama care means to the pro-life of the many ways your membership of the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow like this George. Second I would like for your decision to cases you heard oral argument because there broadcast live trump made czars that again is a case involving the company, the, the, the accounting company. The accounting firm and that case involved Congress attempt to get the President's financial records, tax returns, etc. in that case, the Supreme Court has said that it is read from exhibit think it just needs to be clear to everybody who's who's listening to this when you read through the court vacated the decisions below. It may czars held the congressional subpoenas may be enforceable, but the court below did not take into account all the possible separation of powers concerns the courts below did not adequate did not take adequate account of the significant separation of power concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the presence information here. The presence information is sought not by prosecutors or private parties in connection with a particular judicial proceeding, but by a committee of Congress to set forth broad legislative objective, Congress and the President. The two political branches established by the Constitution have an ongoing relationship that the framers intended to feature both rivalry and reciprocity.

The question is whether the subpoena exceed the authority the house under the Constitution.

Historically, these disputes for Presidential documents have ended up have not ended up records into the been hashed out by the legislative process in the political process. Interestingly, Congress has no in this court in court. No enumerated constitutional power to conduct investigations or issue subpoenas but we've held that the house has the power to secure needed information because his powers justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process is subject to several limitations. Most of poorly us congressional subpoena is valid only if it is related to in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress must serve a legitimate legislative purpose. Finally, recipients of legislative subpoenas retain constitutional rights. Throughout the course investigation and recipients have long been understood to retain a common law constitutional privilege with respect to certain material, such as attorney-client communication government communication and government communications protected by executive privilege that's the case involving Congress's attempt to get the present financial records, which again is not part of the Constitution up are the requirements of the present handover and that in that case that Congress getting a higher bar of scrutiny and even state courts of the state court case in Trump versus Vance. This is to read the Chief Justice. This goes back to the District Court switch remanded as well. Quote we recognize as does a district attorney that harassment harassing subpoenas could, under certain circuit circumstances threaten the independence or effectiveness of the executive first grand juries are prohibited from engaging in arbitrary fishing expeditions, expeditions, and initiate investigations at a malice or intent to harass the policy against federal interference in state criminal proceedings while strong allows intervention in those cases where the District Court properly finds that the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith, and that that is exactly now what will be before the District Court was this being conducted in bad faith.

Is it being conducted to harass the present.

Here's what you have a mean what would reversal really like to have heightened scrutiny.

I still think I can screen is just as legal justice, saying the dissent is correct. But what is done what is determined unanimously in the case involving the district attorney does its best without buyout or support by Justice Cavanaugh. He said the court today unanimously concludes that a President does not possess absolute immunity from the state criminal subpoena but also unanimously agrees that the case should be remanded to the District Court where the President may raise constitutional or legal objections to the subpoena as appropriate. When you go back to the majority opinion by Judge Chief Justice Roberts and as you just ready said grand jury subpoenas that are fishing expeditions or designed with malice or intent to harass would be prohibited. So now what does that mean amusement go back to the District Court made number one no documents being delivered either to Congress or to the district attorney and I think CNN had that exactly correct this morning. No documents are being sent to the district attorney. No documents are being sent to the Congress. We go back to the District Court in relation to the Congress is heightened scrutiny they haven't met that burden. I still think I can with regard to the district attorney.

We have to make the case that this is what we said it is from the beginning political harassment now that the people of the evidence will show the statements show what's going on be a process that's going take some time but I want to be clear by what I would've rather have seen what we argued two things primarily one absolute immunity brought Elyse what the President is serving as President second that at least it should be heightened scrutiny and the court rejected the heightened scrutiny I think that's again I will declare I think that's wrong but with the court to leave open and we are gonna do this is we will go to federal court. Just as we were not going to wear in federal court, and we will go back through this process again. Now that we had this whole case took four days with never evidence put on. None of that happens, and I will have to go back and do that that this was not because this a concern that this was the fight of the injunction raceways regretted not a trial right so we put on what's called the merits case we didn't put on the case that says here's why it's harassment here Elias distraction. Here's the evidence of this can go on and on reviving an organ layout the case will see with them a nominal with the situation is with New York's in court right now on how they're moving on those.

But that merely say proceeding will go forward. Yet something that's that's I think very point legal distinction that the media probably will point out to a lot of folks is that you did have a head like a full trial here. This was the these are the parts of the case. You can typically appeal in the federal courts to federal courts on cot raising constitutional issues, but not on the merits of the case and there has not been like a judge who is heard every part of this case from both sides, raising the harassment issue raising the issue of again of a fishing expedition and the fact that you have these these subpoenas were both copy and pasted they all had the same info with and so again those issues have not been fully litigated or flushed out even.

And so I think that's important to point out that's why Ross Garber unseated a legal analyst Prof. Tulane said this by 38 I am the President or his lawyers and actually pretty happy.

Actually very happy with these results today is very different.

Dad I'd say would as you do as you represent the President these issues, which are often so politically motivated timing election years. These kind of things. The winning elites a very different kind of winning and losing that if this was that of religious liberty case one of because are so many nuances of so I'm in the congressional case so reminiscent what's so unusual to think that the from an in one sense Congress is denied constitutional and I think correctly. The access to the records, the DA, we now have the burden for a local prosecutor. We have the burden of establishing why it's distracting harassing or overbroad, which I think we will clearly make the case, but now we will make the case but is it is good. It's interesting that for the commentators. I think the most part are getting it right. It's I don't like a case that says the Second Circuit is affirmed. And that's what they said don't be clear on that. But they what they said was the affirmance included which screw a network time will be in federal court, which was a big when there a number because this by the way the local DA argued that we had no business being in federal court. We look they lost their loss of the Second Circuit may also Second Circuit entered this report to NetSuite, one that issue up were in the right jurisdiction and number two, at least we have the ability to go back and show that the records and information sought was harassment was a violation of constitutional law. That's exactly what Justice Cavanaugh said constitutional issue DCF name and limit this to use as constitutional and legal objections.

Legal objections include overbreadth. Why do you need the same information at the DA.

The divide is a DA need the same information. I really have to do a granulated and purpose through the paralyzing purpose for them and for the DA investigator purpose.

Why would you need those documents so I think that's the I think that's the conclusion again I would like to sing heightened scrutiny, but I think you know work. This is not over. The reason it's going kind of I'm incorporating from the rat relatively quickly. Media's I can get the document right and that's that. And the liberals are to the Democratic Party cycling in any documents or by the way I did of those It's a bad it's just that it's just that they thought they had a chance of getting some documents that they could use for political purposes. Now they can't and they cannot make the argument anymore that it's the President withholding because the President has not been told today by the court that he's gotta turn anything over that.

That's also important to point out the courts told the President today. Hey, let's go fight this out in court. You need for anything over right now, nothing. So were making sure that the dispute merged with their part of the third parties or where were still in court. Yet on the sides of this HD questioning cancer quickly and was seated advertise on Facebook, but that would pull Anita's on Facebook and if you will talk to us. In any event, she has taught me that right now.

One 800 684 31 two that's 100-684-3110 I need on Facebook writes widely go back all the way to the District Court. The lower court. That's because the lower court is the trial court.

So what the Supreme Court is saying in the Vance case, the eight cases you didn't have that hearing. Now you get that hearing you have the burden of establishing this then they want to meet their burden. That's where it goes to a different court trial court not an appellate appellate courts don't hear evidence yes, sorry. That's support to point out to people.

This was got you the did in the one case district attorney bill for that other case Congressman Fort this was immediately appealed out injunctions to prevent that from happening. There was a full trial. In either case, so that now goes for what we do know is this.

It is July, the election is November.

This case just restarted at the District Court so the media which was seizing on this hoping that there would be separate huge rebuke of the President that the documents would have to be released within a week or less is not happening so quickly. The media will move on to something else and that is why they had to shrug their shoulders and say well yeah it really is a win for the President and try to come up with something else to talk about today in the news. If you have questions for us about it. This is a great time.

Could you get to talk to the attorney argue case 100 684 31 two that's 1-800-684-3110 will be right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless concerning contact. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life, and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.

The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift $20, $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ.

The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge to make a difference in the protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online ACLJ Jay Sekulow Jordan psychosis, a special show today, but not discussing the ACLJ issues of course were working in, and we will let you know soon as we file in California that ban on singing in church. The petition for still very active@aclj.org. I encourage you to go there sign the petition share with your friends and family will be back to those have issues tomorrow. The air, but it is unique because at the ACLJ. Of course you service also represent the President and outside capacity from ACLJ separate from the ACLJ on this broadcast on Jay Sekulow libel Jay Sekulow who's here with us and and I argued one of these cases being discussed so much in the news today by the President of me with that impeachment was done. Supreme Court cases via phone is been quite a leap year.

Legally, dad is been complex. This is not have the same kind of in the impeachment of the people got used to it either happens or doesn't.

It's over here. We had a case involving cognitive a case involving a district attorney and a grand jury and it is far from over. That is not good news for liberals who thought they could use.

Somehow, these records politically because the present or the media thought they have something new to talk about here was the expectation expectation today was to be a ruling that said the President was meant to hand over to somebody all of these documents immediately. Neither. There's really three cases hereto are consolidated in all three cases, no one's handing over any document people.

Okay, so the risk to congressional subpoenas different committees for two separate lawsuits, but they were her jointly and my call.

All of us that worked on all the lawyers that work on this work on all three, so it was the spring court team on one was the spring 14 for operation we all work on offering and then we just divided up the oral argument to the two cases so the dish what the expectation today in the media was and that's why networks are breaking alive was hand over the documents documents are to be released. Congressman get these documents in these documents will be on the floor.

The house in like 15 minutes.

None of that happened that it was me will still get to the New York attorney DA and he'll have to he'll turn them to the grand jury.

Maybe some really somebody would have to get something that I and the end result is nobody's getting nothing and now they've got to those who want the documents have got to start back over and go through full legal trial, they cannot have a short circuit that also knew that was a treat to the DA wanted to like short-circuit the whole process of normal trial is given. We had a fight for states that Cupid now given the opportunity go back and race all all these issues by the record to say that you put on the evidence you have a trial in it was I think still doing a lot of this electronically with a benevolent deposition step damning discovery of necessary so what it does a put bookcases back in it in the District Court in the congressional case with heightened scrutiny yes it much more difficult for Katya in the DAs case its threshold scrutiny regular level to deny through the they don't just get to say we recognize as does the district attorney that harassment subpoenas could, under certain circumstances threaten the independence or effectiveness of the judiciary.

That's of the executive that's from Justice Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion and it saves and says first grand jury are prohibited from engaging in arbitrary fishing expeditions and initiating investigations out of malice or intent to rest that we have the burden of establishing that at the trial court and one of those I guess would be the fact that he copy Pace's subpoena from downgrade that's set one second would be the court's reserve the right to jump back in on this, the federal court said the federal or tardiness. And I said both of these cases are back in federal court are incorrect back in the trial court level. Yes, I think it's important for people now so this is just again this is working through hundreds of pages of legal documents involving Presidential power. This the highest level with the Supreme Court weighs in on is fading out of the news really quickly. My theatricality news likes things that are quick and easy, and this is a quick and easy, because it actually involves legal discussion. That's why our audience enjoys it's for artists paying attention to it, but that when you start talking about okay now this was on an injunction.

This goes back to the trial court. Guess what most viewers in the news. Insert tuning out. They just want to know am I gonna see tax returns are not on both sides.

The answers no answers no media very upset you think MSNBC want to spend more time on the fact that the President doesn't have to turn over his tax returns that they been crying about getting out so they they had to report what they had to report and they move along at school. In this by the way final day, the Supreme Court, no more pages commence report as of the 164 3110 Lister taken folks questions how you and be available to recommit with the questions as well. Kerley College of Texas online for Carolyn. Welcome to Jay Sekulow life. Thank you for clarifying on walking to the 5 o'clock this morning and I look at myself in the Congress.

The moment Congress went pretty much the way to go back to the lower court and in the other one I made it like a wind and he will. It's the first person was at the same thing I and then we have to do is actually sexy pages in 16 pages and you realize alignment. It is written, it is back down to the District Court so it has been sent back down to the Chief Justice says that it's at the very end of the opinion page 16, 17 and 18 and injustice. Cavanaugh's concurrences of the court unanimously concludes that the President has right to bring this case in the District Court to put on the evidence. To meet these burns of constitutional and legal obligation, legal problems with the subpoena, so it's there and it's a part part burden. I don't want to get one clarinet we would much rather any we would've much rather had heightened scrutiny on both diving.

The dissent got that right in and then advance case but you deal with with the fact she got dismissed me to put a case on them right that there was a rejection of the absolute immunity and the high need for insurance of the subpoena is not a defeat.

In my opinion, rejecting a high need standard does not leave the President without recourse of the court says a President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen, including the right to challenge the subpoena on any grounds permitted by state law, which usually includes bad faith and undue burden or branch so that when the President invokes such protections, which we are going to do that and I'm quoting from the court, the high respect that is owed to the office of the chief executive should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery. So in addition to the deference that has to be shown to the President who claims a undue burden or harassment. A President can raise enough specific constitutional challenges to those he confounds the subpoena is an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties in violation of the supremacy clause, and he can argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would do what impede his constitutional duties. I read this and I am very heartened by this. The fact that absolute immunity and heightened scrutiny may have been rejected as the standard does not mean that the President is devoid of the rights that he has to challenge these subpoenas in the District Court from in the District Court from which it emanated ultimately and I think that is a victory, and especially in my heartened by the fact that the Democratic-controlled media and the Democratic-controlled House's who have been salivating to get the tax returns and the other documents on the President have been rejected and the Supreme Court.

Instead, you know you're not getting them today and you know what you may never get on my thumbs up again. I think I can scrutiny standard.

The standard in both. They didn't comment on the state DA decided not to go that way we live to fight another day. I folks we come back a second half-hour coming up with you to take your phone calls your comments. 164 3110. Remember online ACLJ.org repetition as well to to again this ban on seeing in churches, we really filing California.

That lawsuit very soon. I likely this week. Fact that our regular broadcasting if you will take your question.

Because of this is a lot of misinformation and headline read in the Drudge Report is wrong to tell if people are lawyers writing that way. 1-800-684-3110 if questions, comments, 163, 110 the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be managed $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in the world protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most to you and your family. Give a gift today online LJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and secular Jay Sekulow the secured second years of private headline reads every Reuters radius is like a prosecutor to get the records, the Congress, Then later on the article it says the prosecutor and the grand jury won't get the doctors because the court said that they can be litigated. So it's like yeah they're going to be litigated. Your hearing from the presence legal to absolutely make this clear. We will be litigating both issues in the District Court both as a relates to the subpoena issued against the President by the grand jury in New York and also the ones issued by the congressional committees. Let me be clear. Both of those will be litigated pursuant to the Supreme Court. Instant guidance on that in the congressional case that means heightened scrutiny in the in the case involving the grand jury. It's there's deference to the office of the President, but is not a heightened scrutiny level so we will meet the bar job is bent to meet the burdens that we have to carry and then they want to carry their burns so is Andy.

As you said were back in court.

That's what that means that arrived they were simply back in record fighting the battle to determine whether or not the prosecutors in New York and whether the house committees have met their burden of not proceeding in bad faith and not proceeding in a harassing manner morning or in the case of the grand jury looking at effect fishing expedition. It's not the job of the district attorney.

If I may paraphrase Justice Ginsburg got the job of the John district attorney, or of the Congress to sally forth every day looking for wrong or right.

That's not the job. Their job is to legislate in the house and in the District Attorney's Office to prosecute criminal offenses not to invent them. And that's exactly what was going to be doing challenging these subpoenas that I would have been issued by Cyrus Vance of the district attorney for New York and challenging the subpoenas that have been issued by the House oversight committee on the basis of the separation of powers and that victory inmates are that it is a victory, because as Jordan pointed out earlier that decision was vacated.

That means it will set aside overturned it out the house has to start from scratch again with deference to the present. Remember that so I don't care what Reuters and CNN are saying about Meza they're wrong that was vacated.

J know that the subpoena issued by the house in them in the maze are's case, which is the congressional once they have vacated the reverse of technically big vacated and remanded with the new standard in the other case they affirm what the and then the grand jury case they affirm what the district with eight Second Circuit said, but still remanded back to proceedings in the District Court were all nine justices agree we can raise these constitutional issues This were the headlights of CNN Supreme Court blocks Congress New York prosecutors from getting trust financial records for now Fox Supreme Court blocks Congress from getting trumps tax records since back at the lower court MSNBC Supreme Court blocks Congress getting trumps taxes for now you see them and they they finally figured it out that this was all about. This is all about the media. This is why it is harassment. It's interesting to me that it terms like harassment. Terms like fishing expeditions are in Supreme Court opinions is this is what this President has said all along that he is being harassed in the Supreme Court justices seven of them signing on to say he made. He might very well be being harassed and he needs to be able to raise that in court proceedings that that that they are actually using the word the present is in and get criticized for using that harassment work Supreme Court is used seven justices sign off on it will really nine because the other two have it in the design to yet. So yeah, I know that you all the computers and I can't believe you're saying at the present is being harassed while he was being harassed he is being harassed and harassment continued for now. Continued back in the District Court element different let's go to Mary Ellen on Taser to your cousin come back from the spray can we argue to do that a lot. You're on the phone. I got great questions and start taking your questions unique show we don't run into this every day. Of course, where we had to cut those ACLJ hats put on their hats as attorneys for the present. Answer the question about case involving the US Supreme Court.

So we come back we take your phone calls your comments.

We have one line open right now 100 684 31 two that's what I wanted hundred 684-3110 I'll switch the ACLJ.or we are preparing that lawsuit in California on that man on singing and chanting places of worship and you were putting together the clients there as well and the petition continues to grow hundred and 68,960 470,000 people then petitioned 48 hours@aclj.org the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift is $20, $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.

The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow live so we got that we got over you and others. The two cases got got more detail this in any legal show on television would even get into your extra talking to the attorney who argued the case at the US Supreme Court has argued that in this very room was little strange. Perhaps you will ever be able to say that about a throughput argument exam was done right here. This is the spot it was done here because covered IT and you heard it live also unique because of covert, 19 they broadcast those live but yet they still issued their opinions and they showed on TV like the court then had their afflicted to What is chief justice is that he's at his house.

He may be in the Washington DC area and a Navy's Chevy Chase area. Whenever I don't know where everybody is their vacation homes and places like that.

They literally could be anywhere where they aren't right now is probably overseas where they usually would be, which is teaching and in law schools overseas.

Summer programs that are doing that right now, but the act even when he released the opinions it was like they were still sitting there reading off the dissents and things like that are not that everything has no ending at the court.

I think of that they, the guy securing the court and that that's why look so nice today because there were no protesters.

Nobody there no one in line. No tourists in the delights so but you can exorcist of the room were doing this and if you watch a face of your personal that's where these arguments were made involving Presidential power. You think about that for a minute and easily. The different workings between our own article to article, to believe that all is a large team. I want to go to the fold because it got this unique opportunity to ask about. It's what you got to see like never before. Here like never before. Maryellen Illinois on live five welcome to Jay Sekulow live here on the air. I mailed hello and thank you for your great work regarding the newly RK what will triggered the initial grand jury.

Why would the grand jury even impaneled about what the New York grand jury. We don't know, of course, because grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, but you know what you read the paper's business dealings and things like this. Here's what it is political harassment.

They didn't originate their own subpoena. They copied the subpoena from the House of Representatives Word for Word so that we know what this is.

At the end of the day, but again now we go back to the trial court. Maryellen we go through this whole process again and you know anyone of things I said earlier, which is correct is that that I think you and I both tried a lot of cases there was never a trial here. This was all done on an injunction very quick. There's nobody has heard actual evidence whether going here and now to go back and look at all for the harassment that in the political witchhunt that it really is, both in the District Court in New York and before the House oversight committee and the man the subpoena that was the maze are then you are correct.

This was heard on an expedited basis based on an equitable desire to get an injunction against proceeding.

It went up on a very bare record, but to answer the call. This question directly. The subpoena from New York originated with the New York district attorney who copy the subpoena that was issued by the house and who just on a simultaneous pass with the house of representatives to harass and burden this President and that and that is a misuse of the grand jury process. It is not the instance of the grand jury to fabricate crimes but to investigate criminal acts that are brought to it.

That is not is what what is happening here and that's why we're going to be attacking the subpoena bad faith harassment for overbreadth and for constitutional violations nine BC. Also look at the court actually talks about fishing expeditions that that this is not this is not a green light for fishing expedition so it's it's not the role of the grand jury to do that when you write the thousands of people got a lot of good questions Doreen and Wisconsin line 1 this is one that people always have. During welcome to Jay Sekulow live your on the air blown around to pull pork chop, the Congress, you're paying it because it comes out of the federal budget. That means your taxpayer dollars on the state it's the district attorney of New York, the County of New York so it's the people that live in the County of New York in Manhattan that you pay for. How Congress this is elections have consequences is Democrat-controlled house they get to using them in this part of said decision-making is not but let me be clear, they got to use it, but they were told that they meet the burden they can go back to Dragon because they can't repair and control they can spend as much of your money as them like so long is Nancy Pelosi's the speaker the house, they can lose they can keep losing and losing and losing and spending millions of your taxpayer dollars to lose because if you don't think that elections have consequences your bearing your head in the sand.

It's not just about tax policy is not just about issues like abortion is about things like these go to where lawsuits Presidential harassment and wasting your heart garlic dollars especially hard earned during a pandemic. Let's not forget what that with are they doing this. Why were we not at the US Supreme Court. Funny enough, it is kind of twisted way because they could even have their doors open. Yet the President is operating at the White House today.

He is running the country.

Guess who is it the Chief Justice unit of this USB cord was not at the Supreme Court with all his fellow justices hailing his opinions. He's doing remotely that some of you are working that way to because that's the safest way to do it.

Present doesn't get to make that call. The President is different yet present is UDS is unique to be the present United States and there's no other political recognize that, but not enough though and I think that they did not even when they're sitting at home in the present is in the Oval Office and still having to retire because I think that's what you know any of us think about this in Jordan's right knee noted that the limits the wrong part. I mean in the band's decision where I think Alito and Thomas absolutely got it right was while they in the majority. They acknowledge the unique roles of the President as you read those quotes can burn the President.

That's why they should've applied heightened scrutiny of the right scrutiny really is an absolute immunity as well, and Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, who I have concluded that they are the only true conservatives on that court.

The only true conservatives on that court has found in their defense stated that it was time scrutiny and absolute immunity that unfortunately is not with the majority did, but the majority never known.

Nonetheless, even though it does say that heightened scrutiny is not the standard, and absolute immunity is not the standard opens the door for the President to challenge the subpoenas in the courts below and I think that's a very important thing and that is a victory in many ways for us right now. Barbara teams working on that lawsuit District Court portion of the Vance case and the congressional cases right now I met them coming you on air.

Their lawyers work in our team is working on now, just as some cabin on the opinionated really important point in his concurrence estate criminal subpoena to a present raises. Article 2 and supremacy clause issues because of the potential for state prosecutor to use criminal process and issue subpoenas in a way that interferes with the President's duties for harassment and diversion in this which I would apply the long-standing Nixon demonstrated specific needs standard to this case. So you understand that was the Alito achievement from Justice Alito. They Alito and Thomas will apply the heightened scrutiny which makes it an easier case for OIC needs your case. That burden really falls on them. This one reverses the burns on us to establish that these are harassment and that these are overbroad and constitutionally infirm to do that now in the proceedings of proceedings will start again.

I don't know exactly how they're doing proceedings in New York right now on on evidence and things like that, but that's can be the way and in which it's good to proceed. But you know what happened today and the reason it's not really admit I'm looking at the are screens here and I only see one network right now but I don't know. Is it will only take a look up is on the other networks right now.

Yeah. Missing species still coming a little bit is because no documents, no recent documents today and that's what they were all hoping for.

And if the battle here is the constitutional conflicts.

In that sense I think would Justice Cavanaugh said in his concurring opinion that all nine justices agreed that these issues can be raised.

Let me assure all nine justices in the rest of the American people positions will be right skyward to warrior because we come back out from this x-ray click request read that typical Roberts to kind of not make a big precedent. Yes, John Roberts looks at you know doesn't want to do more than is necessary. Think they don't assign issues that they don't have to clearly hearing narrow and convoluted. Just saying. Like the present has this or doesn't have this. It is really saving them does not reserve the right for them to come back in this case. The right type of for them to get you mean anywhere they are, will they be dairy from the comfort of home. Will they be actually back on the actual bench themselves back in.

I say fancy ropes. We will see.

I will take your calls. We come back 1-800-684-3110 is 100-684-3110 by the politics of pleasure to I mean, let's start, let's merely cut through that right away you think either one of these cases. This came about election year just so happen to be election-year.

You think this any of these are brought by the DA New York is a Republican that houses controlled by the public as you know that sit in any city committees prejudice that are controlled by Republicans know so partisan is disgustingly partisan, disgustingly partisan. That's the worst kind of legal system is what is disgustingly partisan. Worst the worst of kind of the American spirit.

If you will take the American returning it unsaid will be right back on Jay Sekulow live 164 3110 taking your calls. The final segment only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.

We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those faith uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift dollar gift becomes 100.

This is a critical time for the ACLJ.

The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online ACLJ hold on the scrimmage area in Florida. Welcome back to Jay Sekulow advertising the Supreme Court case involving the present tax returns, financial records, Gary from Florida online to welcome the Jay Sekulow life. They think you owe it to biology many years and I think you and I think he might've emptied it already in the President who ran all the different not by the government put it different from that of bringing out the questions you requested me to catch up a long time so please get the job when sunlight is all lady always run you down and it when you don't do it the way the polity doing to make the another car again to try to make you like you haven't done a good job when you have but to let him have done a good job that's really good point to and that is we raised. We were the plaintiffs of mice a week.

The present was the plaintiffs in this case we challenge these because they were targeting the President so the President initiated the litigation. What happens now after you read through all hundreds of pages of this and he is a goes back and I'll be up at the trial. You have a problem with this record.

Another word we have to bring evidence of harassment of bad faith of overstepping the bounds of fishing expedition of the witchhunt and of all the political machinations that there is that the district attorney, New York has put into play that the house committee have put into play and then we have to ask is that the court district judge who has to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and the legal back up the chain again to the appellate court and back to the Supreme Court again because I predict J that we are going to see this case in the United States Supreme Court yet again. I think you're right that this is not the end of this case, by any stretch. I both will be back as her back to the sounds Richard in California online six Richard Dr. Jay Sekulow life Dylan could do a little bit more about her question and and what was weird what I felt weird with this whole situation is the first time this issue had ever been brought up in history about Pres.'s tax returns and from what I understood his investigation have access to his tax return. So if there was anything illegal going on anything that going on with that of been raised with the flu is not really about illegality or what's the tax returns. This is that it's not about that tax returns and tax returns is nothing in the Constitution requires present to disclose tax returns as number one has there ever been a state prosecution of a sitting President. No, by the way that that doesn't mean that they can bring charges against sitting present, as they say lose that case what we you know we got a burden here that we have to establish in the trial court level in the Vance case on the congressional subpoenas where they requested tax returns basically said you know you got a show much higher standard of need. Here they vacated the lower court opinion. So in two or three cases. We got pretty much what we were expecting, and then in the one case we did not get what we wanted. We were still in the fight which is fine but it would be nice to have heightened scrutiny, but having said that, you know what I deal with things as they are, not as I wish they would be so you deal with the standard of proof that you got me working to do it under Lord is already working on documents are not being released today, tomorrow or in the immediate future. That's why the news was pegged in. That's why the networks broke in, and that's why they're now talking about a lot of other fancy twitter headline that says that like the New York prosecutors getting these documents in the twitters wrong.

He's not getting anything right now. Nothing in it has the right to get anything right.

I have to go back to trial. He knows that to yes but is the media just misread they don't see it I got it right shocking manifesto they were. They got it right in the beginning. Some of these other newer media outlets and also Drudge is wrong. I think Matt Drudge, your headline is completely off as if you know what, I'm not defending any of its 200 page edge when you read all these opinions is a lot to go to rise. Maybe before they start blasting out headlines I should get all of you people are demanding a response run so we got to see the event you Chris in Nevada online.

Three. Chris welcome Jay Sekulow life. I on remand, the district attorney wedded to the same subpoena or can he change it. That's a really good question.

So now this is district attorney stick with that subpoena.

What is the issue a more narrow I don't know the answer, he could he could he could easily do that or try to do that so I don't know.

That is the question that debates a very good question and I'm not sure what the anti-you've done that you know your you RDA I mean you serve in that capacity specialty up to but you, the DA could read full subpoena and the reason another few hundred grand jury subpoenas on behalf of the grand jury through 45 years of law practice and if he smart it would renew to a different subpoena narrowly tailored to meet the purpose for which he was the out in the very first place. But I don't think you can because the subpoena was the harassment purposes and to embarrass the part of the President and not for any real public criminal purpose, so I do know that he can really in good faith issuing the subpoena, but the answer to the question is he could issue a different subpoena altogether absolutely, and we actually I get there because if you ask it to be showing what is actually going after what he sees that he has when the actual interest.

Why is this good faith and not bad faith. You know, if you want so broad, so what is the narrow area that you think there's something there because he would then have to show his cards to issue a more narrow subpoena would be showing his cards which would which would in the normal thing to be able to do that if you were the prosecutor because you be doing in good faith enough for political purposes. In this were difficult much more difficult. Gina in New York on line 1 Gina Watson Jay Sekulow live in the political angle, I can tell you that the tax return do not like that. Supporting documentation and it's just an excuse for him practically popping up numbers for political theater reversible disclose what I know about the case because of the cases ongoing. I'm not doing other than our broadcast I'm not doing TV media or radio media today on this certificate because the cases are ongoing. These are life cases patina you're absolutely correct but is not about that.

It's not about the actual tax returns. It's about an attempt to leak information out get information out. That's what it's really about faith in the tax returns.

Like you said, the tax returns are just numbers. Here's what your income is what your deductions are.

Here's what your Dr. tax obligation is that's what it is that's what it establishes so anyways that's where that is. I will say it was an interesting ride. I will tell you that this is been like Jordan said, I argued the case right here man pointing to the spot where I argue the case is back in the corner there. The Supreme Court of the United States representing the President of the United States. I mean, there you go, and my colleagues were in other locations doing the same thing in the three cases so overall were pleased. Again, we would've liked heightened scrutiny on the my Vance case we get Heights gurneys that we got to deal with the scrutiny level that they put for we gotta show harassment and other constitutional issues were to do that. That's makes it not an easier job, that's for sure, but a job nonetheless they say they recognize that there's unique aspects of the presidency were certainly pouring all that out so that you know at the end of the result is that I noticed any documents I think to a people to ACLJake to be proud to understand that if Europe in support of the American Cephalon just even going back to case before merging with American Cephalon justice in the cases that you initially did it for and still do First Amendment religious liberty to even think of those conference records a big deal to defend Terry to represent the present United States and to get into article 2 powers is a different level of legal expertise who now reach that and I think it shows all the supporters as well out there people at the ACLJake to be proud of their support as well because you were chosen by the present United States because your expertise is the Supreme Court Constitution to represent the leader of the free world and everybody out there has supported the organization to get us to that point, no question about it in a very big thank you to all of our members and on another thank you those of your continued support work this LJ. We had a big lawsuit that were planted for next week at end of this week or next week on the situation in the churches in California. Stay tuned for that changes everything.

With those two as the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ challenge for every dollar you donate will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 you can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online LJ


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime