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

WAR CRIMES

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
March 3, 2022 4:17 pm

WAR CRIMES

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1085 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


March 3, 2022 4:17 pm

There's a lot of talk in the media right now about holding Putin and other Russians accountable for war crimes for what they've done in Ukraine. Texas Representative Chip Roy joins Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team to discuss. ACLJ Senior Counsel Frank Manion also joins to discuss a major trial we're in the middle of as we fight to protect the voices of the voiceless unborn in federal court. This and more today on Sekulow.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Today on Sekulow, there's a lot of talk about holding Putin and other Russians accountable for war crimes.

Could it ever happen? Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. The prosecutor just landed on the ground in Ukraine looking into the war crime allegation and I don't think it's going to be hard once you see these civilian targets. You guys have been putting up the video in various places. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. For example, Kharkiv in the northeast really bombarded a children's hospital, an orphanage. I mean these are not military targets and it's pretty easy to make that distinction. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome to Sekulow. There's a lot to talk about today as we title the show War Crimes because there's a lot of talk on TV and I understand it about how can we ultimately hold Putin and Russians accountable for the atrocities we're seeing on television. Especially because this was a war of choice. Ukrainians were not firing into Russia. They were not trying to pick up battle with Russia. Russia decided to do this unilaterally. They didn't build a coalition. They didn't build a plan. They didn't really tell the world. I mean the world was, there's some neo-Nazis there.

I mean it was ridiculous. So there's this move to say, well at least one day maybe we can hold them accountable and even hear that the ICC, the International Criminal Court prosecutors on the ground in Ukraine except for a big problem. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor the United States, nor the US and some other major superpowers around the world, China, are members of the International Criminal Court. They have not ceded jurisdiction over their country's actions to the court.

So you don't have either party here. Now there's this tenuous thing they're trying to argue, we'll get into later in the broadcast, about well they ceded some jurisdiction during Crimea so maybe we can use that except for that conflict ended and then this is a totally new conflict. And I do want to be careful because people think this is, and by the way for the UN to refer it, it's got to go through the Security Council. Guess who has a veto on the Security Council because they're a permanent member?

Russia. So they're never going to allow their leaders to be charged and tried at the International Criminal Court. And the International Criminal Court, which is getting a lot of praise right now from US leaders, from the same US leaders who did not agree. So you can't play these games with an international tribunal that's been looking for universal jurisdiction to somehow justify its existence. We know more about this than I think any lawyer in the United States because we're one of the few lawyers, law firms that have actually appeared before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. I'm holding in my hand for our radio audience my trial notebook that says on it, and we'll put it up on the screen, it says International Criminal Court, the appeals chamber situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Then it said ICC number 0217, and that was December 4th through 6th, 2019 was a three-day trial. Put that up on the screen. All right.

Okay. And that was the trial notebook. We know a lot about the ICC. Here's the situation that Jordan said is absolutely correct. They do not have, nor should they have, universal jurisdiction. What is happening in Russia, I think there are war crimes that are being committed.

The act itself. But that doesn't mean the International Criminal Court is the place for that to be adjudicated. We'll talk about that later in the broadcast. Coming up, and we want you to share this with your friends, we were just in court here in the United States on a domestic matter standing up for the life of the unborn.

We're going to talk about that. Now, all of these cases, the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the U.S. District Court in New Jersey standing for life. Any of those cases, all of those cases, this broadcast every day is because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. We're in a matching challenge campaign in March. We're up to a really good start.

We want to continue that momentum. That's right. And to be part of the ACLJ's matching challenge, simply go to ACLJ.org. And what it means, if you donate $25 to the ACLJ today online at ACLJ.org, we have a group of donors throughout the month of March that will match the donation that comes through. You've got to take the initial action, though, to get that match from those donors. So if you donate $25, they also donate $25. So effectively, your $25 donation is like $50 for us at the ACLJ.

I mean, that goes for a $5 donation and a $200 donation on up from there. So if you want to support our work, which is much bigger than just the broadcast, go to ACLJ.org, donate today, be part of the matching challenge. We come back, update on life cases, then we'll be joined by Chip Roy.

Back to you, Creative Russia. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're 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, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected 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 to defend 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. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow, and we are going to be taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. I want to encourage people, we're going to be talking about right now, we'll get back to Ukraine and Russia, the ICC, the war crimes issue, but we have to update you, too, on some pro-life cases we are working on right now, three that we're going to talk about, one that was in trial in New Jersey. But I encourage you, if you're on Rumble, this is a kind of new feature we can utilize, it says if you scroll down right below the video, maybe a couple ads, you'll see where we're able to put in text. In the first text it says sign our petition now with a link. That is a petition, if you click on it, for life and specific to the Dobbs case at the U.S. Supreme Court. 408,000 people have signed that petition, our goal is 500,000, so we have new folks on Rumble, it takes just a minute to sign the petition, you put your name, email, and zip code, and that is it.

So again, I encourage you to check that out on Rumble, it's a new feature we've got, and you'll see right there the petition. So Frank Mann, you're joining us, Senior Counselor of the ACLJ, and Frank, you were in federal court last week for a two-day trial, and before we get into the specifics of what happened in court, let's talk about this case. We've been standing for free speech for the life issue for literally 40 years. I mean, we go back a long time, all of us working together, and we've been doing this for four decades. And yet, even with wins at the Supreme Court, on this very kind of issue, we are still finding ourselves defending those that want to speak out for life in the vicinity of an abortion clinic. But give us the details of this case, what was it involving, Frank?

Sure, Jay, and you're so right. What's happening here is we have a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 2014, McCullen v. Coakley, that the lower courts and municipalities still haven't figured out that the court meant what it said. We represent a woman named Gerald Turco, who's been sidewall counseling outside of an abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey, since 2005.

For the first eight years, things were fairly peaceful. Then in 2013, a new group of protesters, pro-life protesters, arrived who had a completely different approach than Gerald. She prefers the quiet, personal, one-on-one communication with people, handing them pamphlets, giving them alternatives to abortion. She thinks that's more effective.

Frankly, I do too. Which is not to say that these other people don't have their own First Amendment rights, but the city was claiming and the clinic was claiming that they were doing illegal things, pushing people, blocking doors, screaming into the building, that sort of thing. Well, Englewood's response was to pass a buffer zone which excludes from the vicinity of the clinic not only those people who they may or may not have a right to exclude, but also our client and other quiet, peaceful sidewall counselors. Well, the Supreme Court in 2014, nine to zero, how often do you get a unanimous decision in an abortion clinic?

Maybe never. Including people like RBG said, cities, you can't do that. These kinds of buffer zones are disfavored. If you exhaust everything else, targeted injunctions against the actual wrongdoers, face-type laws, prosecutions of actual criminal violations, if none of that works, then maybe you can go to a buffer zone. Englewood did none of that, and that's been a testimony for the seven years we've been litigating this case. It finally came out in court last week, and we're hoping we get a successful result in the end. You know, Frank, as I think about this, you and I have been litigating at the Supreme Court and at the Court of Appeals, these kind of abortion free speech cases, literally for decades. And when you have a situation like this, you think to yourself, well, you won, it's done. And why would you be back in federal court? But then a municipality thinking they could treat pro-life speech different than any other form of communication.

And that's what the real problem is here. They treat pro-life protesters as if they're, you know, as our friend Jordan Lawrence used to say, asbestos in the ceiling tile, they're dangerous just because they're pro-life, so we can change all the rules. Yeah, and that's why we have to keep fighting these cases, and that's why we've frankly been fighting this case for literally seven years. We won the case on summary judgment in 2017 at the district court level.

The city appealed. The Third Circuit spent about a year and a half mulling that over and then said, you know what, we need a trial. So that's why this case is dragged out for so long. And in the meantime, our client has to navigate this obstacle course created by the buffer zones.

There's really six separate buffer zones in this particular place. And it's simply impossible to share the message she wants to share in the way, not only she wants to share, but in the way that the unanimous Supreme Court said she has an absolute right to try to do. So that's why we're still fighting. You know, and this is at a time when we've got the biggest abortion case since Roe vs. Wade is at the U.S. Supreme Court waiting for the opinion. I mean, it came up in the State of the Union address by President Biden.

The Supreme Court justices, you know, they showed their faces, which were stoic most of the time during the State of the Union, maybe even more stoic when he made that attack on them, because ultimately that's what he's trying to do is, even at that moment, trying to influence them at the last minute. And so we have that. But we're also representing South Dakota and their governor, Kristi Noem, in a case there involving informed consent. So we are, I think, on the one hand, doing the traditional cases we've been working on, like the sidewalk counselor, like informed consent.

We're also preparing for what would a post-Dobbs, in a good way, world look like. And Frank, there would be an unbelievable amount of new litigation because you've got state constitutional issues. You have probably about half the states of the country that would want to put in similar laws. Other states that might be kind of somewhere in the middle.

And then some states that are going to be very pro-abortion. And so it's going to be up to groups like ours to go in and educate the legislators on what they can and can't do, the steps they need to take to get the laws passed. There's a lot of work that can be done. The pro-life movement will not be done because of what happens in Dobbs.

No question about it. I mean, you know, if Dobbs goes the way we hope it goes, or even part of the way that we think it should go, it's not going to be an end of litigation. It's just going to be the beginning of a new round of litigation.

Slightly different in some ways, but you're right. I mean, the patchwork quilt of laws will be challenged and defended all across the country after that. You know, Frank, one of the things I've thought about, and I see this, if Dobbs goes the way we think it does, in that particular case of the Supreme Court, we filed a major brief on that, an amicus brief. And we've been involved in abortion litigation cases at the Supreme Court for, like I said, four decades. I think the crisis pregnancy centers, the women's health centers, are going to be really at risk in states that are pro-abortion.

We already know, even though we've won at the Supreme Court on this, they are going to try to regulate them out of existence. That's right. Let's not forget who was the defendant in the case that we brought to the Supreme Court.

It was somebody named Kamala Harris, I believe. She's in an even more influential position now. So that's the kind of thing we're up against. And you're right, crisis pregnancy centers are also on the front line, just as the sidewalk counselors are. And they are targets.

They are targets of pro-abortion regulators all over the place. So Frank, let me ask you this. So you had the trial. What's the next move after the trial?

How'd it go, first of all? The trial went fine. I think our case looks better after the trial.

You'll appreciate this, Jay. Every single one of the five witnesses who testified for the city contradicted their deposition testimony on the crucial issues in the case. It was like, for a lawyer, it was like Christmas morning. I sat there with deposition transcripts to every single one of them. Remember when I took your deposition?

You said the opposite. That rarely happens in a trial. But I think I came across loud and clear to the judge who heard the case. We now have a couple weeks to submit our written summations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. And then we'll wait for a decision after that. So very important on that point.

So even though the trial is complete, the post-work here is you've got briefs and submissions due as a result of the witnesses at trial, basically summation? Exactly. Exactly.

All right. I think it's interesting to point out too, our team was pointing out, today was the day 35 years ago you argued your first case to the Supreme Court of Jews for Jesus case. That was 35 years ago today. So for our audience who may be new to our work, I know some people know that we've been doing that for decades. But if you might be new to our work, there's a photo outside the court.

I was pretty little. That's me in the blue coat there. You know, just the expert, when we talk about the expertise, it has been over three decades of work at the Supreme Court. And like we talked about our work at the ICC, we have all these specific, very unique specialities and focuses. So I think, again, it's worth pointing out to all of you during this matching challenge month, when you're supporting the work of the ACLJ, when you're supporting the work of an organization that has been in existence, that has been at the Supreme Court for 35 years protecting your constitutional rights on a whole host of issues. Whether it's free speech, which really that's what this case is about. You know, it's got abortion distortion in it because it's an abortion clinic, but it's free speech. That's what the Jews for Jesus case is also about. Free speech. The idea that religious speech is just like other speech and we have free speech. We've been arguing that and fighting for freedom. And you know what's interesting, Dad, I would say, is that over time there were other groups who would say, well, they were even more extreme free speech groups, like the ACLU, and they're not anymore. Now they pick sides.

No, they do pick sides. And I'm thinking about looking at this. We don't. No, I mean, I'm looking at this picture. For those that are watching us and for those that are listening on radio, I mean, it is a historic picture. Jordan's three years old, Logan's in it, a nephew of ours is in it, my late brother's in it, my parents are both in heaven now as well is in it.

Stuart Roth is there. That's how long we've been doing all of this. And the fact is, about a week after this hearing, I met in Kentucky with a lawyer named Pat Monahan, Frank, and we started working together then. Yeah, so, I mean, you look at that and we've litigated in the 80s, the 90s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and the 2020s, five decades before the Supreme Court of the United States. So, folks, again, it's just a great example of the work outside of what you see on this broadcast, which is an important part of our work because we're able to get the message out and inform you. But again, it's a small part of everything else that goes on behind the scenes, the cases, the attorneys that are out around the country defending constitutional rights. In a time where free speech is under attack because we saw the censorship of Facebook, there's new censors in the world and we fight back against those. Yeah, I think my sister's in there, Jeannie, and my sister-in-law.

I mean, it was a family affair then, it is now too. Our entire family is still fully engaged as we go to the next generation of leadership with Jordan and Logan. Folks, very important, support the work at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected 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 to defend 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. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.

Welcome back to Secular. We are joined by a good friend of ours, Congressman Chip Roy of Texas, the 21st Congressional District. He's been someone we got to know in Washington, D.C., even long before he was a congressman. He's chief of staff to Senator Ted Cruz, staff director for Senator John Cornyn, people we've been working with a long time at the ACLJ. Congressman Chip Roy is a leading voice, a conservative voice in the country, and it's great to have him on the broadcast today. Congressman, I want to jump right into it, because you talk about the idea in your tweet this morning that if you're going to vote for more appropriations to assist Ukraine, which appears that there's bipartisan support for now to do, that we've got to unleash and open American oil and gas, the ANWR, the pipelines, the regs, offshore, federal lands, put it all together, or else you say it's a fail. Tell people about that.

Well, thanks for having me on, first of all, and great to be on the show. But the thing that we're dealing with here, and right now, let me be clear to listeners, we've got a $32 billion package brewing in Washington right now, money to go to dollars for lethal assistance for Ukraine, but also Ukrainian humanitarian assistance, but also a whole bunch of COVID money for continuation of a COVID vaccine pushing by the administration and therapeutics all going right into the pockets of Pfizer. So I'm just bringing up and raising the question, as you just read the tweet, if $1 is appropriated, if $1 is spent and Republicans support it next week, that is going to go towards the Ukrainian situation that we're dealing with right now, and we don't free up American energy, then it's a fraud, and we need to call them all out on it.

It's a front. And they're going to go down and they're going to say, no, no, no, Green New Deal is our solution for energy independence. That will not solve a thing. And it will leave America behind.

It will empower our enemies and it will drive up the cost of energy in this country. But I'm telling you, the left doesn't care. The radical left actually wants to use this war to advance the radical Green New Deal. That's what's motivating them.

They're out there wrapping themselves in the flag of Ukraine. But I'm telling you, what they really want is they want to be able to use this for an overall world order about how to reset the energy landscape. And that means shutting down American energy and being reliant on China and Russia.

That's the real fight. You know, Congressman, this is Jay. I mean, the idea that we are still importing oil from Russia today and that we had the shutdown of the pipeline in the United States by the Biden administration as soon as they got into office, which would have provided that we were an oil exporter and now we are dependent upon Russia for our energy.

I mean, this to me is just absurd. And of course, Joe Biden has not put any sanctions on Russia's energy sector right now. Well, and in fact, he's very specific in what he's talking about in their policies in the State of the Union about their lack of intent, lack of intent to address this situation at all.

They're perfect, perfectly fine. Continuing either the status quo or frankly, going further down the so-called Green New Deal road, which is all a fraud and pursuing fantasy unicorn energy policies that leave us beholden to our enemies. You just said it. Six hundred thousand barrels of oil imported from Russia every day in the United States, even though we sit on a mountain of oil and natural gas, we have constricted our supply. We have shut off permits.

We have closed down Amwar. We have shut down the Keystone pipeline. We've restricted other pipelines. We have FERC going down and saying we can't push out liquefied natural gas and limiting what we're able to push out to the world.

This is all happening in real time. And yet we're we're all sitting around talking about what we need to do to send more aid to Ukraine. The very first thing we need to do right now is free up American energy, or I don't want to hear about any of it.

Well, this, Congressman Roy, I think this resonates with all of our listeners right now. But I think what you said to step back that bigger picture here, which is that they're utilizing this world crisis, which everyone acknowledges is horrendous, what the Russians are doing to the Ukrainians. OK, we all acknowledge that. We also acknowledge that there's wide support that there shouldn't be U.S. boots on the ground, but that we can deliver aid, but that we are, in a sense, allowing the left to punish Americans.

I mean, they wouldn't use that word. We would punish Americans at the pump and with with natural gas as well, so that we ultimately I just want you to say what we're talking about. We buy in to that or we're beaten down into buying into this Green New Deal idea. And that's exactly right. And I want to be clear, you know, I voted for the resolution yesterday with my colleagues about our contempt for Putin, about the fact that we stand with the people of Ukraine. Like I took a trip to Ukraine with my former bosses.

You guys alluded to before Senator Cruz. We went to Kiev in 2014. We went to Estonia and met with the President in 2014. We went to Warsaw.

We went to Poland in 2014. And I met with these folks. And these are folks who have a hunger for freedom there on the eastern side of Europe because they've seen the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union. These people understand freedom better than most Americans. I'm going to be blunt about it.

So I want to be able to stand alongside them. But I'm not going to also be a pawn in George Soros and the radical left's game of trying to make us bow down to the altar of the Green New Deal and this fake energy so that they can advance their social welfare state, their their agenda of making us reliant on foreign oil, relying on China for, you know, the all of the minerals that we need for making solar panels and reducing our independence. This is a sovereignty question, just like our southern border. Democrats don't care about it. They don't care about American exceptionalism. They want a new world order.

That's what they're trying to do. And we got to stop it. There's another issue you're very involved in and so are we. And that is the situation, the crisis on the border. You have a mini documentary out Texas under siege, the human toll of Biden's border crisis. You're down there.

What's your assessment right now? Well, that that documentary is from a trip that I took with Senator Cruz in the fall. And we got that out there explaining exactly what we did, meeting with ranchers, meeting, going down to Laredo and Webb County, Texas, going down to the valley, down to McAllen.

Then just last week, I led a group of four other congressmen. So five total in five Texas state legislature members to go down and meet with folks in Del Rio. And we went down and we're down to the river right where the the alleged whipping incident occurred, which was a lie, a purposeful lie by Jen Psaki, the President, all the way down, including Alejandro Mayorkas. And they are punishing Border Patrol. They are minimizing their ability to do their job. They are claiming asylum is as the green light for the world to come to the United States. But in fact, 90 percent plus of the people claiming asylum have no basis under our law to claim asylum. They're coming here looking for a job. And God bless them for it.

You know, we are people of faith as a Christian. I want to help people. I want to make sure that people can thrive.

And I begrudge no one seeking prosperity. But I do begrudge people like the secretary of Homeland Security, leaving our border wide open, empowering cartels, allowing fentanyl to pour into our communities. In Del Rio, Texas, right now, a thousand people a day are coming across our border.

In Del Rio, Texas, in that sector, 26 migrants died in the Rio Grande River since October 1 when all the cameras left when the Haitians were in the river. You know, Congressman, I've only got about 30 seconds here. But for people who are interested in seeing that mini documentary, Texas Under Siege, the human toll of Biden's border crisis, we're talking to Congressman Chip Roy of Texas.

Where can they go and find that? Yeah, you can go to my official website at Roy.House.gov. You can follow me at ChipRoy.com on my personal political website. Twitter, ChipRoyTX.

And, you know, or RepChipRoy if you want the official account. God bless you all. Thanks for having me on. Thanks, Chip. We appreciate it. Thanks, Congressman. And again, folks, I encourage you to check that out. Texas Under Siege, the human toll. Every one of these issues, the ACLJ's front and center. Yeah, that's right. And they all, you see how when we talk to Congressman Roy, these are all interconnect, you can't have one without the other.

They all play against each other. And it's a massive change in how you're going to structure the government. It's which side you support and which side ultimately wins out on these issues like oil and gas. Second half hour coming up, a lot to talk about, all this talk about war crimes.

If you really hold Putin accountable, is there really a way to do that? At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome back to Sekulow. It's an interesting comment made.

We've been talking about this in the past, but now Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, has been caught up in it as well. I'm going to just play it for you first. Listen closely, then we'll analyze it.

Take a listen. I was at the State Department. The President was the vice President the last time Russia invaded Ukraine. This is a pattern of horror from President Putin and from the cronies around him.

So what is the pattern of horror? What's the unifying factor in all of this? Putin has taken these actions when Biden was vice President and now that he's President. When did Putin not take these kind of actions? When Joe Biden wasn't in the executive branch.

He was excluded for four years. President Trump was in office. I don't think that's what she wanted to be saying, but literally, it's the Biden pattern of horrors because it's ultimately, as the most powerful country in the world, the United States sets the tone. And right now the tone is we're weak, we're divided, and our country... I mean, look at the scattershot State of the Union.

It's impossible to even figure out where the focus is of our federal government, which is tough, and so China's looking at Taiwan, Russia, not just annexing a part of Ukraine, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The common denominator of the Russian pattern of horror is that Joe Biden is in the executive branch. This is going to be tomorrow's broadcast. We are going to really get into this tomorrow. Let's go ahead and take a phone call, but folks, it was a telling statement from Jen Psaki.

She didn't mean it to be, but clearly it is. Carol's calling in from Maryland Online One. Hey, Carol, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Well, thank you, guys.

Thank you for taking my call. I'm talking on pertaining to the Ukraine issue. I've seen on the news where it's really heartbreaking to see Zelensky talk and how he needs planes. My question is, is NATO's level of involvement in helping Ukraine dependent upon the unification of its members, or can NATO act on sending soldiers and planes without that unification of its members? Countries could act. There's nothing that prevents a country as a member of NATO from voluntarily entering in this conflict. Another country could say, we're going to enforce the no-fly zone.

And I think that would make it a different question about whether or not that invokes Article 5, because they would attack, they voluntarily entered. So I don't think we're naming and shaming the Europeans enough when it comes to this. They're trying to make it all about us. Even Zelensky, a little bit too much about us, the U.S. They've got your European partners. They've got fighter jets, too.

Most of them put together by us. So they've got very good fighter jets. And very well trained.

Very well trained. They don't have huge land forces, but they don't really need that right now. He's saying if he had some air support, take out those convoys, this might be over. But the Europeans in these individual countries, they're hiding behind that idea of NATO instead of voluntarily deciding to get involved. So there is nothing prohibiting France, Germany, Poland, these other countries from simply engaging.

The United Kingdom? From sending in troops, or certainly aircraft. Doing a no-fly zone. Creating a no-fly zone.

Why would it be the United States? And number one, number two, you don't have to wait for NATO, which has to have unanimity, to take action here if it's going to actually help Ukraine. Some of this is propaganda from both sides. And what we have to be clear, and we're going to be crystal clear on this. It's like this International Criminal Court conversation we're going to have next. There's a lot of talk, but we've done this stuff, folks. And it's not as simple as the general on TV are making it sound like.

I don't care what network they're on, frankly. But as Jordan just said, there is nothing prohibiting Latvia, right? Estonia, these countries that are worried about this from providing more direct armaments, or including soldiers if necessary.

That could happen. The question is, why is it always the United States here that they're coming to, even though we'll supply plenty of resources, money, and munitions? Yeah, and you know why. It's because they don't want to fight and die for this. They want us to fight and die for this. And they see us as their hammer, and there's not that support in the U.S.

I think there's probably some more support than there was when this began. But still, you hear from politicians pretty clearly, both sides of the aisle. They understand the big ramifications of a U.S.-Russia war, which is a lot different than the ramifications of a France involving a no-fly zone with Russia. Huge difference.

We're talking about two nuclear powers going to war versus a medium-sized European country with the military that could do it if they were willing to potentially lose the loss of life that would come with fighting with Russia in the air. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're 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, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected 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 to defend 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. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Secula. So there's been a lot of talk about war crimes and the International Criminal Court because their prosecutor is on the ground in Ukraine already. They're in this kind of new pretrial chamber process, putting together what would be a case against Russian leaders, generals, Putin, for these war crimes, which began with a paper if you go through what war crimes are, the invasion, so just invading a country that for no reason, a war of choice is what it's called, and then a sovereign nation at that. So there's issues there. The targeting of civilians, you'd have to prove that was done intentionally.

But you can see in the images how you could build this case. The problem is not really building the case. It's never been the problem with trying to prosecute war crimes. The issue has been, and the U.S. has been at the lead of this, most countries who are engaged in conflict on a more regular basis because of their standing in the world don't sign on to any of these treaties that allow International Criminal Courts any jurisdiction over their actions. And that's because, think about the U.S. We've engaged in two massive long wars that just finished Afghanistan and Iraq. They still try to get at you. They still try to get at U.S. soldiers through the ICC. And we were there.

And so I want to just lay it out before. Always be careful when you're dealing with, because neither Russia or Ukraine are a member of the ICC. If both were, easy discussion. If one was, a little bit easier discussion. If neither are, then you've got to really step back and say, All right. Would this be a precedent to go after U.S. troops or Israelis or any Western power that the ICC and the world, which is dominated by non-Western powers when you put all the countries of the world together, don't like?

Don't like the decisions of? So I'm holding in my hand for our radio audience, for our TV audience, you're actually seeing a shot of it on the screen right now, the trial notebook that I used when we tried a case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague at the appeals chamber entitled, The Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, where they were, the ICC was trying to go after U.S. soldiers. Now the United States, as Jordan said, nor Russia, nor Ukraine are members of the Rome Statute, which governs jurisdiction, but they have this attempted universal jurisdiction. Do we think war crimes are being committed in Russia? Yes. Do we think the ICC just has easy general jurisdiction?

No. The question is going to be, the UN can make referrals here. Andy, you've been looking at this issue extensively. And like I said, there's few law firms you're going to talk to that have tried cases at the ICC. And that wasn't, by the way, our first time over at The Hague. That was our second or third time, actually third time over at The Hague, second time in a proceeding. So, you know, believe me, and we know this issue. I think we're going to show one coming up during the break here of some of that proceeding.

But this just tells you, there's a lot of discussion about this. I want to be clear that we think what Russia is doing, led by Vladimir Putin, is violating the spirit of these international treaties. But getting jurisdiction is a totally different matter.

That's right, Jay. Getting jurisdiction is a totally different matter. And the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has said he is there.

He's on the ground. Karim Khan, who is a Queens Councillor, who is the new prosecutor succeeding the previous one, Bensouda. And he is then in Ukraine claiming that he has jurisdiction in the pretrial chamber to which the case has been referred. Because he can claim he has jurisdiction, but then in order to get the go-ahead, he's got to go to the pretrial chamber, which consists of three judges at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, where you argue, Jay. And then they have to give him the authority to proceed further. Can we show some video of that argument while we're doing it, or does that maybe not be possible? We could show some.

Here's an interesting issue, though. The UN can make a – through the Security Council – can make a direct referral to the Criminal Court. Now, that is – the video you're seeing right there is me before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, wearing the robe and the – what do you call it? What's it technically called? The handkerchief?

Yeah, the bib. Yeah, I mean, it's a very formal proceedings, and it was before a multi-judge panel, as you can see. And it almost reminds you of a Star Wars courtroom if there was such.

It's very futuristic. But it's also potentially very dangerous. And I say the ICC can do some good things, but they also can be very, very out of their lane. But there is a procedure – and this has never been done before, and this is why our team looks at this stuff, folks – where the General Assembly could recommend and the Security Council could vote a referral to the ICC directly to non-parties to the Rome Statute. It has to go through the Security Council. But Russia technically, Andy, which could veto this, because they're on the Security Council, has to abstain. Should abstain under the UN Charter. This, as you said, Jay, the Security Council can issue a referral of a matter to the International Criminal Court. It needs a supermajority, which is nine out of 15, and none of the permanent members would be permitted to oppose it if that were the case. But if you look at the UN Charter, Article 27 of the UN Charter says that a party to a dispute shall, not may or ought to, but shall abstain from voting.

So that if there is an application or a motion for referral from the Security Council to the International Criminal Court, Russia shall abstain into the UN Charter and not be able to exercise its veto. Which means, folks, and this is what's important, you understand the scope and nature of our work. Now, we've got our European Center for Law and Justice has non-governmental organization status.

Guess with who? The United Nations. And we're about to expand that work drastically in the next couple of years. Yeah, that's right. And I think, too, what's important there then would be the role of China. China abstained from the vote on the censure at the General Assembly after the Russian actions. Right.

That was a big deal. But they would be under tremendous pressure from Russia to try and veto this. And I could see a situation where China steps up and says no, because they want to invade Taiwan and they want to take Taiwan, whether they do that now, whether they do that in two years, whether it's five years. But they like the idea of having that. And they're going to look very carefully and say, well, you know what?

This could happen to us. So usually they abstain. A lot of times they don't take issue. Maybe this is the time they step up. So I think that's why you have to be very weary.

It's not fair in these three-minute conversations on TV. And that's why Vladimir Putin is not sweating about this, as you can see. He's got multiple options to get out of this by utilizing other players in the world who might also want to go on adventurous-style military actions.

That's very interesting. Ukraine is now challenging, this is, I find, fascinating, whether Russia should be on the Security Council at all because the breakup – they were put on the Security Council, Andy, when it was a different country, the Soviet Union. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And when that broke up in the 80s and 90s, the Russian Federation sort of acceded or stepped into the shoes of the USSR and ascended to the USSR seat based on a decision made by the UN Office of Legal Affairs.

And I wonder if they really had the authority to do that. In any event, Russia simply stepped into the shoes of the old USSR, Soviet Union. And Jay, as you said, Ukraine is challenging that decision. It's because the country that was given P5 status was not Russia.

It was the Union of Soviet Republics. So this raises serious legal – look, we're going to look at – you've got to rest assured – at the ACLJ and our international affiliates are reviewing all of this. I just want to say, too, that unfortunately when you get to this point of war crimes, that means the people have been killed.

The kids, the women, the children, the people in the hospitals. This is, again, we're like rah-rah-ing this. But what it means is that ultimately if they could even get jurisdiction, it means there's been mass death of civilians, total destruction of Ukraine, likely Zelensky killed, and all of the Ukrainian government leaders. Supposedly, and again, there's a lot of information on both sides, but there are going to be Russia's planning very quick tribunals to execute all of the current Ukrainian government that they can find once they take towns. And they're starting to take towns now.

I want to do some clear talk real fast. Russia continues on the path they're on right now. Ukraine doesn't exist. I know we've talked a lot about the unbelievable resistance. They haven't used anything yet, but some missiles. They haven't gone in en masse with 20,000 troops into a city. When they start doing that, and if they start firing on people. So when you get to the point of the ICC getting involved and war crimes being committed, you're talking about thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people dying.

A complete destruction of a nation and their leaders. So you really hope we don't get to this point. So the rah-rah on TV of the side-by-side between see the Ukrainian resistance and also we're going to prosecute Putin for war crimes, it doesn't go together. If he gets prosecuted for war crimes, likely everyone you're talking about in the Ukrainian resistance has been killed. So we don't want to get to that point. The world needs to be working how to stop this now. Not how to rely on international courts that have been weak at best in trying to prosecute anybody of substance. Anyone.

They've been dying to try, but they can't find anyone. If you look at their history, they have a history of hardly indicting anybody or holding anyone. It's a handful of people that matter. But this is becoming the topic of conversation on almost every TV show in the country. Which is almost like a done deal. Yeah, and listen, you're talking to the lawyers that did it.

It doesn't work that way. So now we've got to talk about in the next segment what can be done. It doesn't depend on NATO. It's not simply NATO here. We're going to take some calls at 800-684-3110.

We'll be back in a moment. Support the work, the global work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected 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 to defend 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. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later. Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry. And what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The 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 in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular, where we take your phone calls as well at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. I want to start with John's call out of Tennessee.

John, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Yeah, thank you for taking the call. You know, as a former Marine and a member in the area around that has a whole ton of military, one of the questions that keeps coming up in our groups is, everybody in Washington is worried about loss of life if we get engaged. We have tons of drones, smart weapons, and everything else that can be brought to bear with no loss of human life. But still being able to protect and be able to defend Ukraine.

But John, let me step in real quick, and I appreciate your military service. Those drones are treated just like any other U.S. aircraft if we're operating them. Now, it's one thing if we give drones over to the Ukrainians, but I'm not sure the drones you're talking about are the kind they can operate. Because, you know, they're set up like basically pilots. They are pilots, specialists to do that. If we use a drone and our U.S. pilots somewhere, you know, Arizona, wherever they're based, are the ones who push the button to shoot the missile, we've engaged in the war, John.

I mean, does that make sense to you? That's the fine line. You are now at war with Russia. Yeah, it's that fine line between us getting fully engaged and everybody's perception of us putting 20,000 troops on the ground. But for Russia, who's threatening nuclear action, that, I mean, and I'm not saying that they would do that because we get involved, but they are threatening it. That's why you have to, what would be better, what would have been better is if we trusted the Ukrainians, which I don't think any of our governments have in the U.S., some for good reason. But even when you saw this buildup over the last four months, you would have gotten them the kind of drones to utilize.

So that when they took it, it wouldn't, again, they would have the technology, I think they have some. There is a big question about this convoy. And why it's not being attacked by the Ukrainian government. Or if it is being attacked, and we're just not, all we're seeing is this satellite image that doesn't really show that. So here's, I get it, John, and that's that fine line, like you talked about, between, it wouldn't put a U.S. troop technically in harm's way, but it would put America in harm's way. Well, it creates, and you're exactly correct, we are then at war directly with Russia, which raises another issue. And that's why we're putting all these issues together.

So while it sounds like, well, you could use technology and that doesn't put our troops in harm's way, we are then engaged, though, Harry, with Russia in a military conflict. So that's a big issue. And that impacts, look, that impacts pocketbooks, and that impacts economies. And the question is now, and Harry, you've got experience in the gas, oil and gas field, there is a lot of talk that we're still buying Russian barrels, what was it, 600,000 barrels a day. And then they're saying, well, if we don't do that, the cost of gas is going to go through the roof.

You've looked at this. What's your assessment? Well, I think the price of petroleum on the world market will explode irrespective of what we are now doing with Russia. Having said that, it's important to keep in mind that what we really need is to reclaim U.S. energy independence. So, for instance, many people have suggested placing sanctions on Russian energy. Well, that will work to some extent, but it's important to keep in mind that that provides a distinct economic advantage to China. China has already negotiated a $15 per barrel discount with respect to Russian oil. Secondly, it's important to keep in mind that Europe is highly dependent on natural gas, and generally speaking, we can only help through liquefied natural gas terminals, and that is cumbersome and very, very expensive. So, in so many respects, it's important to keep in mind that going back to the Obama-Biden administration, we have deliberately handicapped ourselves on the energy equation in dealing with Russia.

Thanks, Harry. And this goes, Jordan, to what you were saying, that all of these issues are intertwined, totally intertwined. It's not just as simple as, oh, now we're going to sanction energy sector on Russia, because it's not as if China's not going to do business with them. Right.

And even like when we did the SWIFT sanctions, well, the two biggest banks in Russia don't use the SWIFT to transfer money. So, I mean, there's issue after issue. It's tough. We've heard a lot of tough talks. Some of these sanctions are biting. They're biting the oligarchs, especially, because we have a special DOJ program.

That's fine. But if you're trying to topple the Russian economy, you've got to start talking about the future plans of our country when it comes to oil. So you have to say, we're going to finish Keystone XL and we're going to open it. That's how you topple the Russian economy with these sanctions.

And you know what? As we talked about with Congressman Roy, Joe Biden is not going to be willing to do that because half his party at least has bought on to the Green New Deal. And what Chip said was that they want the conflict, but they're utilizing this conflict, punish Americans at the pump, and we'll all say, you know what? We've got to go to these alternative forms of energy.

Some have worked, some don't work, and it's a lot of cost. So some of these oligarchs are breaking off from Putin, which is interesting. But here's the thing. The Department of Justice, Andy, has set up a program, they announced it yesterday, where they're going to target these oligarchs. Now, I'm thinking, okay, that means criminal proceedings brought against these oligarchs. Is that really a deterrent?

No, I don't think it is, Jay. I mean, let's be realistic about it. Do you think that bringing a criminal action against one of these oligarchs, which means rule by the few in Greek, in Russia, is going to really deter anything from happening in terms of the price of oil, the price of gas, the price of wheat, and things like that? I think the answer is decidedly no. So, Harry, to follow up what Jordan said, what does put Russia's economy in the kind of jeopardy that would have a significant impact? Well, first, U.S. energy independence would do that, but it's important to keep in mind that there are so many barriers within the Biden administration. So Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has suggested we don't want to do that.

Why? He claims this is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. So what we have is resistance against rational analysis within the Biden administration. And we should also keep in mind another fact. Agricultural prices are rising almost as rapidly as petroleum prices. And so if you look at wheat, if you look at soybeans, if you look at palm oil, those things have gone up almost 250 percent over the last three years. And given that there's a conflict in the Ukraine and there are problems in Russia, guess what? They may not plant those crops this season. This is going to drive up prices even further in 2023.

The planting season is coming up in the Ukraine and in Russia in the next eight weeks they've got to get the wheat in the ground or else there's going to be a crisis. Is that going to happen? It doesn't look like it.

It sure doesn't. Folks, I'm telling you, this was a great program today because you've seen all of the facets of the American Center for Law and Justice. Law and economics, law in international courts, government affairs with Congress. You saw the pro-life issues we discussed. All of this, this broadcast coming to you every day, is because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. We're the Matching Challenge Campaign.

Some of you are new to us, especially if you're on Rumble and we appreciate Rumble hosting us and we encourage you to keep going to Rumble. Go to ACLJ.org and donate online. Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Also, if you're on Rumble right now, we want you to sign on to the petition we have right there below the screen. And that's the pro-life petition. We're approaching 500,000 signatures, which is great.

We encourage you to do that. But again, support the work of the ACLJ. ACLJ.org and our Matching Challenge Campaign.

We'll talk to you tomorrow. How much of this has happened under Joe Biden when he was Vice President and President? Interesting topic. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-26 10:03:32 / 2023-05-26 10:27:51 / 24

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