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

Text Message Exposes Clinton Lawyer

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
April 6, 2022 3:28 pm

Text Message Exposes Clinton Lawyer

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1017 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


April 6, 2022 3:28 pm

A newly released text message in a new court filing by Special counsel John Durham is sending shockwaves through the political world. The message from Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to Jim Baker, general counsel for the FBI reads, "Jim – it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availibilty for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks." Sussmann's mission was to push a phony Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Sussmann has been charged with lying to the FBI. Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team break down this brand new filing by John Durham and provide their legal analysis on the case. This and more today on Sekulow.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes

Today on Sekulow, text message exposes Clinton Lawyer. That and more. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever.

This is Sekulow. Newly released text proves former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussman was untruthful to the FBI. Sussman pleaded not guilty to lying to the FBI, specifically to then FBI General Counsel James Baker during a September 2016 face-to-face meeting. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments. Or call 1-800-684-3110. Durham says when Sussman went to Baker, he failed to disclose that he was actually working on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome to Sekulow.

We're taking your calls on this, 1-800-684-3110. Yes, sometimes the wheels of justice take time. It certainly has with the Durham investigation.

You're not going to get us making excuses about that. This one has taken a long time to get the information. But when we do get the information, it sheds a lot of light on what was happening inside the Clinton campaign world.

All the way back to, we're talking to 2016 here. Pre-election trying to take down Donald Trump with opposition research. Now, opposition research is a normal part of political campaigns. What's not a normal part of political campaigns is going to the FBI as a campaign's attorney and saying, by the way, I'm not here as the campaign's attorney.

But I'm going to give you opposition research on the candidate we're running against. In this case, it was Hillary Clinton's outside counsel with info on Donald Trump and the Trump organization. Ultimately, this led to Crossfire Hurricane, remember. Ultimately, this led to Mueller.

I mean, the list goes on in all of these different fises against Americans. But it all starts with now a text message. So we're not just basing this off oral evidence now between what happened between Hillary Clinton's lawyer and James Baker, the chief counsel at the FBI. We now have the text message he sent to James Baker, making it clear, hey, by the way, I'm not doing this for any of my clients. I want to be very clear because I know we've had this issue with Facebook before, so I want to be very clear.

And you probably need to go over to Rumble because they may edit us here. But I'm reading for the Facebook reviewers, I am reading the United States of America versus Michael Sussman, the motion to eliminate filed by the United States government, Department of Justice, the Department of Justice that's under President Biden. This is what's in their documents. This is a motion to eliminate is to make sure certain evidence could be admitted at trial.

What they have sought is that there's been a – they allege a violation of 1001, which is a false statement. They then say that in the indictment on September 19th, less than two months before – I'm reading exactly from the document. Less than two months before the 2016 Presidential election, the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton campaign, met with the FBI general counsel at the FBI headquarters. The defendant provided the FBI general counsel with purported data and, quote, white papers that allegedly demonstrated a covert communication channel between the Trump organization and a Russia bank, what's called Alpha Bank. The indictment alleges the defendant lied in that meeting, stating that he was not representing any client. He not only stated it, but on page five of the brief, they now have the notes where it says, Michael Sussman, lawyer with Perkins, oh, you can put it up on the screen, and then it says, represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, et cetera, but not during this proceeding, not for the purposes of this meeting, which raises two questions. One is, the FBI knew he represented the DNC and the Clinton Foundation. What do they think?

Is he just coming over there to stop and chat? So, you know, you've got to ask yourself about the FBI's actions here, too. Are they winking and nodding here? But then it goes on further in the document. We'll get into this in the next segment, and shows that there was a joint venture involving the defendant, Sussman, the tech executive, and the Clinton campaign. Yeah, so, folks, we're just scratching the surface of this.

We'll get to the actual text message for you when we come back for the break and take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. I mean, how much confidence do you have in this investigation? I mean, it's a fair question to ask at this point, which there is some good news, and we'll get into it later in the broadcast, because mainstream media is actually covering it for the first time. They're kind of burying it away, but the New York Times actually covered the findings in this court filing, but we want to hear from you, 1-800-684-3110. I mean, the wheels of justice grinding slowly here.

Is it way too slow? 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back on Secular. 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, 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. If you want to talk to us on air, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Here is the text. So you don't have to rely anymore that this was an oral exchange only between Hillary Clinton's and the campaign's outside counsel Sussman and Baker at the FBI. Now you've got an actual text. So they're friends.

I want to put that on light too. If you're texting the FBI general counsel pretty casually about information like this, it means they know who you are and you know who they are. Which means you likely know this is Hillary Clinton's top attorney. Right. Okay, so this is the text. Let me read it out to you.

We're going back to September 18th of 2016. Jim, it's Michael Sussman. I have something time sensitive and sensitive I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow?

And then emboldened by Durham's team. I'm coming on my own, not on behalf of a client or company. And this is where it's so bogus because there's no attorneys doing this in the country. He just wants to quote, I want to help the Bureau.

Thanks. Well, first of all, I mean, obviously Sussman, if the allegations prove true, made a false statement to the FBI because he did have a client and the billing records shows that he billed for these meetings. But I want to ask a fundamental question here, which I'm sure Durham's getting into is how did Jim Baker, the FBI general counsel who knew that this law partner from Perkins Coie who represents the DNC and the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation, Sussman's partner was a partner at Perkins Coie. So these were law firm partners. He goes in and says, I don't have a specific client.

I don't have a client. But then he puts out this allegation about servers communicating by the Trump campaign and at the Trump property, Trump Tower, and at the White House office complex with Alpha Bank, a Russian-owned bank. None of this was true. And then later in this 47-page document, and again, for Facebook, so you don't start saying we're misquoting, we're reading from the actual document. Page 14, this is the title that Durham uses to describe the relationship between the defendant, Michael Sussman, the tech executive one, who I think, I don't know this, I think might be the cooperator, and the Clinton campaign. The tech company executive one and the Clinton campaign. And it says, as an initial matter, the government expects that the evidence of trial will show that the beginning in late July, early August 2016, the defendant, the tech executive, and agents of the Clinton campaigns were acting in concert towards a common goal.

Namely, the goal of assembling and disseminating the Russian bank allegations and other derogatory information about Trump and his associates to the media and the US government. This is what is alleged by the United States Department of Justice under President Biden. So don't censor this out or don't start quoting things. We're quoting from the exact document, and we have the document up on the screen.

So there you have it. They call it a joint venture with acting in concert with a common goal. Yeah, I mean this, again folks, where you take your calls, I don't want 800-684-3110, and it all ties ultimately to the fact that the Clinton campaign started to use this information publicly via Twitter. It starts on page 46 of this document, but it ends with what the government is ultimately, this is about evidence, it's really talking about what we're going to show in court, what we're going to prove in court.

When we talk about Durham, this is filed as United States of America-verse. This is the Department of Justice acting. It is the Biden-DOJ acting, in fact, because they've allowed Durham to continue and promised to allow Durham to continue his work. They said, quote, indeed, the government will offer this evidence to prove, among other things, that one of the defendant's primary goals in his work on the Russian Bank One allegations was to generate negative publicity concerning Trump that would benefit the Clinton campaign. Accordingly, this is, the tweet is admissible as not hearsay. The tweet, again, was these allegations by Jake Sullivan and through Hillary Clinton's account as well, the Clinton campaign account, making these allegations against Donald Trump that weren't even published yet.

And it talks about these articles that were finally published. He said, the fact that the Clinton campaign immediately issued a tweet, this is on page 48 again for those that might want to censor this, issued a tweet concerning the articles after receiving foreknowledge of these issues from the law firm one, Perkins Coie, is probative of the defendant's client relationship. Remember, he denied that he was representing the campaign here, and he clearly, at least the allegation is that he was, and they've got the billing records to show it. Indeed, the government will offer this evidence to prove, among other things, that one of the defendant's primary goals in his work on the Russia Bank One allegation was to generate negative publicity concerning Trump that would benefit the Clinton campaign.

According to the tweet, accordingly, the tweet is admissible as non-hearsay, because this is an evidentiary motion. But you understand what they said in that, that the whole purpose of this was to generate this negative publicity. Here's the problem that I still have with it is, how did the FBI not realize—this starts crossfire hurricane. This starts this whole process. This ends up with, like Jordan said, FISA warrants where false statements are again charged by a lawyer in the Justice Department who changes the wording of an email, submits it to the FISA court, James Comey signs off on it, and the FISA court issues a warrant on an American citizen.

Now, they've been admonished since then, but I mean, really. And so the FBI should not be getting a free pass on any of this. No, I mean, again, it's very bizarre to me because James Baker knew this person, they're texting each other. Not a phone call, not a formal request for meeting, a text.

That means a personal relationship, at least a working-slash-personal relationship where you know each other. And the fact is, even in the notes, which are included in this document, you see James Baker's notes, he makes this addition in the notes. Put it up on the screen.

So let's put it on the screen for everybody. You see where the addition is, it says, said not doing this for any client. But as you know, that's not the first part of the notes. I mean, it's like he— It's a side note. It's a side note, and this is all about the Russia bank, getting this in, connected servers. I mean, this is crazy stuff.

Honestly, the fact that the FBI general counsel is writing this down is stuff they didn't figure out, but it took an outside random attorney who just had random info on to figure out that supposedly the Trump organization, the company, had a server with Alpha Bank. And also, later on, this is an interesting one, that they also had one at a hospital. Yes, that was used as a communications mode by Trump.

So let me take it a step further for our radio audience, which is most of you. So we've got this. It looks like it's on a yellow legal pad or a legal pad of some type. It's handwritten. And it says, Michael Sussman, attorney, Perkins Coie, represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, et cetera, former DOJ official, been approached by prominent cyber people, academics and corporate types, then it has to the side, said not doing this for any client, although they—and that's next to, by the way, represents the DNC and Clinton Foundation. Then it says, New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal on Friday, secret Trump org server that has had comms, communications, with Alpha Bank.

Now, you're the FBI, okay? You've got a Presidential candidate that's running for office, two of them, Trump, Clinton. And her lawyer comes in, but he's not representing her for this.

I mean, think about that for a minute, okay? But it's to make the other candidate look bad. Yes, but it's to make the other candidate look not only bad, but derogatory information, of which it wasn't true. And then he lies about it, allegedly, to the FBI. But I'm thinking, like you said, Jordan, what's the FBI doing here? Right, I mean, the fact is the FBI— And then they open up Crossfire Hurricane? Right, you've got this kind of information being shared, and remember, the information they got is supposedly because they had this computer tech company that had a contract to go into servers to help with cyber attacks, but yet they were using this information to go and look into Russian connections.

That comes out even later on in this, but I think it all goes back to this. The FBI playing stupid. Now, there's either two things. They are stupid.

That's one option. The second option is they're just playing stupid. They play dumb. Now, I think we've seen a lot from Jim Comey playing dumb. That's kind of his modus operandi when he gets before congressional panels.

He laughs, he kind of talks down, but he kind of acts like he doesn't remember anything or doesn't know anything when it comes down to it. This is the second thing. Who would believe this? This is Washington, D.C., the FBI headquarters. You're walking in as your main client in the most high-profile thing it gets to in America, the Presidential election. And it's two very high-profile candidates, the wife of a former President and Donald Trump, two of the more well-known people in the world, running against each other. It's a divided election. But you're coming in just out of good faith, and the FBI believes it?

They know that's bogus. Now, we don't know who's made deals and who hasn't made deals and why other things haven't been. But remember, this leads to, I just want to remind you what it leads to. It leads to Crossfire Hurricane. It leads to Bob Mueller. It leads to Americans being spied on through FISA warrants. It leads to also, even the bigger picture, the distrust that we still have in our country for these government apparatuses like the FBI and Department of Justice. It also kept a two-year cloud over the Trump administration when they were dealing with more than that, when they were dealing with national security issues of huge proportion. It's a disservice to America.

A disservice that we still are dealing with today as we speak. 1-800-684-3110. We'll take calls. We've got calls coming in. We'll take your calls when we come back from the break.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Music. 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 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. 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. The good news is if you're a New York Times reader, you'll start to learn about this. So long as you get to page A-15 of the New York Times, a new filing by – and listen to this. Listen, even if you just got to the headline, you may say, okay, you don't even know who it's about. It might be about Donald Trump doing something wrong. New filings by counsel might strengthen case in Trump-era inquiry. I mean, that could sound like something about Donald Trump. So talk about misinformation. Even when they feel now, and I think it's because of the Hunter Biden laptop, they got burned on that.

They got burned by 50, quote, Intel officials who are, by the way, all got to those positions by being partisan because they had to get appointed to those positions. But then they write headlines like that, and you realize no one will read it because, one, it doesn't make sense, the headline. Two, the headline could be about Donald Trump being in trouble. And then they would read it. Maybe then – but then it wouldn't be on page A-15. Correct. So that – okay. So here's what you got, though.

And I've been saying – Harry, I've been saying this for the last 20 minutes. The thing that's fascinating to me about all this, when we're reading directly from the, you know, motion to eliminate from the government's documents, is the FBI went along with this. Absolutely. And so my presumption is, and this is pure speculation on my part, the FBI was probably in on the game before Sussman came with, quote, unquote, hard evidence. And so I think there are three answers that we have to think about with respect to this particular motion. First, this particular motion provides real hard evidence that there was indeed a conspiracy even though there is no conspiracy alleged at this particular point. This motion also suggests that the evidence includes a text suggesting that there were affirmative steps taken by the Clinton campaign to implicate Trump.

And third, this particular motion raises this question, and I think it's the key question. How far does the conspiracy go? So even if a conspiracy is not alleged in the indictment, it is very likely that there are other key players out there, and it's very likely that some of those key players are serving in the Biden administration.

So those are some of the issues that I think the American people should think about. Obviously, we have incomplete information. Yeah, this is just an evidentiary motion.

You're absolutely correct. And right now, all Durham is alleging is that they have sufficient evidence to show by a preponderance that this, quote, unquote, evidence should indeed be found admissible by the court. It's very interesting. On page 14, they entitle the sub-caption of the argument about the evidence admission. The Durham people, the Department of Justice, joint venture involving the defendant, tech executive one, and the Clinton campaign. And then they go on to say, namely, and this is exactly what they say, as an initial matter, the government expects that the evidence of trial will show that beginning in late July or early August, the defendant, tech executive one, and the agents of the Clinton campaign were, quote, acting in concert toward a common goal. That's how the Department of Justice phrased all of this. But it's still mind-boggling to me that the FBI just went along with this.

It opened up, to say they opened up a Pandora's box is an understatement. Yeah, that's right. I want to go to the phones. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island. First on line one. Hey, Jerry, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Hello, team. Doesn't this seem like a deja vu of 2017, excluding what Professor Hutchison just said when we talked about the recusal of the judge? And isn't it interesting that Sussman turned around and said, I just want to help out the FBI.

Just don't book it during lunchtime. Yeah, right, because he had a meeting at lunch, or evidently. But what's so ironic about this is when you put the notes, page five, this is again in the government's brief, page five on the screen, it lists that Sussman does represent the Clinton campaign, does represent the DNC, does represent the Clinton Foundation.

They knew it immediately. And to Harry's point, Harry, they do use, it's interesting because it's the way it's worded for the evidentiary rule, while they call it a joint venture. This is what they say, again, for the censors that are out there that want to censor, I'm reading from page 13 of the Motion Eliminate. So for those of you who are going to write a nasty letter and post it on Facebook, you're fact checkers, understand like last time, I'm not, we're not just quoting this from a news article. This is from the document filed by the Biden Department of Justice.

Okay. Page 13 says this, that the purpose of this was meant to carry forward the universally accepted doctrine that a joint venture is, and remember, they identify the Clinton campaign as joint venture, is considered as a co-conspirator for the purposes of this rule, even though no conspiracy has been charged. The rule they're talking about, of course, is an evidentiary rule, but they are deemed to be, quote, co-conspirators for the purposes of that rule, joint ventures for the purposes of the charge. I'm just pointing out who was involved in this and the nature of this, and that the FBI, in my view, turned pretty much, Harry, a blind eye.

It was staring them in the face what this was. This was a political opposition research campaign conducted by the lawyers for the Clinton campaign, where the FBI knows and the Department of Justice knows that when your campaigns have started, you stay out of this stuff. I think that is correct, but I also would say, and I think this point demands emphasis, that the FBI was predisposed to support the Clinton administration. I think we have seen clear and unmistakable evidence of that in the communications between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. And so if you look at the entire body of evidence, we can reach one conclusion and one conclusion only, and that is that President Trump was set up before the election, and it continued after the election, leading to the ill-fated Mueller investigation, where Bob Mueller proved his incompetence for the entire world to see.

I think Gary's right. I mean, I think when we look at the implications of this, you've got to realize the implications of this was put a cloud over a presidency for over two years. Yes, I mean, it's still, I would actually argue that our country still was damaged to this day. People don't know what information they actually believe or shouldn't believe, the truth, what's true, what's false, what media to trust. I mean, the fact that New York Times buries this under a headline you would not even know it was about, but we have to even acknowledge that the New York Times is finally even covering this, like they're finally covering Hunter Biden's laptop. That kind of information, the fact that they shame you out of information, that's what they did with Hunter Biden's laptop. They used careful words to say it's Russian disinformation, so don't use it. Not that it's not true. Not that it doesn't tell you about the potential complications and connections that the Biden family has with China and these corporations and Chinese government-owned companies.

No, no, no, no, no. Don't look there. Don't look there because it's just the Russians trying to be bad. Ultimately, where are we right now as a country? We're extremely divided.

We don't know what to trust or who to trust because partisan is a nice word, really, to say about how we feel. Our politics has become a game of how to put our enemies in jail, and unfortunately, that's by the Democrats too, the January 6th committee. The idea that you don't like somebody, you throw them out of office by impeachment instead of the normal political process, that's become normal.

Or impeaching former Presidents just for impeachment purposes, that became part of a normal process. So people are fed up and they're angry, and rightly so, and I think they're a little fed up too with Durham because he's taking forever. Get the information. Hope this information is all done before the next Presidential election because for goodness sakes, it's not really going to add a lot to the division or in the division in our country. 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. All right, folks, we're taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Let me encourage you, we're going through this new information filed by Durham. It's an evidentiary filing, so again, a long one, 48 pages. But it mostly centers around the fact of now having direct evidence. It's not just oral that Sussman, the Clinton campaign attorney, went to the DOJ saying, by the way, I'm not doing this on behalf of a client.

And then a year later, he testified that he was when he was under oath. So he's got himself in trouble a number of ways, but now there's the text message. You actually see a text message, which to me raises more concerns than just Sussman lying and the notes. And in the notes, the FBI attorneys, the deputy general counsel, notes it directly, who he works for. And so the fact that the FBI pushed this information along, even though they knew that Sussman was not really telling the full truth, because they wrote down, by the way, he writes, he works for Clinton, the Clinton campaign, the Clinton Foundation, the DNC, but they believe him at his word that, quote, I'm coming here on my own. This is reading it directly.

Listen to this one. For attorneys out there, for anybody out there, do you think you'd go to the FBI? Hey, FBI, you know, you're not bothering me or my client, which is good because Hillary Clinton has had a lot of botherings by the FBI and her foundation. So when they're not being bothered, I'm going to go to you and bother you with some information that will really end up causing a mess to the country in a couple of years.

But, you know, we try to win in politics at all costs. So here, FBI, I'm just here on my own. And I feel like I need to tell you this in the text message, not on behalf of a client or a company, just as someone who, quote, wants to help the Bureau. Jordan's reading from the document, by the way, again, to the censors out there. If that was your friend, you would still be suspicious of your friend.

You'd call him up and say, what are you doing? You're going to get me in trouble and you in trouble, so just tell the truth. If this is done on behalf of the Clinton campaign and your oppo research, let us note that. But you know why they didn't want to do that? Because if they would have acknowledged it was- No crossfire hurricane then.

No, you're not kidding. You went to launch the crossfire hurricane if you knew this was on behalf of the campaign. Now, remember what this, you know, what this related into, what this became. It became Bob Mueller. It became FISA warrants. It became General Flynn.

I go through the list. It put a cloud over a presidency for two years, over two years. I know a little bit about it. I represented him.

So did Jordan. And I'm not trying to rehearse the history, because this isn't history. This is filed yesterday or the day before, so this is brand new. And again, we're reading from the document itself. Do you want to try to grab a call quickly here? Yeah, we can. Let's go to Doug in Texas on Line 3. Hey, Doug. Hey, Doug. Hey, Jordan and Jay.

Thanks for taking my call. My question is, can these new Durham investigation and indictments lead to an indictment against Hillary Clinton? I don't think so. I mean, there seems no indication that any of this is targeted at Secretary Clinton at all. It seems like the campaign is going to, I would suspect, I don't know, the campaign's going to say, well, we need to tell these lawyers to go in and lie. I mean, I'm sure that's what they're going to say.

I'm guessing. I mean, no one has that evidence except the Department of Justice. That doesn't seem to be where this is going. I do wonder, though, what it means to some of the people within the Clinton campaign that knew that this was going on and allowed this to go on.

And this whole alpha bank thing was totally made up with servers. They were taking data analysis from the White House complex when President Trump was in office to continue this. So, you know, who's next on the list here?

I don't know. I can't believe that this is it. That it's just going to be the Sussman case and the one other lawyer that they got. I mean, they got a lawyer that committed all the… The problem is the FBI and Department of Justice weren't on this. And that's the part that makes you just really upset as an American.

That our agencies were part of this. Yeah. I mean, this is, you know, someone wrote in, you know, Jordan, you say Durham's slow, but remember your IRS case took years to resolve. This is criminal. Yeah. This should not be taking this long.

It should be much quicker. This is… Remember, because the government has the info they want here. We were fighting the government then. This is the government. They get all the info they want, all the data, all the evidence. So it should not be taking this long.

I'm not going to praise Durham for everything. I don't think what has happened. The wheels of justice have got to speed up here, because we could get to another Presidential election with this still hanging over our heads. It's not good. It's not good for our country.

Be right back. 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. We're going to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I did want to take one final call on this Sussman matter and on this new matter involving what we found in this Durham filing. I will still say, for the record, I think this is going way too slow. I agree with all of you. I think, you know, it's a criminal investigation.

It should be moving a lot faster. The Wheels of Justice, he's got plenty of people working for him. I don't know why things like this, this message, which we already knew he was saying this, why this comes out weeks later from the last update on this instead of the same day. I don't get that because certainly that's not how the Mueller team was operating. That's not how the impeachment, you know, all of that.

We need to get this finished for the American people. I mean, that's why, because we can't be voting the next Presidential election with this guy still out there. First of all, you know, these are time sensitive matters.

You can't just go on and on and on. When you've got a criminal case like this, and this is a criminal case, people start forgetting things. I mean, evidence gets not handled correctly. Statute of limitations.

Statute of limitations come into play. I mean, this thing needs, you're right, it needs to wrap, I think it needs to wrap up a lot of it before the midterms. I think next election needs to be free from all of this tumult. But we'll see. Let's take Lynn's call. Yeah. Hey, Lynn, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Can Sussman be arrested and put in jail possibly for lying to the FBI and, or at least can he be debarred from being an attorney? Well, he's, I want to be clear here. He's been indicted. So, I mean, he's already been processed through the criminal, the criminal proceedings have started against him. He has been indicted. If he is convicted, if they go to trial, they're supposed to go to trial next month. If he's convicted, well, then the judge will issue a sentence. And that will depend on factors.

If he's convicted, it could be acquitted. Who knows? But just to be clear, on this one, it's moving. This one is moving. Jordan's point, I think the three takeaways are this here. One is what took so long? What in the world is, I mean, this is longer than the Mueller investigation. Okay, that's number one.

Number two, this was in 2016. And the FBI gets a knock on the door from a lawyer they happen to know who happens to be the DNC's lawyer, Clinton campaign lawyer, Clinton Foundation lawyer, and says, I'm not here on behalf of them, of course. While allegedly his billing records show the opposite. And Jim Baker, who's the general counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation says, oh, that's okay, let's chat.

And then you have Crossfire Hurricane, authorized by James Comey. So it'll be very interesting to see if this actually goes to trial. Are they going to let it go to trial? That's the other thing I wonder here, Jordan. Are they going to let this go to trial and have this evidence actually come out in live format? I don't know.

We'll see. Right. At what point does he plead? And talking about the disbarment issue that usually does occur with these attorneys, usually it's temporary when it's only one charge. Yes. Usually they get suspended.

Yeah, suspended. We need to move gears, I think, because of the situation that's unfolding in Ukraine and Russia. And Colonel Westmith has been out for other reasons in the last week. So I first want to get a sense, Colonel, on militarily, there was all this talk end of last week that there was this movement away from Kiev and more towards Odessa in the south, which of course, if they take Odessa, that would be gigantic. But what's your sense of it militarily right now? You know, it appears that they are not really retreating.

The Russians are not. They are simply realigning their troops. Those in the north, north of the capital of Kiev, have moved back into Belarus. But the other units have moved into the east, into the south. It seems like they're going to really sort of solidify their gains in those portions of Iran. And keep in mind that the Donbas region, which they already occupied pretty much, they have gone west of there and occupied additional territory. The Russians are still holding on to those territories. They're still holding on to the southern part of Ukraine that they took during this latest round of conflict. You don't think it's over? No, they are continuing to bombard from the air and with long range artillery, civilian populations all across Ukraine.

That has not stopped. So then the next, I think the next, the issue that we're seeing a lot of discussion in the news right now is allegations, and Zelensky made a speech to the UN yesterday, and this allegations that this is genocide, people saying it's genocide. You know, genocide, Cece, is a very specific, and Jordan, you know this well too, is a very specific allegation. That doesn't mean it's not war crimes, by the way, because genocide is a war crime.

But go ahead. And under the UN, at the UN, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the definition is very specific. It calls for acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. And then it says what those acts are, such as killing members of the group, causing seriously bodily mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

It goes on with five of those. But it has to be an act committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. One of the biggest differences is a war crime requires that there be an armed conflict.

Genocide can be committed during a war or during peace. Yeah, I think that, listen, this is, first of all, as a world leader, it's one thing to start saying they've done this, they're committing war crimes, but you've got to finish this conflict out. I mean, this is all forward thinking, acting as if you're still going to be around.

Like, you're going to exist still. And I think it's a very risky strategy to go to the UN. He said, quote, are you ready to close the UN? And he went on to say it's obvious the key institutions of the world simply can't work effectively. You know, his country hasn't really worked. I'm not trying to say nasty to Ukraine, but it has not had an effective government since its independence from the USSR.

It has failed every year. I think he may be one of the longer serving Presidents and it's because of this war. And half the country can't stand him in the Ukraine. But they've kind of rallied behind him now. But if you really listen to people there, when they ask about Zelensky, some people support him.

Other people kind of say, well, he's the President for right now. It has been unstable. That's why they weren't allowed into other European institutions, including the EU for economic. They have had, I think, four revolutions. I mean, trying to figure out which side of that is good. The US is back some, the Kremlin's back some.

It's been a mess. So to have the world being lectured to, I get that he's taken himself to a next level as a leader in time of war and conflict. You put politics aside.

That's wonderful. But the truth is to go into the UN and say that when you have not been a reliable country or leader, and using this moment, I think it's too forward thinking. How about in the conflict, instead of start talking about one day holding Vladimir Putin. By the way, if you ever negotiate peace with him, he's not going to be held liable for war crimes. Second, I don't want to use this horrible position, but the ICC, no jurisdiction. No jurisdiction. Same argument we'd make for the United States military.

We did. The same argument you'd have to make for the Russian soldiers. If they wanted to create a special tribunal through the UN Security Council, you could do that. But the ICC has no jurisdiction here, so there's no place to try them for war crimes right now, even if you could.

Even if the conflict was over and you could arrest Vladimir Putin. So here's the, to me, the irony of this, or the sad part of this, is we've complained about UN institutions as well. I mean, look, we have. But we're engaging in those. We engage in the Human Rights Council. We engage at the UN.

We engage at the General Assembly. We've engaged at the Security Council. But I think the problem here is the institutions themselves, for instance, the Security Council, Russia, is a permanent member.

Right. So he's talking before the UN Security Council, and the five permanent members which have the right to veto are China, France, Russia, the UK, and the United States. Now, Russia would have to abstain because they are an interested party, but still, you have to get all four of those permanent members to vote, plus five other of the rotating members. So, and then my question is, Wes, is Colonel Smith, is China going to vote against Russia here? I mean, they're under a lot of pressure. And interestingly, China has been pretty quiet. Right, right. Probably at best what we could hope for would be an abstention. They are not going to vote against Russia.

I do not believe that at all. You know, and I might also say that, you know, we think of the ICC and the Rome Statute as where war crimes can be tried, and they can if you're under their jurisdiction. However, the Geneva Conventions are where most war crimes in the past have been brought to trial with some sort of special commission that would require the United Nations. Yeah.

Because war crimes under Geneva Conventions, everyone, there's 190 countries that recognize the Geneva Conventions. Yeah. So here's the interesting, and this is the dynamic. We'll talk about this in the last segment. We'll take your calls at 1-800-68-431-10 on both topics that we talked about today.

So 800-68-431-10, and we'll get your comments. They're starting to come in on our social media as well. But what's interesting to me about all of this is, and we have been to, look, not many lawyers in the United States have been on the floor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We have been. And you know what we were arguing? There was no jurisdiction against the United States. And the proceeding against the, with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, about five years, eight years before that, we were there. You know what we were arguing? The ICC had no jurisdiction over Israel.

Why? They're not members of the statute. So there's a lot of this talk going on, but you've got to look at what's the reality of what actually can happen. And what Jordan said is right. It would take a special tribunal, and you're not going to negotiate a peace with a special tribunal in the background.

No. Because remember, Russia, ultimately, no one's talking about Russia being defeated in the sense of Russia falling like the country. That happened to the Germans, and there was a special tribunal because their country fell.

Their leaders fell. Here, it'd be like they got defeated on a different battlefield and retreated, but Russia still exists. So how do you get a peace process out of that? And are you hurting the ability to maybe get a ceasefire or a peace process by saying, by the way, we're going to put you in jail for the rest of your life at The Hague, even though we have no jurisdiction over you?

Which, by the way, Putin knows that too. Come back. 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 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. 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. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to play some of the speech yesterday. This is to the UN Security Council, President Zelensky of Ukraine. And listen, remember, there are issues with Ukraine that date back... People keep asking the question, why do conservatives question Ukraine? Well, remember, we had to do an entire impeachment trial over the corruption in Ukraine. They're so corrupt with the Bidens.

Remember him? Fire him before I get on the plane. Or else we're not going to give you your aid. That was Joe Biden talking to their chief prosecutor. That was a previous President to Zelensky because there was another revolution after that. It's a land of corruption. It doesn't mean that people deserve to be treated this way or killed in the streets or kids to be treated.

No. There shouldn't be a refugee crisis. Russia shouldn't have invaded. There is a reason why conservatives have a bad taste in their mouth with these guys. Now he's got to be careful not to give a bad taste in the mouth to the entire world.

Which he came close yesterday, I think, in that speech. Yeah, so played by 36s to the UN Security Council. This is no different from other terrorists such as Daesh, who occupied some territories. And here it is done by a member of the United Nations Security Council, destroying internal unity borders, countries, and taking the right of more than a dozen countries who are self-determined and indeterminate.

Here's the thing that seems to me just off, okay? And no disrespect to President Zelensky. He's under tremendous pressure. And his country's been invaded and that can't be justified. Their sovereign borders were invaded by Russia. Okay. What I don't understand is getting the United Nations, which you've spent a lot of time in CC, Jordan, you've spent a lot of time. And getting them angry, okay, isn't getting them results. Right. It doesn't make sense.

It shows, I think, that he's desperate and just trying whatever he can. But it does not make sense to attack the one entity that you're trying to get to do something. Yeah, and by the way, ISIS is not the same as Russia. I mean, ISIS had no nuclear weapons, especially not four or five thousand of them pointed at the United States of America. They do not have the power to assure mutually assured destruction.

They were horrible. They were terrorists. And they were defeated in a matter of years. And really defeated in a matter of months when President Trump changed the policy of being a little bit tougher and more direct on ISIS. And so, again, that comparison is not equal. They may be doing acts that are similar to ISIS, but ISIS, you didn't have to worry about them shooting a nuclear weapon and taking out your entire country.

No. With Russia, you do have to worry about that. The whole world has to worry about that. So, Wes, when he uses the statement, this is just like ISIS.

That's what he said. There is no difference from other terrorists such as ISIS. Explain that statement. I don't think it's right. I mean, I think what Jordan said is right. The Russians have nuclear weapons.

This is so complicated. Is Russia apparently doing some terroristic things to the civilian population? Yes, they are. But they are not a terrorist group like ISIS. They are a country that is not only on the Security Council. They're on the Human Rights Council, if you can believe it.

But they also have nuclear weapons. Just the reality of what's going on in the world, we have to engage with Russia differently. And I think his hyperbole, Zelensky's hyperbole at the United Nations, I understand his frustration.

It was not helpful. As Sisi said, you can't attack someone that you're asking for help. He went to the other countries, to their parliaments and congresses, and did very, very well. He did not do so well yesterday. But there had to be a strategy on why he went directly at the UN yesterday. I mean, he didn't do that. I don't know.

Let me play this one, because I think this one is where he goes even further, which I think Rick was on with us a few weeks ago, a couple weeks ago. Remember, he said there's four active UN peacekeeping missions right now. We don't talk about them.

And I tell you, that means that it's so bad that the UN sends troops, the world sends troops. And a lot of the reasons we don't talk about them is that they don't have the same color skin as a majority of Americans. And they're in places where you can't pronounce. And they're not Russia, they're not Ukraine, they're in places the world you might not know exist.

And so they don't get as much attention. But there's been genocides there. Remember Sudan?

That got some attention. But there's four active peacekeeping missions right now that hardly get any attention. Then Zelensky does this, like the UN doesn't put anybody in harm's way by 39. So where is the security that the Security Council needs to guarantee? It's not there, although there is a Security Council.

So where is the peace? Where are those guarantees that the United Nations needs to guarantee? It is obvious that the key institution of the world, which must ensure the coercion of any aggressor to peace, simply cannot work effectively. I mean, the UN can't stop every conflict. What it can do is try to put together coalitions to stop or peacekeepers to enforce ceasefires. But it also, I think, again, it misses the mark on where Ukraine is in the scale.

And that's unfortunate, but you have to look at the world that way. Those five permanent members have the power to destroy each other. His country doesn't, so they're lower on the scale of what kind of lethal weaponry they have. I mean, if this was a conflict with India, they've got nuclear weapons, it'd be higher up. It'd be a bigger issue.

If it was a conflict with Pakistan, bigger issue because of the nuclear weapons that are available there. Again, you have to understand who you are before you tell the whole institution off. You're a poorly run post-Soviet country that is one of the more corrupt countries in the world. So telling off the UN, which also has some corruption issues and problems, but telling him that you're the savior of the world is just not being honest.

I think the more humble approach, which is the approach he took earlier, is the approach that got people on his side, condemning everybody and saying you're all horrible when he should be able to read the news. One, they're not ISIS. That's not a fair comparison to Russia. One has no nuclear weapons. Two, it's not that the world's not doing anything. They have an entire military weaponry because of us.

People need to understand, and we like takeaways so you understand this. When we talk about P5 plus one, we're talking about permanent members of the United Nations. Right, so there are five permanent members of the Security Council.

China, France, Russia, UK and US. And then there are ten members that get elected on a rotating basis every two years. But those five are there.

They are there and you don't get rid of them. The best you can hope for is if they're involved in a dispute, they shall abstain so Russia would have to abstain. But they have the right, one of them has the right to veto. If one of them does not vote for it, it does not go.

So you're kind of like, I hate to say barking up the wrong tree, but kind of barking up the wrong tree. It also points to this Wes, the United States has not authorized the transfer of those MiGs. No, they have not. And you'll have to wonder why that is the case and I think it goes back to what we're discussing.

The dynamics of these five members of the Security Council and their weaponry and how they get along with each other and what's involved and when you negotiate with someone like that. I just think that Jordan, what you said is right. This is nine dimensional.

It's horrible. And I want to be clear. Russia, from what everything we know, had no basis upon which they could invade. Under these various treaties, you could likely create a tribunal because they violated so many international laws. I'm not saying that you could not do that.

There's not an existing one for it. And usually that doesn't happen unless a country folds. So you're actually defeated. Russian defeat here does not mean Russia is defeated as a country. It means they withdraw out, they pull out. That's different than like Nazi Germany falling or a government falling. Yeah, exactly. And maybe him falling and maybe that Putin falls and then you do have an opportunity to get them before a tribunal. But again, how can you get to peace when you're threatening that over the other side? I was going to ask that quickly, Wes.

We've got 20 seconds. How does this help his negotiations with Russia? Not at all. I mean, I don't think it does. I mean, I think his back is against the wall.

Maybe he's given up about that. Yeah, yeah. All right, that does it for the broadcast today, folks.

Remember, you get expert analysis here. Support the work of the ACLJ. We're in a matching challenge campaign. ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org.

We'll talk to you tomorrow. 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 / 2023-05-10 21:36:21 / 2023-05-10 22:00:37 / 24

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