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

Remote Oral Arguments Begin at Supreme Court. What it means for President Trump

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
May 4, 2020 1:00 pm

Remote Oral Arguments Begin at Supreme Court. What it means for President Trump

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 810 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


May 4, 2020 1:00 pm

Remote Oral Arguments Begin at Supreme Court. What it means for President Trump.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Steve Noble Show
Steve Noble
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Todd Starnes Show
Todd Starnes
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders

Bringing new arguments on the phone in case the President Supreme Court, Washington DC Jay Sekulow Honorable Ct., United are admonished to give their attention now sitting phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110 and the chief counsel for the Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow everybody will broadcast well. This was a historic day on multiple counts on back in the studio today. That may not be everyday but we power outage where we live, and I had to get him so others will want to hear the Supreme Court arguments that took place today so our offices are close by so is able to come in, but we are social distancing. I will tell you about now back to the history of the for the first time in Supreme Court history United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments by telephone.

They also for the first time in history released those arguments in real time meeting. I just listened to the arguments on C-SPAN so you heard the entire argument. It was structured very differently than they normally are structured and when I mean by that is that the way that they structured it was normally starting to jump right in here you want about two minutes, uninterrupted, and then the questions came in the order of seniority, there were all hardball questions from every side.

In other words sometimes get a hardtop took question from unjust as it may not be on your side. But then another justice will come and say, but what you really arguing as such and such. You don't have that with this format because it goes one at a time. Most justices asked two questions that include byway Clarence Thomas, who doesn't always actively participate as questions my case, but it is pretty quiet during most oral argument. She was, not today. They went in order and then at the conclusion of the argument in you, you found that the other side went to men at because I will be going first and representing the President is the brief that I filed on behalf of the President United States is one of actually three brief essays, one about six weeks. In the course of the proceedings of this report and then you got three minutes to sum up at the end uninterrupted which I will tell you is unheard of in Supreme Court history may just mean I normally get there for a bottle and you get maybe two words out of your mouth. I'm literally a quiet guy questions as soon as I got up there started but it did start the same way we have the owner play for everybody. It was just listening to it you would not know they were doing it by conference call.

Other than a couple of glitches, which I'm sure they're working through what sounded like Hon. Ct. 95 managed to get their attention. Now, sitting United States and Hon. Court have a God save the United States and the sound of court started like it always does, but they were not in their chamber. Then Bennett is in Washington across the street from the Supreme Court. He's across the street. They're not fanout sour things up there right now who's coming in session and who's not what the Senate is coming in session this week. The house probably not till next week. J just on the topic you were mentioning.

That's the thought I had to three uninterrupted minutes to close that would probably be a dream for you, but I was thinking about you if you get the cases coming up your history in that courtroom by Jake. The other take away. I had from watching these proceedings. I wondered if it wouldn't be as confrontational because they were in the room not the case. I mean, Lisa Pratt, one of the advocates and justice courses. They went back and forth that it pretty intensely so I just because it's by teleconference does not mean that this thing is knocking to be one of combatives Reiber. But there's maybe an exchange of ideas. Still, Lisa Blatz, a great Supreme Court advocate.

I've known her work with her for years when she was with the solicitor Gen.'s office is brilliance and a brilliant job but did a very good job and I think the justice adjusted to allotment one point just prior to respond wasn't on it was garbled, and then at one point, I think Justice Sotomayor probably was talking, but nobody could hear anything so what they were to learn is to really listen carefully to tell you what's coming up in the Supreme Court week because there's a lot of big cases, some involving the President, some involving others. You want that information and you can't join us coming up in the next segment. So I stay tuned. Eight, 800-684-3110 you have any questions about the Supreme Court, 1-800-684-3110.

What's ahead for saltier supporting ACLJ@ACLJ.challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

Here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing work, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is powering the right question for copy mission life today online ACLJ/witnesses free today and got up at 10 o'clock to watch C-SPAN I love you did you should you got to hear in real time. The Supreme Court case involving a bookings.com my Lisa Blatt argued that she did a great job. But above advocates were great justices were great. Let me tell you how it went. It's different completely different than when you're doing an argument in the chamber.

These are all done telephonically.

Nobody was in the same location and other than a glitch here. There were two children work through it went really smooth. The one thing that's really interesting to me and it was that you were asking you would receive a wedding seniority so the Chief Justice asked the first question or two. Then when you finish the next justice would come on and ask a question and be introduced by the chief and on and on it went and then got two minutes in the beginning to put your argument. For without interruption and then if you're in that the situation like we are in the President's case where we we busted Congress and also sued the district attorney, New York, or try to get records that we do not believe the constitutionally entitled to get to start for two minutes, uninterrupted, and then at the and when it's all over. I get to go back up for three minutes at a summary and rebuttal with no questions being in a rapidly stabbing so far. Maybe they will. When we come up with the bait into it that way. So far any combo is an experience Supreme Court advocate work with me a lot of springboard cases.

He's a senior counsel with the ACLJ he's in Atlanta right now staying safe and being well as I like to tell people what was your reaction to it. I was very impressed with what I think it opens a new era in Supreme Court in Dickson J wants to let the cat out of the bag. It's going to be hard to put Back in the sense of not broadcasting these arguments at least broadcasting them simultaneously with them being given giving the justice of the opportunity. Areata him to ask questions and then that the lawyers answer each justice without justices blurting in and interrupting. I think that's very important I think.

Also important is the three-minute summation that you're given that, and hopefully that will continue to be given without interruption and I think it makes the flow further for the advocate much better and I was impressed with that I the glitches were minimal sound was good. I watched it on C-SPAN.

I thought it was very well done.

The judge, Chief Justice two things under control.

Nobody interrupted anybody else. There was a give-and-take with Gore's experiment. One instance I noticed that it was done professionally and I think it's a new era. I was very historic and exciting to me that the listening to it was interesting that it's me, Annie, is that it was for that person doesn't know a lot about residencies or arguments I think would be about what the anticipated. It's very different than an actual Supreme Court argument that which is much more the answers here were the lawyers were able to explain her answers at much greater length.

The truth of the matter is in the actual sprinkler argument. It seconds until the next question comes in others a follow-up but that's not what I meant you didn't have a lot of that. I don't think you're going to have a lot of that. It's also going to be hard to read tea leaves, so to speak. What I mean by that. Sometimes you get a question that in a hard question and then I'd adjust that with more leaning your way becoming similar secular the answer that be such and such because they're arguing with each other.

You don't see that in this format and he because they have predetermined questions that look like, although there were some follow-ups on other justices, but was much more predetermined and will say predetermined by the justice they knew what they were going. I have probably written them out in the know exactly where they were going to give the advocate an opportunity to respond to the predetermined question in a full and complete fashion without being interrupted by another justice wants to either upstage or make their point. I like the format I thought it was a very good I prefer it to the old oral argument format because I think it gives a smoother flow and it allows the advocate to state their position more fully. More completely and without the interaction that flows when you're in live in the Supreme Court. I really liked it and I endorse that I really didn't know that approaching the actual how to differently. I am going to actually have a podium set up here in our offices where I will be addressing the court standing up in a suit were suit and a tie in a podium and meeting room that I have good sound like this so that we can hear betting that you can really listen closely to what they're saying because that's the you could swing your bear. You could see it. You don't get to see it. So it's a little bit of a different feel, but also something was interesting to me. I noted that you notice is that a couple of the justices said good morning to be advocates and Cavanagh both said good morning again that's very nice and cordial but it wastes time and it's really not necessary now that we thought it was nice I made it outward. A very unusual when the middle of a pandemic productivity.

Institutions are gallant and that they can be adaptable. I think that was a positive for those of you that don't know we got a bunch of cases of this report. This term were involved in for that are being argued about three of which were doing in shape, one of which were in Amicus on the three that were arguing are the Donald Trump versus Lazar's that is this brief right here.

I didn't bring the other morning with me. It's also below my colleague Patrick Strawbridge will be the oral argument will consequently Patrick me Jordan Stewart run the brakes on these so this is the brief on that when that case will be argued on May 12 at 10 o'clock.

I will then do the second argument following up at 11 o'clock.

That argument will involve the local district attorney in New York trying to obtain financial records from the President. But guess what subpoena he was the exact same line that was used in this case exactly word for word almost word for word with some minor stylistic changes and so were to have those two arguments.

Those are actually three cases because to the Congressional cases were consolidated, then there's 1/4 caseworker and talk about the next segment of the broadcast, which is the Little sisters of the poor. We filed an amicus, a friend of the court brief Van Bennett from over here because it kinda tells you so's the Senate. The Supreme Court is operating completely remotely. All the justices today were in different locales. What you what's going on now Congress decided the house is not coming back correct that's not that's right, not this weekend, a house in the Senate are taking different approaches and you know II think this is less a partisan thing and more to do with the size of the various chambers I mean the United States Senate with only 100 members. I can do a much you can do social distancing much easier day.

It's not as hard for them to space out votes is not as hard for them to separate committee hearings. There's going to be a judicial nominations hearing on Wednesday. I have special procedures in place for that. It's much more difficult for the house J and they are trying to work through how that's gonna look likely next week when they come back, but there still would have to change the way the voting happens and I will tell you there's some dialogue happening now between Speaker Pelosi's plan to do proxy voting where one member might control more than one vote on behalf of other members and maybe a different idea where there would actually be technology used it for remote voting. I can hope it moves that way but did Jake. The two chambers are having to approach this differently.

The Senate is here this week. The house likely back in a limited capacity next week. One thing you lose in this oral argument, and I think than just that.

Mia little note on this and it's true when you're you're very close to them when you're actually in the Supreme Court. I mean you're about.

I think at the furthest points like 16 feet. You are very close and the ability to read body language both their ability to read your body language and your ability to read, read their body language is something I think you do miss here and the questions are what I would call not stilted, but less some less give-and-take, contentious give-and-take that you have in person because I am your practically under the Chief Justice is no standing in the middle there and the give-and-take of any present, and actively participating engagement like though usually happens is always going to be greater to be more lively, but I think in this age of pandemic in this age of crisis that we have. This was the best solution and I think it worked out very well. I like the orderliness of that. I like the fact that any magic. It could finish his or her statement and not have interactions and justices going up and trying to outdo one another like that just like the fight in court combat, but you know you like this to interestingly so when I would do is I'm I'm at it podium built that is a podium that looks exactly like the Supreme Court podium and I'm doing is you've got. These are critically important cases.

In any case, the Supreme Court is critically important that you represent the present United States and I would add try to duplicate my head as much as I can do my got a couple of reports ready to some this week from the podium in a suit getting ready for. That's how you practice and practice and practice. Even if the questions are over the phone when you have the whole system set up so we could do itself. We are sent to be really good.

I expect it will. There's another case of the Supreme Court of the United States were involved in Little sisters of the poor. When we come back from the break we were joined by our colleagues, senior counsel to the ACLJ Jeff certainties and he will discuss that case and devil get into that as anything with us anything, okay, it may come back later on in the broadcast. And again, your support of the ACLJ was great in April NMR Essay and we appreciated ACLJ.org are Supreme Court date May 12 appreciate your prayers but you never want to at least listen to it on C-SPAN only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn gold mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, when Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question mission life today online/challenges facing Americans is freedom's or constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms and rights in court in Congress. And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ you arguing three cases that the Supreme Court of United States Donald J. Trump versus Mazor, USA Donald J.

Trump versus Deutsche Bank. These are congressional subpoenas and then Donald J. Trump present the United States versus district attorney for the County of New York, Cyrus Vance, Junior, so those three cases, it can be argued May 12, but there's a case coming up on Wednesday of this week. Little sisters of the poor.

In case one that's gotten kinda passed over once, but I want Jeff 30s was the primary architect of the brief I Jeff on the broadcast. Tell us a little bit about the case. I think people need to be refreshed with what this case is about regulations protecting employers, such as a little of the poor which is a Catholic order of nuns I care for the elderly poor from having to comply with the HHS abortion pill mandate that the Obama administration imposed on employers throughout the country almost 10 years ago or the regulations that the trumpet ministration came up with in 2017 were were dying in light of the Supreme Court's decision in 2016 is how many times is a little sisters of the poor have gone to the Supreme Court which which asked the parties to try to resolve their differences. Namely, how can the federal government achieve its interest and how can the little sisters go about running their Catholic order and their charities. According to the religious convictions to the trumpet ministration came up with these regulations and the simple and straightforward and basically say that if an employer has a moral or religious objection to participating in the provision of of these drug such as abortion inducing drugs, then the employer doesn't have to pay for those frogs. It doesn't have to participate in the provision of those drugs so you one would think that okay the top administration subtleties issues. We can now move on, little sister.

The poor can now continue to run it out of their charities. According to the religious convictions will not sell. Even before those regulations went into effect. Several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey Californian others that they filed a lawsuit in California and in Pennsylvania saying that these moral and religious exemptions were adopted in violation of federal law and they also argued that the religious Freedom restoration act. I didn't protect religious employers such as the little sister. The poor don't want to participate in the provision of abortion inducing drugs last summer third circuit Court of Appeals with and have a lot of problems with that Court of Appeals. These days, issued a national nationwide injunction forbidding these rules to go into effect even after almost 10 years of the Obama administration's abortion pill mandate being in place little sisters still not protect they went to the Supreme Court asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Supreme Court agreed to intervene and debriefing is done, including our own, our own amicus brief in the argument is on Wednesday and let's hope that once and for all. The Supreme Court will decide this case on the merits and hold the religious Freedom restoration act protects the Little sisters of the poor to operate their charity. According to their religious convictions. The outcome of this case which are just my forearm. I 554 Our Way yet I would be great if it were a unanimous decision upholding the right of religious freedom. Unfortunately, with a portion distortion political of the underlying issue. I don't think working together to get unanimous decision. Unfortunately take on this because the formal care act issues.

So much of the focus on the abortion issue we face now nothing to do with any of this course is now litigated these cases out. It had everything to do with it yet. That's really the thought that kept running through my head as Jeff was going through that narrative J just how long and wide sweeping the ramifications of elections army were talking about a decade of challenges over nuances of the Obama care law and you know in this particular case, I think the exact quote. Jeff used was just as the religious Freedom restoration act protect the Little sisters of the poor and if it doesn't protect them. J does it protect but I come back to this this issue of how long lasting the consequences of elections are when it comes to legislation like this.

The trumpet ministration did the right thing and rectified this but it still takes another round going all the way up to the Supreme Court to ultimately carry the day on it so J even though I'm I'm with you and with Jeff that I think the Supreme Court is to do the right thing on this is to be at decade of pain to lay not just for Little sisters of the poor, but other religious employers as well as I think it's a good moment for voters all across the nation to take notice just how long-lasting these fights are. If an administration comes in and infringes on on religious rights like that in this case so it appears, though, that a couple of the states.

Jeff don't like the even the accommodation here. I I look at New Jersey and Pennsylvania lobby where the court upheld the right of for-profit employers do not have to pay for and provided abortion drives the Obama administration came up with what they called an accommodation accommodation. It was smoke and mirrors. It was a way of getting the religious beliefs and convictions of certain employers such as little sister the poor to comply with so anyways is an indirect way of getting the little sister the poor to still participate in the provision of these drugs by the by the federal government. In essence, hijacking the insurance plan. Little sisters of the poor with the accommodation that the Obama administration came up with was not like what we have here with with with what the trumpet ministration came up with which it if you have religious or moral objections that you don't have to participate, they said if you have a religious objection, then you just tell your insurance company.

You don't want to provide it and then your make your insurance cover company provide still participating in the provision of these drugs in the Little sisters of the poor, a Catholic order of nuns refused to do that is family sang so eloquently were going to force a Catholic order of nuns to violate their religious conscience than the religious Freedom restoration act, the free exercise clause of the Bill of Rights mean nothing to everybody. The Supreme Court history for you brief of the petitioner's. This is his blue bound blue briefly saw the Lord namely was the case number is the one without, in the presence cases. If you file a friend of the court brief. They also have to be bound. They are a light green and this is a brief set amicus brief the American Center for Law and Justice in support of petitioner's now any year, we assert arguments and that's what's contained in these these various page them showing the audience on TV and and and run our radio artist me tell you what were arguing because I think it's important to understand the context of what we put forth by the reform.

By the way, our briefs have been cited by the Supreme Court in their opinions and Jeff let's talk about that for a second. I mean, the fact is that amicus brief play a key role. I believe that brief cited by the Supreme Court. Back with the right of the pregnancy resource centers to not have to comply with California's. They advertise the provision of free abortion services. Justice Breyer's dissent looked to and cited amicus brief pointing out viewpoint-based discrimination that was at the heart of that statute, so there is no doubt this is pretty court justices read these amicus briefs that pay attention to the arguments they respond to those arguments as well will accommodation like that by the religious exemption here are well-established historical practices of this country. That's our brief to the Supreme Court states to pay for being with us that one quick another 30 minutes, and some political issues I'm getting it into moving on trying to maybe get into little bit more on the Supreme Court will take your calls and comments. 1-800-684-3110 want to talk about the pandemic a little bit 800-684-3110 and China's role will take your call at 1-800-684-3110. Don't forget support the work of the ACLJ NACLJ.org power to broadcast over the ACLJ dental ACLJ on the front lines of protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today NACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow people alive today only live this afternoon or this morning, Supreme Court of the state for the first time in US history. Went live via phone. The arguments were done via phone literally on telephone lines went very well.

By the way, and for the first time in history you are able to hear the arguments in real time as they were, but there was no delay.

There those arguments that you heard were being delivered precisely at the time that this is what so good about this precisely at the time they were being argued by the advocates and questions why the judges, the difference in the approach was you got two minutes to make your argument up front without interruption. That's unusual.

John Roberts allow that little bit more in the old days I been doing for going on for decades. I've argued cases the 80s, 90s 2000 2000 fans now. This will be 2020 you started and they usually jump right in. But here it was much more structured. The Chief Justice spoke with many of the sample met the questions like when the Chief Justice first is a question I may want to play that normally that's not the way goes, but they went in the order of seniority and they asked East back each asked a question or two.

Love the Lord answer and then were going to the next justice until all nine were going to win about 10 minutes on each side longer than normal, which I thought was interesting and you got if you were the petitioner which we are here in the cases representing the President. We are the petitioner and the Little sisters of the poor, the pro-religious liberty side is the petitioner, which means that we get three minutes at the end. To sum up the argument for applied affairs and that at least on the performers on the weather will be or not. I don't know, we have one of the sound will I think this is interesting because normally when you get a question and then there's got to be an interruption, you know it's coming so you pull back a little bit different here and I yelled again all you're doing is here and that's all anybody could do, including advocates was here, take a lesson. The Goodyear case you did not quote the language from the trademark statute that is at issue here probably on speakerphone.

There I think so. So you got a BII told my colleagues we had to be really attentive really listening in and it's I would have it set up. I hope that I can really hear it and I hope we will have it set up so I am feeling like I'm in the room is it's very important that you hear it again you'll see the nuances, but I'm treating this new differently is the Supreme Court of the United States and I'm reprint, which is the highest judicial institution in our in our country. It's the most prestigious in the world and I'm representing the office if you have represented the President of the United States. So I will be wearing a blue suit and a white shirt and a red tie, which is what I wear in Supreme Court cases and I will be standing at a podium that I had built that looks like a podium at the Supreme Court of the United States, and I will be staring at something. So I have but at least feel like I'm looking at something as I do. This might be great thing I'm missing about this one was my seven-year-old grandson was to become watches pawpaw do the argument in the Supreme Court, and one of my granddaughters likes is been writing about Doug Justice Ginsburg and so there is no firm for most for Riker and Sophie every Golden Georgia to they will write it would've been great. Might my six-month AND not so much but but he'll be historic. I guess he can come because in our office so Cesar's grandfather argue a case to be about 6 1/2 months old.

That's the only thing I'm really regretting is that they contain the actual courtroom to know what that's what it is. I would like grandkids were in the chamber, the state Senate and I know my other grandkids watch we did the impeachment hearing seems like 100 years ago. Fans think about that you were there for part of that is that nothing like 100 years ago another lifetime about a week is a year week is a years right. It was just three months ago, not even understanding the fact it was like I did was we finished up February 6 was a three months I will take your calls and comments coming back 800-684-3110 China and the pandemic we come back to the challenges facing Americans as time and are now free to start constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever with the American Center for Law and Justice on the front lines projecting your freedoms and rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work to support we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. You are already a member not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today seeing okay only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, when Obama care means many ways your membership is powering the right question for you, mission life today online/United States to the situation with this pandemic and as it relates to China what China's involvement whether the headline in Associated Press DHS reports that China hidden virus severity toward supplies, but they knew it was serious and warden supplies.

That's one of the allegations. Right now the President United States President from address this last night. Take a listen to this problem. I think they were embarrassed by the problem variable forest.

The case could be made. They said hello this is that I have a huge impact on China and we might as well let the rest of the world, because the last people they want. We've had a great year against China. Prior to the virus coming.

But here's the thing.

They allowed this to go into our country, they allowed it to go into other countries they allowed it to go to our country, they allowed it to go into other countries of the President last night joining us on the phone as a senior military analyst Col. West Smith Col. Smith Ellis on Skype or on the phone on right so.

Col. Smith your reaction to what the President is now said regarding China very very serious child.

As pointed out in the blog last week on our website. They are a geopolitical adversary. They are not our geopolitical friends and they really can't be trusted in all matters to tell the truth, or even as most Western Western nations do to act in a way that protects the general welfare of the civilized world, you know, people criticized the President for the America First Bank, China China first Expo initiated.

It really is and think about this day. Also I will think about this morning there national security implications about this new in the ancient days of tribalism and throughout recorded human history.

Most wars have not been called initially over territorial political control but rather over food water supplies necessary for life and I'm not suggesting that we go war China are that were going to but protecting and providing for it is always been a national security issue. Jake and it still is and what China has done I think has an impact on the national security state. They lied about how widespread covert was in China they delayed revealing that he could be caught by human to human contact and probably pressured the World Health Organization to align with that information.

All all J while buying and hoarding will supplies of PPE is serious is that this cannot be overstated. Health organization fantasies if WHO was running the offense for the Chinese on this, the Chinese government. Yeah, I think implicit threat, where Jan really all the Intel points that direction and I will tell you on Capitol Hill. There's two main things that I'm hearing with increasing frequency. The first is suspicions on and on where the virus originated. I think the Intel community is coming closer to a consensus on that.

But honestly, J even without a consensus on that. I think it is pretty clear that China took precautionary measures inside their own country prohibiting travel from Wuhan without prohibiting international, China's date they didn't tell the world, but they actually took active steps to allow the spread to leave their country while protecting our country. That's just unacceptable.

Look at the right you the words coming out of the Chinese were trying to blame United States a week ago and now our Secretary of State good friend of ours Mike Pompeo address this to listen what he said that the Chinese Communist Party had the opportunity to prevent all of the calamity that has befallen the world and here we find yourself today you never talk at all ever seen each other physically for a long time. True people all across the world. This is this is an enormous crisis created by the fact that the Chinese commerce party reverted to form reverted to the kinds of disinformation the kinds of concealment that authoritarian regimes do we think about this for moment unless I think about this, the Chinese government knows this going on the ward, the supplies World Health Organization comes out and says oh it's a localized thing they got it under control, and now the entire world has been turned upside down because with the Chinese government allowed to happen and that you allow this to happen.

The Chinese government allowed this to happen is one of the thing and this is the girl that my grandkids have to grow up and right now let me tell you my view on China germ warfare. What they did last year. This cannot be over stated. Which is why a number of countries including United States are calling out for China to be held accountable in this whole deal about hiding information delaying affirmation and hoarding supplies. All of this, you know, to add insult injury to to cover this, according to the Department of State, Mike Pompeo, they delayed revealing standard trade and import export data which which the nations in the G 20 share with each other. They delayed their report in order to hide the fact that they were buying and hoarding medical equipment was very judicious when you said that Col. Smith, my company was not so judicious. What he said member, China has a history of infecting the world and have a history of running substandard laboratories.

These are not the first times that we had a world exposed to viruses a result of failures in the Chinese lab that I think about this. Your and your same age as my children and you got children and their going upright on a very different world than it was three months ago.

I think about the fact we were in the United States Senate just in late January January 21 until February 5 so we were there for three weeks to members that we know of Rand Paul and then the lawyer for the managers Dan Goldman both ended up getting called in 19 both survived.

Fortunately, this pandemic that has been released on the United states by the Chinese cannot go without some kind of response as well as as is, through the executive I wholly agree with you Jay. China is a threat and not just an economic one ending in their actions. In this case prove that they are a threat in a number of ways to the United States and I would say two things. One, this is why we have consistently and fiercely fought against losing any US sovereignty to any international body, the World Health Organization, the United Nations, or any other for that for for that matter and JDs comments by Sec. Pompeo number two. This is not hindsight this this letting outside inspectors, specifically inspectors from the United States but also from other countries. Inside laboratories like this has been an ongoing debate in the international community for a long time.

And China has not done it so now for them to sort of sanctimoniously say we run the safest laboratories date. There is a way to prove that follow the standards that the rest of the world does and let outside inspectors into confirm that they do not meet maybe it didn't come out of this lab, there would have been a way to prove it.

It would have been allowing those inspectors and they didn't do it I think there's gotta be a response and I think you see, when out of the United States Senate. Pretty soon I mean is that DHS is very concerned about it. They said that their report indicates that the World Health Organization was not told that the coronavirus was a contagion for much of January so that China could order medical supplies from abroad and that imports of face mass in surgical gowns and gloves increasingly grew the flight supply increase. Those conclusions are based on the 95% probability that China changes in import and export behavior were not within normal range.

China informed the WHO of the outbreak. On December 31. It contacted me with a decent disease control January 3 and publicly identify the pathogen as the novel coronavirus on January 8 and reports art was already functioning in Europe way before then. And so this West. This is a you know, the Chinese, such as a lot of explaining to do. They all the world, not as an apology. This edition be damages.

People have died in huge numbers were close to 70,000 Americans died more than that, across the globe and our world is been turned upside down because of these people exist government's action against the Chinese people it's against the government that allowed this to happen right right and and and totalitarian totalitarian under common control cruel to their own people been thoughtless and careless with the rest of the world and I think you're exactly right. There has to be compensation. They have killed so many thousands and thousands of people because of their irresponsibility and not just the irresponsibility had they made a mistake. Asked that we got out of the lab and they just come forward and honest and transparent about it so many deaths could've been aborted and that's not even talking about the world economy, which is probably going to take years to recover simply because of the dishonesty in the tight control the inhumanity of the communist Chinese government hi, Leslie, thank you for being with us today appreciate your work on this. They let me go to you what you think Congress is what I think a couple of things. One, I think there can ever continue to ratchet up economic sanctions to I think they're gonna look at the trade conversations at the present been having with China through a new lens and understand why he's been tougher on them engine then J number three I think they will take a specific look at one of the issues that you just mentioned and that is why the world health health organization did not pick up on the straight abnormalities that you reference any.

They are the entity J they should have not noticed those amaranth abnormalities and then sounded the alarm for the rest of the world. I know that the administration has remove funding from them. J honestly the Congress who holds the power of the purse should not issue another dime to the World Health Organization until these are remedied, and I would tell you. Maybe not even then Chinese on a lot of our debt to say that the Chinese on a lot of our debt and in the lobby call things sometimes liquidated damages. What that that amount is $6 trillion is composed of the damage they caused on our economy and our citizens limitation may hold our debt sleep that night. We think because we come back when 864 30 went to need to talk about anything in the last segment of the broadcast 1-800-684-3110 back with more including your calls 864 30 went and don't forget work basically okay NACLJ only one. A society can agree most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn will show you how you are personally patient includes all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, when Obama care me in many ways, your membership is powering the right question mission life today online/challenges facing Americans constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress. And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about our life changing, member today NACLJ taking your calls. I want to play another bite for my pump A1 the World Health Organization as relates to the situation with China in this virus. Take a listen number 11 China behaved like authoritarian regimes to attempted to conceal and hide and confuse employ the World Health Organization as a tool to do the same kind of things that are not presented this enormous crisis and enormous loss of life and tremendous economic cost. All across the globe Ryan's agree with that he hear the Europeans beginning to say the same thing.

I think the whole world is United understanding the China brought this virus to the world we got in the accountable joining us in senior counsel for the ACLJ is that a lot of work with us globally and any I think about this. I been to China talked and given a speech a series of speeches that I had picking University, which is the equivalent of their Harvard and the fact of the matter is here with the Chinese regime did and and what they've changed all of our lives here in Atlanta in your house, in the studio today because we the storm so I had to be the place we had Internet and I was able to come to you today. But even here, we are socially distancing mass, you name it they wrecked havoc on the world.

The Chinese government at the correct who the World Health Organization and stockpiled medical equipment for the day that it was going to come out. I still believe that it wasn't that I don't believe it was just some loose animal in the wet market. I believe it was intentionally done to undermine yes send them to, but they have less to lose three population so they care me. While they've changed our entire mode of living. J what is normal for us was locked in our house as we walk around with gloves and masks. What a terrible situation we have been put in and I laid this directly at the hands of the Chinese confidence party is anything else to say that it's any better than when you just said but disinterested was asked this question by my threats, and ABC News, the secretary seen anything that gives you high confidence that it originated in the Wuhan lab, take a listen to secretary seen anything that gives you high confidence that it originated in that Wuhan lab part of this enormous evidence that that's where this began.

We said from the beginning that this was a virus that originated Wuhan, China. We took a lot of grief for that come from the outset, but I think the whole world can see now the whole world does see it now. Whitney's going online, one from Texas with me on their greed that traveled by government and everything.

I think that that certainly they that wait on their cultural mindset that that's not important what they can buy are the economic think once they realize that they were had become crippled economically by this virus. Best way to mitigate their own losses. If this practice lasted around by allowing the virus to the skate their borders being economic havoc was going to be spread equally amongst great call and thing it points to. I think the issue of what not on the White House because it was Congress to yen at the very least a Whitney's point and mean they were trying to spread the reputational harm whether or not they were trying to spark spread the health on what I think is a great amount of evidence that they were, they were certainly trying to spread the reputational harm J. Any luck. Weather is intentional or not, when they knew the virus for spreading and failed to warn anybody else. An accusation that it was intentional, is absolutely fair because the burden of proof should be on them to show that it's not. So I would tell you this JI think God secretary Pompeo has made it very clear that the administration is canoeing to investigate this until they know these answers. There is growing consensus inside the intelligence community that it did originate in the rent. The lab now that they're sort of an emotive phase of investigation and when it comes to Congress J Congress returned to issues that matter to the American people and after this after the recovery from this virus made there can be another stimulus package. How about finding out the origins of this and then holding those accountable about that be next on their list and you look at the Univac I mentioned that the China controls three to about $6 trillion of our debt, maybe more, and in the lobby call liquidated damages you because this harm liquidated damage amount would be at least exercising sweetly $6 trillion pandemic on the world before they have to have the wherewithal to do it. Nothing President is the person who will do that will make that assertion Pres. I know that is always that way to open the doors, but never the less, he is not going to be hoodwinked by somebody you know better.

This was the work of the Chinese Communist Party.

This was raped on the world they need to pay. This is a last call Kathleen Wyoming Kathleen take my call to say I truly believe that they did this intentionally just to prove they can possibly be the superpower with the phone one world order thing, and now God's blessings to all you NACLJ I support you every month and every other chance I get. Next year, and I guess I really appreciate everything.

I'll do so much and I have one quick question. I didn't get to hear the first part of the broadcast. I didn't know if there's some kind of a second emulate anything on not working. Talk of a possible third stimulus correct man.

Yes, there beginning negotiation on that now the Senate is in town this week, the house will be back next week.

I think I probably a couple weeks away.

J we don't know what's gonna be in that yes, I would just tell the caller how the President wants to see a payroll tax cut in their analysis and infrastructure component I Democrats are talking about money to states and localities and maybe even thinks a mail-in voting. We don't know about individual payments to Americans day that'll be one of the issues that's on the table, but I think you're probably two, three, four weeks away from something being on the floor.

Both chambers only tell we've got on the floor. We got on the floor of our office. Anyways, preparations going on our first recording United States today. You are for the first time in US history. Supreme Court arguments over argued remotely via phone. Everybody was in a different location.

All the justices were in different locations, all although advocates were in different locations and was very unique in that regard, and I think it was. I came up I thought pretty flawlessly in any you got only about a minute happier. All things considered that they had to do this very quickly in and moved to this, it would pretty much went up very quickly. I think you gave an orderly process, and at least there is now advocacy that goes with the brakes as well.

I could hear them here.

There were given without interruption by the kind of state one another. I think it is the new normal. Again, I think they probably will go back to the old way of doing it in chamber and the Supreme Court building like the District Court and I like the Circuit Court might suspect back to the building you will be back back to old habits is a lot of fun to folks I am right around the corner from where the studio on the podium and have something to look at and to be duplicated with the mice and understand what the advocates today by podium to something sitting down were casual close to the white shirt and red tie to be.

I think listening to us today is working the ACLJ ACLJ.org talking ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your rights in court. Congress and the public of the American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ


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