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

DOJ vs. President Trump: Urgent Update

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
September 22, 2022 1:11 pm

DOJ vs. President Trump: Urgent Update

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 989 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

September 22, 2022 1:11 pm

There's been a ruling in President Trump's lawsuit regarding the FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago home. We have multiple updates to provide on the former President's many ongoing legal battles. Jay, Jordan, and the Sekulow team break it all down for you. This and more today on Sekulow.

Amy Lawrence Show
Amy Lawrence
Amy Lawrence Show
Amy Lawrence
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Brian Kilmeade Show
Brian Kilmeade
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders

Today on Sekulow, the Department of Justice vs. President Trump, an urgent update. We're going to be joined by Senator Marsha Blackburn and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome to Sekulow. We are going to be taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Of course, over these last 24 hours, there's been a lot of news involving different cases involving President Trump out of Florida. Again, another decision there. We covered a lot of the Attorney General's statement yesterday. And the case that they are bringing, which is a civil case, a civil fraud case in New York. And then later in the day, we saw action out of the Eleventh Circuit on the appointment of a special master among other items. But as of right now, the FBI now gets to go back to reviewing their documents.

So here's what happened. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, including two appointees of President Trump that were appellate court judges, ruled that there was no basis to put a special master in place, thus clearing the way for the Justice Department through the FBI to continue their review of the documents and allowing those documents to be shared with the investigators. And as far as whether a document is privileged or not, the Eleventh Circuit said you have to rely on the Justice Department to do this.

Now, I think what's happening is a number of things. Look, these cases are, when you've got a multi-jurisdiction situation, which is what the former President has right now, multi-jurisdiction. You've got litigation in the state courts of New York. You've got a criminal case being tried October 24th in Manhattan by the New York DA's office against the Trump Organization. And so that criminal case is going to trial. You have now the civil fraud suit brought by the state attorney general in New York. You have at least two, maybe three grand juries going in Washington, D.C. And then you have the situation with the execution of the warrant in Florida.

So what does that all mean? It means that you need to have legal teams dedicated to each one of those tasks, and then some lawyer needs to be in charge. You have – what we did was we had a team that was handling New York matters when Jordan and I were involved. We had a team that was handling New York matters, lawyers like Mark McCasey and others. We had Jane and Marty Raskin and some of our folks handling the Mueller issues. And then we had a team that was handling tax issues. And then what we made sure was that all those trains stayed on the track, so to speak, and they didn't collide into each other. And I think what you've got right now is it was so long for them to react.

It took three weeks, remember, from the arrest warrant – excuse me, the search warrant to the execution of legal action that that passage of time did not go to the former President's benefit. And I think that's where they're suffering legally right now. Yeah.

And so we want to take your phone calls on this at 1-800-684-3110. That's Senator Marsha Blackburn. She's going to be joining us next time with the broadcast as well. We'll touch on some of those issues with her, but we're also going to get into more of that later in the broadcast. We're going to get into some issues with her like the border, like the economy. I mean, look at the stock market right now.

We had a reaction coming on later to talk about this. Interest rate hike yesterday yet again. And really no end in sight on the aggressiveness of the Federal Reserve.

So, again, it took a lot of people off guard that they went to that three-quarters of a rate percent increase. So, taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. ACLJ action update for you as well, too. Just to encourage people to continue to speak out on that border security that we're asking you to do. All 100 senators have been contacted, but we wanted to be contacted multiple times. Over, I think it's 410 members of the House of Representatives. And we now have reached the over 6,000 contacts that have gone out.

So, the next stretch goal would be 10,000 contacts. It doesn't cost you a thing to take part in this at Standing up for border security, really seizing on a moment. Like I came on yesterday to talk about, as my voice was kind of getting improving, that seizing on a moment where even many Democrats are starting to say, we've got to do something about border security. We've got to secure our border.

It's not just about the immigrants, it's about the people who are dying from the drugs as well. Americans dying. We'll be right back with Senator Marsha Blackburn.

Welcome back to Secular. We are honored to be joined by a great friend of ours in the ACLJs, U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.

Senator Blackburn, as always, it's a pleasure to have you on the broadcast. Let me go right to one of the topics I think is just front and center for every American right now, it's the economy. They saw the interest rate hike again yesterday. They see the stock market taking a hit yet again. And they're just wondering, you know, when does inflation, when does it stop, when does solutions start actually getting put forward? And that's the right question to ask. And Tennesseans, when I talk to them are asking that, when are we going to see relief from this? And I have to tell you, I don't think it's going to be any time soon.

And here's the reason why. You're not going to bring down inflation until you open the energy sector back up. We need an all of the above energy policy. Certainly, you can say wind and solar, they have their place. But you cannot villainize oil and gas and say we're not going to have any hydrocarbons. We are not going to allow that into the system. At the same time, you can't say we're going to disallow nuclear production for electric power. But that's what the left is trying to do.

They think they can do it all on wind and solar and you can't meet your need on that. You know, it's interesting also, Senator, I saw this yesterday. Congresswoman Tlaib started getting criticism even from the Democrats for her anti-Israel statements.

And I just want to go to that for a moment. Israel's our key ally in the Middle East, our strongest ally in the Middle East. And it seems to me that the left, and you were just talking about this as it relates to energy policy, and it's the same thing on geopolitics, that the left is just, especially the hard left, bent on taking our entire foreign policy also in a completely different direction.

Oh, you're exactly right. And Tlaib, with her questioning of Jamie Dimon yesterday, her comments when it comes to our foreign policy, they're out of line. And I was recently in Israel, in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem, and I met with Lapid, I met with Netanyahu. Israel is our ally. They are greatly appreciative of the United States partnering with them on innovation. Working toward Iron Dome, David Sling, the laser, all of this is important to them.

They are so grateful to us. They're very concerned about what the U.S. may do with a new Iran nuclear deal. They're concerned about the impact that would have on them as far as security and safety goes. And also the way it would embolden Iran, give them cash to put into their proxies. And of course they know some of that cash into the proxies ends up over on the West Bank and in Palestine and in the wrong pockets. You know, Senator Blackburn, when we talk about these issues too, when we look at Ukraine and Russia, we see this call up by Putin of reservists of 300,000.

Again, it appears to be one of those things where we hear the Biden administration talking about, we see the weaponry, but is there an end in sight? You know, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, I think what we are seeing is an admission by Putin through his actions, not his words, but through his actions, that they were not prepared for this. They had not expected pushback from Ukraine and from the Ukrainian people who have decided solidly that they don't agree with Russia. They don't want to be a part of Russia. So now he is actually willing to empty the prisons and conscript some of these prisoners into his armed forces to try to temper what is going on there with losing so many from the army. And I think they've had some people just kind of walk off in desert.

They've decided they are not going to be a part of this. Let me ask you, turning attention to a domestic matter, and that is the continued weaponization of government agencies against, of course you have it against the former President, against conservatives, but if you look at the actions of this administration, a disinformation panel was going to be set up. I could just go through the checklist of ridiculous infringements on free speech that were either put in place or being proposed. I think back to the fact that we had that great victory against the IRS, and as soon as the Biden administration got in, they violated the court order we already had in place and got it fixed.

But nevertheless, they were willing to do that. Then you look at what's gone on with the former President in the last several months, and you'd say to yourself, being a conservative is a dangerous business right now. When you're a conservative, you've got a target on your back, and the left continues to come after conservatives, and the left continues to try to demonize conservatives. Bear in mind, Jay, one of their goals, and they did this all through the pandemic with the mandates and the lockdowns, one of their goals is to make people fearful because fearful people are easier to control. So if they can pick off some conservatives and make examples of them, if you will, for what's going to happen to you, if you do not do what they say you should do, then that makes it easier for them. And you're right, we saw that with the IRS during the Obama years.

Now we're seeing the IRS be weaponized once again, 87,000 new agents, you are seeing DOJ, FBI, you see what is happening to people that worked with President Trump who are being subpoenaed, you're seeing the raid at Mar-a-Lago, all of this is to instill fear in the American public. So my hope is that people are going to show up and they're going to vote and vote to get a government that is more responsive to the people and move away from this two tiers of justice, two tiers of agency enforcement, and get back to a government that is equal access and equal treatment, equal justice. We appreciate it, Senator, as always, and appreciate your insights and thanks for representing all of us. And I say that really on behalf of not just people in Tennessee, but people around the country. You're speaking for a lot of us when you're up there working in Washington and getting these policies through.

We appreciate it. Thanks, Senator Blackburn. And you know, I'd say too, as a Tennessean, and we speak to a national audience, but as a Tennessean, you have to really understand too and get outside of that zone to realize, I think you see in the news, you might be in a state or community where you feel it's like a very red place. But what you realize is the corporate target on your back, the way New York is treating President Trump, saying we don't want you to be doing business here. He's been an institution of New York well before he was a politician and with the same personality. They embraced his personality then when it was good for business and he wasn't involved in politics. Suddenly he got involved in politics and they didn't like his personality anymore.

They didn't like him anymore. They want to question every decision. But I mean, listen, they're coming at him with the full force of the state government. It's unprecedented to see a former President be treated this way. No, I mean, you got a New York DA criminal trial starting in a month.

You have a New York State Attorney General civil fraud suit that's been filed yesterday. You have two grand juries at least, maybe three in Washington, D.C. You have actions in Florida going on and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals got rid of the special master. And that special master, by the way, was picked by President Trump's team. He was very hard on the lawyers for President Trump's team because you got to be, no matter who the judge is, you're the lawyer. You know what you need to be?

Prepared. And I think that you've got to have a strategy and you've got to have a theory and you've got to have teams in place. I'm just not sure that's, you know, I'm not trying to be critical. I'm just not sure that's being implemented. Maybe it can't be.

I don't know. I think you could say this is unfair, but OK, big boys now. You have to get past that too. So there's that, what we were talking about with Senator Blackbird, too, which is how much worse it is when you're not Donald Trump and this kind of comes at you this way because you don't have the resources. But when you are Donald Trump, yes, it's unfair.

Yes, you could say it's political targeting. But yes, you could also, you have the resources to build whatever team you need to defend yourself. And you better do it.

But you've got to do it. And quickly, and I think what happened with the special master, we all said was right when that happened, which is you got to file that like next day. And they didn't. They did get a favor ruling. I have a district court judge within the 11th Circuit said you wait too long as part of it. Yeah.

And then, look, they never challenged the magistrate that issued the, executed the, signed the search warrant, who shouldn't have not been the, I mean the basic stuff. But anyways, we're going to take your calls and comments 1-800-684-3110. We're going to have more on this next topic, what this all means for the former President, what it means. General, we'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at File today a cert petition that is a petition for review to the Supreme Court of the United States on a prayer case out of Ocala, Florida. And I think it could be a landmark case. If the court takes it, we think there's a good chance they will. And that was filed today by the American Center for Law and Justice.

Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Secular. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Especially if you've got questions about all of the different Trump legal goings on. And there's a lot to discuss there. Also, Jordan and Logan are doing a podcast today. Yep.

Secular Brothers. So you're going to want... This will be our, this is our third, usually, you know, it'll mostly always be that Monday, Tuesday, Thursday.

They go up about 4 p.m., 5 p.m. Eastern Time. And again, you can listen. And download. Download on Spotify, Apple, iTunes, and you can subscribe there.

You go to SecularBrothers, S-E-K-U-L-O-W,, and that'll show you all the different places. You can watch the broadcast. A lot of people have been watching lately through Facebook and places like that and YouTube, Rumble. But you can also, you know, if you're more of a traditional podcast listener, it's up that way. All the places you get your podcasts. But again, we encourage you to subscribe on Apple iTunes.

It doesn't cost you anything. And, or subscribe on Spotify. And we hope to, you'll join us this afternoon. Yeah, that'll be great.

Joining us now is our Senior Counsel, Andy Economo. It's a little lighter. Yeah, it is a little lighter than this.

Maybe a lot lighter, I would say. There's a couple things I want to talk about. We're going to talk about what happened in the 11th Circuit. By the way, for those of you who are saying, I can't believe the 11th Circuit did this, which was basically remove the district court judge's opinion, which put in place the special master. But remember, that special master hearing just 48 hours ago was very tough on Donald Trump's lawyers.

And that was the special master they picked. So, okay, the two judges out of the three that signed the 11th Circuit order were appointed by Donald Trump. So this isn't just, you know, left-wing bias here.

This is legal issues. So, you know, and then I want to talk about this whole ridiculous tweets by Rashida Tlaib. Rashida Tlaib's tweets on Israel, which has even got the Democrats up in arms. But before we do that, Andy, you took a look at it. What's your sense of what has happened here? My view overall is the delay in all of this and the reaction time, and again, I don't know what the reason for the delay was. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but the delay in the action and then the way in which that hearing went two days ago, this kind of previewed what I thought the 11th Circuit was probably going to do. Well, I think you're absolutely right, Jay. The delay in the action was really a determinative factor in my view. And I agree with you.

You've got to have teams and you've got to have a central train conductor supervising those teams. But the dilatory tactic that was engaged in was not in the benefit of former President Trump. It was to his detriment, and the Court of Appeals saw through that.

But I read that opinion very carefully, 29-page opinion by two judges who were appointed by President Trump, one by President Obama. And the thing that I think was impressive on this thing is how the government chose to come at it. They made this a national security issue.

They kept saying that, oh, my goodness, you've got to be able to allow us to look at these hundred documents because it is a national security issue that is at stake if you don't allow this to go on and to happen. And the Court of Appeals was impressed and moved by that argument. In addition, to say that you cannot conduct a criminal investigation or that was stayed as to the subject documents was another thing that caught the attention of the Court of Appeals. They cited a 1940 decision, a cobbledick, which I have used many times when I was a prosecutor, which said even a citizen who is ultimately proven to be innocent has got to bear the cost, not monetary cost, but the discomfiture of a criminal investigation if that's what it takes. And the court is not going to interfere with those investigations. So to say that the FBI could not proceed with investigating on a criminal basis those documents but could only do it on other bases was another thing that the Court of Appeals found to be flawed in the district judge's opinion.

So I read this very carefully, and I think it was a well-reasoned opinion, and I don't think that you can argue with it too much. You know, the issue here is also, I think we have to be clear on this, is that this inability of the lawyers right now, and again, there may be a reason for this, to assert that the documents were declassified. That has not come into pleading yet. And the lawyers have said in court, they said, we're not prepared to make that assertion at this time. I think that left the court with the saying, well, if you're not willing to make that assertion, well, these are the government's documents then. Andy, I mean, that's kind of the way it works. Well, that's exactly right, and I question myself, why hasn't this assertion been made?

And I cannot come up with a good reason for that. They are the government's documents, the Court of Appeals concluded in this opinion, and really said, therefore, the government can look at them for whatever purposes they want to, whether it be national security purposes, whether it be for purposes of a criminal investigation or whatever. And I don't understand what the strategy is, if there indeed is a coherent strategy here, Jay. All right, we're getting phone calls, 1-800-684-3110, Jordan, let's take a call. Yeah, Forrest in California, online 3A, Forrest, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air. Hi, Forrest.

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you for your call. I have two quick related questions. The first one is the reason that New York Attorney General James is filing a civil lawsuit, that the burden of proof for her as a plaintiff is only a presumption, a preponderance of evidence. Whereas, in a criminal case, it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. First question, second question would be, can the Trump team sue Attorney General James for malicious prosecution?

He tried that, and that failed. That was thrown out of court because that suit was, whatever, the way it was played, it was not cognizable, as we say in the law. With regard to the burden of proof, yes, it's true. The Attorney General of New York has very limited, very limited criminal capabilities to bring a criminal case, unlike in other states.

But in this particular, so the preponderance of evidence standard, it will not be beyond a reasonable doubt because that's what's done in the criminal case. But understand this, there's a trial in about a month in New York against a Trump organization by the Manhattan DA's office for criminal conduct, Andy. I mean, so there's a lot going on in these cases. This is what's missing in all of this.

I don't see a leader of the team. That's what's, and I don't really, and they've gotten some good lawyers now, they've retained some good lawyers, but it seems to be a very scattered shot approach. And I'm not criticizing anybody because I don't know what they're dealing with in these various cases. But as, and you were involved in this too, as lawyers that have represented the former President when he was President, which is even a different situation as you can imagine.

We, it was, we had strategies and teams in place to move forward and that seems to be lacking here. And the caller asked, it was a good question. Yeah.

Andy. Jay, I agree with you. We do not have a coherent, I do not see a coherent overall approach with a team leader, a conductor, a director, whatever you want to call it. Somebody calling the shots ultimately here in these multiple situations in New York, in Florida, in these various venues where all these actions are being brought.

Somebody has to cohere and bring this together and I don't see that happening. And it is to the detriment of the client ultimately that this is occurring. In my estimation, part of the court of appeals in Atlanta's decision in the 11th circuit was due to the delay in bringing the action. There were also legal reasons, but there needs to be coherence as we had with Mueller, with the impeachment, with so forth, had you at the center of it, making the ultimate decisions on this.

And it worked out to the benefit of the client. Uniquely right now, New York, civil. Mar-a-Lago don't really, could be likely criminal. National security criminals. But nothing criminal has been filed yet. There's not been an indictment. Against President Trump.

No. It is clear. But there are criminal investigations. Because here in New York Attorney General bringing fraud charges, your mind does go to cry.

But I want to make sure it's clear to people just over and over, that's civil. That's a civil fraud case. There is a New York criminal case going on. That is with the DA's office. Right. And then there are grand juries impaneled.

And the situation with the documents in Mar-a-Lago, the government has said, is a criminal investigation. All right. We're going to be here for another 30 minutes.

Thanks, Andy. We're going to be here for another 30 minutes. We'll take your calls and comments. And we'll report the work of the ACLJ at Where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. This half hour of the broadcast will take more of your phone calls.

1-800-684-3110. I hope you'll share the broadcast, whether you're watching on Facebook, Rumble, YouTube. There's all the different ways to share it there. So if you're on YouTube, you just hit the thumbs up and share. That's an easy way to do it.

Share on Facebook. And you hit the plus sign on Rumble. And Rumble's featuring us, which we really appreciate and want to thank the folks at Rumble for doing.

Because it makes a huge difference. Mike Pompeo's going to be joining us the next segment of the broadcast. Remember the UN? I mean, there's so much news going on. But remember the big UN speech that Joe Biden gave yesterday? The Russian news.

The Russian nuclear threat that was made. We're going to get into all of that with him. As well as some of the unrest we're seeing in Iran. Once again, unfortunately, under an administration that I fear will do exactly what the Obama administration did when there was unrest in Iran, which is nothing.

Yeah, and we're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Tomorrow's broadcast, we touched on it a little bit. We're going to get into this latest from the hard left of the Democratic Party that's even getting the Democrats reacting. Which is from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Who, this is what she said, I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values, yet back Israel's apartheid government. That got reaction from Gerald Nadler, Republican. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat.

Of course, the Anti-Defamation League's Jonathan Greenblatt. And I will now add our voices to that as well. We'll get into it more on tomorrow's broadcast. But let me just tell you something. For those of you that are in the Democratic Party, it's a free country, you can be in whatever party you want.

And you're pro-Israel, or Jewish, and pro-Israel. I want you to hear what these people are saying. In fact, I am going to preview it. I want to play what she said.

I would say we might be talking about it a little bit in our podcast today, too. Because the truth is, she's right. That's where the progressives are. That's where the party is. And it's going that way. And the Gerald Nadlers of the world and the Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the dinosaurs. They're even looking to Jewish progressives to say, I'm anti-Israel. And so what she's really saying is to be part of the new Democrat Party. You must be anti-Israel.

Take a listen. I want you all to know that among progressives, it has become clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values, yet back Israel's apartheid government. And we will continue to push back and not accept this idea that you are progressive except for full esteem any longer. Can you be progressive and back the Palestinian government, whose partner in the government is Hamas? Can you be progressive and say, we like Hamas? By the way, Hamas, for all your progressive values that you like, freedom of speech, supposedly, all these different rights, they throw people off the top of buildings they disagree with. That's what they do with Hamas as the government. The other option here is religious radicals for the Democrat Party to be supporting. Take out the terrorist part, okay? Why would the Democrat Party say, you know what we're going to side with here?

The people don't let women have the same opportunities as men? Just right there, you would think. Throwing people off the top of buildings.

Oh yeah, you don't have to get to that point. You would just think they're so anti-progressive views. They're so anti-classic liberalism, classic freedom and liberty in both of those political movements in the Palestinian territories. One which is extremely hardline religious, the Hamas movement. One which is a little bit more politically motivated, but still with, again, not values that we would highlight or welcome in the United States. Pretty backwards, honestly.

I think it's fair to say backwards at a minimum. That's involving both of those groups. So the fact that progressives, that this is classic progressives too, then they will then welcome in these radical Islamic extremists as somehow part of the progressive movement. No, and you're seeing it play out. You're going to talk about this on the Secular Brothers podcast? Yes, because radical Muslims are progressive. Sorry, Rashida. So if you have not yet subscribed to the Secular Brothers podcast with Logan and Jordan, you've got to do it.

It is really, I'm really, men I'm biased, but they do a phenomenal job., Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts. Apple, really sign up for it today. All right, welcome back to Secular. We're joined by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. I want to play this bite, Secretary Pompeo. We saw the UN speech yesterday from President Biden. Then we saw the reaction by President Putin. Let's take a listen. It's dubbed over into English, but this is President Putin.

Bite four. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the prevailing winds can also blow in their direction. If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff. So there you go, Secretary Pompeo. I don't know who's making nuclear threats against Russia.

I haven't seen anyone do that. But that is the message he's taking to his own people. And it is certainly a pretty scary message to the world when it's a Vladimir Putin that people aren't sure if he's off his rocker or not. Well, Jordan, it is a serious message, one that needs to be thoughtfully responded to. Your point is well taken. Much as he said he was threatened by NATO, much as he now asserts that someone's challenging him to use nuclear weapons against the Russian people. Nobody said that.

NATO didn't threaten Russia. This is an aggressive act by him. There's no reason to walk away from that central understanding. But you have to take seriously what he said. I think he has every intention of convincing us that he's going to use these nuclear weapons. And our response shouldn't be what President Biden did yesterday. The place in the way one deters bad guys is not by giving speeches at the UN when you have demonstrably failed to follow through on so many of the commitments that you've already made. And so this is the time for quiet, serious deeds. Not words, but deeds. Actions that Vladimir Putin can see are serious, not just American actions, but European actions that demonstrate that the cost to him will exceed the cost that he can impose anyplace else. And, you know, giving a speech or making a statement is not going to get it done.

This requires a private conversation with clear actions that I know can be taken. I can't talk about all that, but we can make very clear that we're prepared to respond in a way if he upended the world by using tactical nuclear weapons. You know, it's interesting, Mike, that you say this, because I had the privilege years. This is back in like 2014, 15, and 16 to study during the summers at the University of Oxford and got Benjamin Disraeli's papers and went through them and put together.

We ended up writing a series of books involving a lot of these issues. But the interesting thing about when I was at Oxford was Disraeli said, you know, diplomacy can be war, but it has to mean that you've got power behind it. And right now is we make these statements at the United Nations, and I've been at that podium, and that dealt with an issue of the boycott, divest, and sanction moment at the General Assembly in the hall.

It's an impressive thing, but you've got to have power behind this. And right now it seems like we barely can get through the speech, let alone put action in place. You've got it exactly right. There's no chance that our friends in Europe or our adversaries in Russia are taking on board what the administration is saying, because it so often is out there being corrected, modified, hold back, walk back, you use the language. And even more importantly than that, right, this was a President who was part of the administration that said if they use chemical weapons, we'd respond.

They didn't. This administration that said we're not going to let any American be left behind in Afghanistan, we did. So our words have not proven to be of value for our friends or our adversary. So this is time for deed. This is time for action. There are a handful that could be taken that would very clearly put Vladimir Putin on notice of the risk to him.

And we ought to be doing that. I hope that I'm not seeing it, but I hope that we are in ways that can't be seen. Secretary Pompeo, are we close to some kind of nuclear conflict? Is it just bluster?

Is it very tough to predict him right now? He's called up for the first time since World War II, Russia's called up their reservists, 300,000. He tried to play that down as, well, it's not everybody and it's just a limited number. But then he's talking about a nuclear threat against Russia, and he's become a very unpredictable actor.

He went from being kind of a predictable actor to an unpredictable actor. Could we be close to some kind of use of, and they may be tactical, maybe something different than what we think of with World War II, but some use of nuclear weapons? Yeah, no, we should not assume that this is bluster. We should even assume he is irrational. I think it is fair to assume that he is prepared to do this and is contemplating is that thinking through his risk analysis in doing so. Your point is very well taken. It's different than World War II, but make no mistake about it. Going past the threshold of conventional weapons is a big deal for the United States, and we should be treating it as such. Last thing I'll say is there are multiple tools that are of staggering impact that Putin can use. He made the statement yesterday about his nuclear program, his tactical nuclear weapons. Don't forget if he pulls the string on energy this winter, the loss of life in Europe, the loss of jobs and wealth and power in the West, the United States included, is very serious.

You can't heat homes in Germany in the wintertime. If the French countryside is littered with people who no longer have access to electricity because Vladimir Putin shut down energy transfers, this is a serious, real, credible threat as well. Each of those needs a response that is not about statements, not about words, but about actions and deeds that manifest a seriousness from America. Mike, obviously you've been in the room with Vladimir Putin.

You know the person, you know the way in which he governs, the way in which he leads. You said something very important. We cannot take these statements as mere puffery or bluffing. We are in a very dangerous place right now. I feel like where we were during the Carter years, but maybe worse because the lethality is so much more significant now. Like you said, the energy dependence is so significant, but he doesn't have to deploy a nuclear weapon to bring Europe to its knees.

Let's be clear. I think what you said there is for real, and people need to understand that the energy dependence on Russia for Europe is staggering and could cause, as you said, untold casualties if he plays that. No, it's very real, and it won't stay in Europe.

If European manufacturing shuts down, American jobs by the thousands will vanish because supply chains flow all around the world. And to your first point, it is never with Vladimir Putin, who I spent a little bit of time with, it is never safe to assume that he is bluffing. He is more capable than that, and in spite of the fact his military has underperformed, the fact that he's prepared to call up 300,000, don't diminish that, that is a big number. He's going to his own people saying, we are in this, we are staying in this, we should take very seriously the things he said, and we should respond to them in a way that is appropriate, coercive, and clear. Secretary Pompeo, I wanted your reaction to the end of President Biden's speech.

It's a little bizarre. Let me play it for everybody, Bite 33. We can do this, we have to do it, for ourselves and for our future, for humankind. Thank you for your tolerance for listening to me, I appreciate it very much. God bless you all. We're supposed to be the leader of the free world, a lot of countries look to us to be the leader of the free world.

Thank you for your tolerance for listening to me. Secretary Pompeo, he's the President of the United States. Boy, Jordan, the first time I heard that it rang in my ears as well. This is the United Nations, we underwrite the biggest chunk of this. These are a group of nations that are relying on America to be strong and powerful, not seeking forgiveness and tolerance. It just immediately hearkened back to President Obama's apology tour from 2010, right? A fundamental misconception of who America is, our goodness, our decency, our exceptionalism here in America. Rather than apologizing and seeking forgiveness and tolerance, we should be commanding the world to behave in a way that is consistent with our value set, instead of going to a place where you have Iran and Venezuela on the Human Rights Commission and asking for their tolerance. I'll tell you folks, elections have consequences. I slept a lot better at night when Mike Pompeo was the Secretary of State.

Let me just put it that way. I am somebody that works on the global stage. I'm one of the few lawyers in America that has appeared before the International Criminal Court and the Hague.

We've done these cases. I'm telling you folks, you've got to protect American values because the rest of the world doesn't have them. That's just fact. Secretary Pompeo, as always, thanks for being with us. Our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs. I want to underscore something that Mike said here, folks. The situation with Russia is very serious, and I made that reference to the Israeli. Here's what the Israeli said about Russia, about Russia back in the 1870s. They understand one thing. Power.

And as the Secretary said, former Secretary of State said, there are a lot of arsenals at our disposal that are not weapons necessarily. But here's the problem. I'm watching the stock market very closely. It is teetering right around 30,000. If it breaks below 30,000, you could see a floor, and we'll talk to Professor Hutchinson about this in a moment, of 25,000. That's going to start affecting everything.

Interest rates hike three-quarters of a point. This is Jimmy Carter 2022 version, except that the consequences are even more staggering. So, you know, people say you're being partisan. Partisan? I want to protect American values. We had a conference going on here about why we do what we do.

I want to make sure America stays a constitutional republic for my grandkids and their children. And we're teetering on that right now. So we get distracted with, you know, document requests, and that's what's galvanizing the news while Russia's threatening nuclear weapons. And like the Secretary said, all they have to do is cut off the gas supply, and Europe's at its knees.

And Europe's been at its knees multiple times over the last hundred years. Back with more in a moment. I think so. I mean, we've hit, again, the Trump legal drama as that continues on, and try to update you on all of the moving parts there in different courts and different jurisdictions, and got you up to speed there. Then to foreign policy with former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. We had Marsha Blackburn on talking inflation, talking about border security, priorities of the administration to protect the American people, obviously. And now to drill down a little bit more like we were talking with Senator Blackburn about with the economy. So we've got Colonel West Smith here and Professor Haya Hutchinson. And, you know, Colonel Smith deals with the issues of military, and Professor Hutchinson deals with economy.

But there's a lot of related issues here. I want to follow up first with what Mike Pompeo said. The 300,000 call up of troops is not a bluff, in his view, and the nuclear threat should also not be viewed as a bluff by Vladimir Putin.

Colonel Smith? Yeah, absolutely. You have to take it seriously. On the other hand, I think that Vladimir Putin hopefully somewhere knows that this would be a suicidal action on his part if he were to use even tactical nuclear weapons. And he may do it, we don't know, because it would absolutely unite the entire world other than Iran and North Korea against him. After his speech yesterday, China came out and condemned the speech and called for de-escalation.

Erdogan, the President of Turkey who's been a friend of him, has now called for Russia not only to withdraw from Ukraine, but from Crimea also. If he were to do this, it's a game changer. I think politically it would be completely suicidal for him.

It would hurt Russia. He may do it. As Mike said, we have to be prepared to respond, and hopefully that is going on behind the scenes. But he's a desperate man.

Sometimes desperate men do desperate things. So Harry, I want to tie in. So Mike brought up another point. Secretary Pompeo said the energy factor of the European energy is so dependent upon Russia that they don't have to deploy a nuclear weapon to bring Europe to its knees. And that would then affect, and is already affecting, the economy in the United States.

Absolutely. So Europe, Western Europe, is highly dependent on natural gas coming in from Russia. Russia has already shut down its pipeline, the Nord Stream pipeline, allegedly for maintenance reasons.

But they have not given a projection as to when they will open up that particular pipeline. It's also important to note that the weather has already turned toward autumn and winter in various parts of Europe. There's snow on the ground in Poland, for instance. And with winter, this enables Putin to weaponize energy still further. Meanwhile, President Biden doesn't seem to understand that giving up U.S. energy independence drives up energy costs in the long run. So here you have the United States basically giving a lifeline to Western Europe with respect to energy. We are the largest supplier of liquefied natural gas to Western Europe. If you look at Great Britain, electricity prices, energy prices are projected to rise by up to 400 percent. 400 percent by the spring of 2023. Now, Liz Truss, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, she has a plan to help out consumers.

She doesn't seem to have a plan yet to help out producers. And so if producers face these horrendous price increases, guess what? They may have to lay off people, so you may have a global recession, and that could sink the United States economy. All right, let me ask this question, because we're trying to give you real analysis here with real information. It appears to me, Colonel Smith, that energy now is a weapon.

Absolutely. We are talking about if he were to cut off Europe from gas, which translates into electricity also, we're talking about parts of Europe going dark over the winter, and we're talking about people freezing to death. We're talking about food shortages.

It would be catastrophic, and you're right. It is a weapon. So now you've got the weaponization, Jordan, of energy, and you've got the threats of – he calls up 300,000 troops with Mike Pompeo. You just heard on our broadcast, and he's our senior counsel for global affairs because of your support of the ACLJ, I might add.

Everybody on this broadcast because of your support of the ACLJ, but you've got energy as a weapon. You've got a direct tie-in between the energy costs and the economic situation, and then you've got a midterm election four weeks away. Are these issues going to play into this, or is it too complicated? I think the economic issue – that's number one. That's the issue that will play into it the most.

I mean, obviously, if Vladimir Putin used a nuclear weapon of any scope, it would freak people out. They may say, you know what, I like Republicans. I like tough talkers a lot more, so I'm going to put more of them in Washington, D.C. Absent that, the issues of the economy, I actually think Democrats realize because of some of their early success against these pro-life amendments, and some have been put kind of – we actually encouraged a lot of that, too, to take some time here, educate the public before you start having these votes, that because they had some success in blocking some of the more extreme abortion restrictions, that issue has moved down.

That was helping them kind of boost their numbers. Listen, if the stock market drops below 30,000 and 401Ks continue to take this beating, people vote on their pocketbook. They don't vote on morality. They vote on their pocketbook.

All right. So, Harry, if the market does drop below 30,000 – it did once briefly for just a little bit of time – but if it's significantly dropped below 30,000, drops into the 25, 27, 28, that range, how big of an economic impact is that? Well, I think it will be absolutely huge, and I think the American people will be looking for someone to blame. So, keep in mind, inflationary pressures are still ramping up, even though we may face recessionary headwinds. The average American family is likely to spend an extra $11,500 this year alone in terms of inflation. Grocery prices are exploding. Egg prices are exploding. And guess what? The biggest contributor to inflation in America has been Democratic policies.

The committee for a responsible federal budget shows that the Biden policies will add $4.8 trillion to the national debt. All right. Well, that's really quick because we're running out of time here. Is Europe in a – and we know Ukraine and Russia is in a war, but is there an Eastern European war? Are we on the foothills of that?

I don't think so, but we don't know. Right now, what is going on in Ukraine is the largest European war since World War II. And when a leader says, this is not a bluff, it indicates that he has a credibility problem with his own people and a self-confidence problem.

And sometimes – well, not sometimes, always – those kinds of leaders are unpredictable. All right. Your support of the work of the ACLJ gives you this kind of information. When you talk about information today in this broadcast,, we encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ, American Center for Law and Justice.

Let me also encourage you to do something else. We're getting more content out, and we're producing a lot of content. You should be subscribing on all of our social media channels, Rumble, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, at Jay Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at ACLJ.

But there's something else. Brand new podcast launched by Jordan and Logan. It's doing fantastic. We want everybody that's on there right now to subscribe to it.

Jordan, tell them how to do it. Yeah, so you go to You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, so wherever you want to listen to your podcast. You can also watch it – YouTube, Facebook, Rumble, of course.

So about 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time is when the new show comes out today. So we encourage you to go to Sign up wherever you get your podcasts. Like I said, it's on Facebook and Rumble and YouTube, but also it's on Spotify. It's on Apple Podcasts. Wherever you get your podcasts, do that. Support the work of the ACLJ at

Brand new case that the Supreme Court filed today on the issue of prayer. Back with more tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-01-15 20:59:07 / 2023-01-15 21:19:28 / 20

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