BREAKING: Grand Jury Forewoman Destroys Case Against Trump

Breaking news today on Sekulow as grand jury for woman destroys the case against Trump. 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. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Some breaking news today on Sekulow. I think it's unique to discuss it here in detail because the forewoman of the grand jury, there's a two part grand jury process in Georgia in the state court system that was looking into potential crimes, that's what they do, involving the election. This was focusing in on President Trump and his associates.

A lot about that phone call, remember, that was recorded by the Secretary of State and Donald Trump and others that were on the call. People came in to testify. There's a report. The report would go then to a grand jury that actually has indictment power. So there's a two part grand jury system in Georgia and every state does not have that process but they do in Georgia. Well, the forewoman of this grand jury, 30-year-old Emily Kors, not only started speaking to the media but started speaking to the media about exactly what you can't do, deliberating, discussions.

Take a listen to this sound from CNN. She went right on to TV. She did a lot of interviews on CNN and MSNBC and she's asked about and she brings up discussions on her own. Did you recommend charges against Donald Trump? I really don't want to share something that the judge made a conscious decision not to share. I will tell you that it was a process where we heard his name a lot. We definitely heard a lot about former President Trump and we definitely discussed him a lot in the room and I will say that when this list comes out, there are no major plot twists waiting for you. Did you recommend charges against Donald Trump? Let me tell you right now, okay, as someone that represented the former President, as someone that's done a lot of criminal cases, the case is over.

You cannot have deliberations of a grand jury discussed while another grand jury is empaneled to consider the criminal charges that came up in the report that this grand jury foreperson was in charge of. By the way, she also did artwork. Do we have a picture of that?

Stick this up. This is what she was doing when people came in. On the left is Mark Short, Vice President Pence's lawyer.

On the right is supposed to be Lindsey Graham. And she's showing this to people. This is in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. And this is supposed to be a criminal proceeding. You can't do this. It makes us look like Venezuela again.

Like a third world country. That we can't operate a proceeding that follows due process. When you're talking about a proceeding that would take someone's liberty interests away, which is what, as Jordan said, it's a criminal proceeding.

You have to play by the rules. The judge needs to get control of this matter. I would go into federal court with a motion to quash the entire proceedings.

Maybe you start in state court, but in the case that I argued, one of the cases, we had four that I argued for President Trump, but one of them, Trump versus Vance, I'm holding it in my hand, says you can go to federal court on these issues. And that's exactly what I would be doing. Now, the whole process in my view has been to go, this is, folks, this is just the beginning. So if you're listening to us on radio, call your friends and tell them to listen in. If you're watching us on any of our social media platforms, share it with your friends right now.

This is really important. We're going to bring in the lawyers that have represented this President and have done these proceedings, both as prosecutors and as defense lawyers. We'll be back with more. Jordan's going to let you know how you can find out more about the ACLJ. The giddiness, we'll play some of these sound bites, the giddiness about potentially indicting people and people going to jail. This is who they chose to be the jury for person, a 30 year old. Again, Emily Kors, and we're using the name because she went out to the media. No one should have to. She decided to, but she did. She decided to make this decision to do lots of interviews.

She was going to get these kinds of questions and she answered them in a way she shouldn't have, to say the least. Take your phone calls about this. 1-800-684-3110. Be right back.

Welcome back to Secula. I encourage you to share this broadcast with your friends and family, whether you're watching on Rumble, YouTube, or Facebook. And remember, even if you're putting in comments, you can also call and be part of the show if you're watching there at 1-800-684-3110.

I think there probably are a lot of questions as we set this up. I want to play another sound bite from the jury for person, the grand jury for person. This is Emily Kors who decided to do a trove of interviews yesterday with CNN and MSNBC and local outlets as well. She's asked on CNN, everybody wants to know about President Trump, and she gets real giddy and real bizarre.

Take a listen. Did you personally want to hear from the former President? I wanted to hear from the former President, but honestly, I kind of wanted to subpoena the former President because I got to swear everybody in, and so I thought it'd be really cool to get 60 seconds with President Trump of me looking at him and being like, do you solemnly swear? And me getting to swear him in, I just, I kind of just thought that would be an awesome moment.

You know, I'm going to go right to Andy O'Connell. I mean, this is disgusting. This is the foreperson of a grand jury that's doing a special report going to another grand jury about indicting people, including the former President possibly, and she is giddy and excited because she wants to swear in the President and say, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Mr. President? I think that's an outrageous act of silliness and giddiness on the part of a very silly woman who is going to be getting her jollies out of swearing in Donald Trump, who joked with Lindsey Graham about whether she should wear a Santa hat, and who disclosed whether Mark Meadows took executive privilege or other things that might have been constitutionally permissible for him to do.

This is a bitter blow, in my view, to the state of Georgia's prosecution against anybody who appeared before this special purpose grand jury. She disclosed the deliberations. She said what they talked about. She said what they discussed. She said what President, she wanted President Trump to be there so that she could swear him in and get that one moment of fame. She talked about other things that were totally inappropriate. I think she violated Judge McCurney's order not to discuss anything that was deliberative in the content of the grand jury. If I was Donald Trump's lawyers, I would be heading to the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking an injunction against any further prosecution or any attempts at prosecution in Fulton Superior Court by the district attorney.

I will tell you this. I think that in a situation like this, a motion to quash, a motion to compel the stopping of this process on all proceedings in federal court under the Trump v. Vance case, which we argued, is appropriate. But I want to be clear here. This foreperson of the grand jury knew she was not supposed to discuss deliberations. Not only did the judge say it, their manual that they get when they become a juror also said this. Yeah, so in the Georgia grand jury handbook, the oath that they have to take says you as foreperson of the grand jury for the county of Fulton, you shall keep the deliberations of the grand jury secret unless called upon to give evidence thereof in some court of law in this state. So she had to take an oath that says she would keep all these deliberations secret. And then it goes on to say violation of your oath or misconduct as a grand juror can subject you to contempt of court or criminal prosecution with penalties of imprisonment for up to five years and fines up to $1,000 or both. So when you violate that oath, there are real repercussions that happen.

Yeah, and Will, if you're saying, I'm just going to talk to our director for a moment, if you're sending us something in chats, we're not getting it. So we need to know what the next soundbite is. While you're figuring out what the next bite should be, and just text it to us maybe, Andy, I wanted to go back on this because it's very clear in the manual what the, and she can be held in contempt. By the way, I would be seeking to hold her in contempt.

Now, who gets to do that? Who gets to bring the contempt action? The court could do it on its own motion.

Do it sua sponte, that's right, on its own motion, or the district attorney could do it. Look, she has taken Fannie Willis's case, the DA's case, and turned it upside down. Fruit basket turnover, because this opens the door for all kinds of motions, all kinds of activities, whether it be in state court or potentially, as you mentioned and I did, in federal court to stop this prosecution from taking place by violating her oath of office and disclosing the deliberations that went on in the grand jury and prejudicing potential targets, potential subjects, potential defendants in state court. This is a, this is an awful situation. If I was the district attorney, I would be beside myself right now. I think that there's no way they can proceed in this way.

They should volunteer. Here's the problem, though. I would have gotten into court last night, to be honest, I mean, or no later than 10 o'clock this morning, and I'll tell you why. What you don't want is during this period of time, Fannie Willis, the DA, to run into the sitting grand jury, because there is a grand jury investigating this now that has charging authority, and hand them that report that is now suspect. But the idea that you're discussing deliberations when you're told not to, I'm not so worried about her. I mean, whatever the judge does to this foreperson, she's putting out her artwork of the witnesses she took while she was drawing witness artwork.

I'm putting it up on the screen again. I mean, this kind of tells you the mindset of what we're dealing with. But, Jordan, but her statements also speak to this, right?

Oh, absolutely. I mean, I want to play the sound from when she discusses Mark Meadows. I mean, she literally puts up that he would not speak. I mean, she's talking about the – first of all, she talked about the deliberations because she said we discussed Trump a lot. That's part one. Part two is discussing specific witnesses and what they had to say or did not have to say. Take a listen.

Mr. Meadows didn't share very much at all and was not very willing to speak on much of anything. He asserted his rights under the Fifth Amendment and under executive privilege, which he absolutely had the right to do. And that was pretty much that. I mean, I cannot even believe that this is happening. Okay. This is like a Saturday Night Live skit. You've got the grand jury foreperson talking about what the witness was saying or not saying or what privileges they invoked. I mean, think about this for a moment. Yeah.

And, you know, in taking that oath, each grand juror should understand the tremendous responsibility to the community, which they assume upon being sworn into office. And, you know, this young lady clearly does not understand that it's a tremendous responsibility. She's no kid. She's 30 years old. So she's an adult. She needs to – this is – you know what, though?

She did CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the Associated Press and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the New York Times. She wants her moment in the sun. Guess what you don't get to do then, Fannie Willis?

You know what you don't get to do, Fannie Willis? You don't get to prosecute the former President of the United States when you're turning these processes into a third-world country jurisdiction. That's what this looks like. It looks like you're dealing with a court in Venezuela, or worse, that this is the United States of America. Even if he wasn't the former President of the United States, no defendant should be put up with this, would have to put up with this. This is outrageous, Jordan.

Yes, it is. And I think that, again, what we're trying to underscore to you is the seriousness of how this impacts the DA trying to move forward, depending on what the Trump legal team does very soon. I mean, this would have to be done very quickly because what they do is they take these reports. They go then to another grand jury. That's the grand jury that has the power to actually bring indictments. So this jury makes recommendations, and as she indicated, you won't be surprised when she was asked about Trump, there's no big twist here. I mean, I indicate that as people want Trump indicted, he's going to be indicted. I mean, that's how I view that. There's no big twist.

The big twist, I think, to a lot of people on the left or who are watching this, it would be a big twist if people weren't indicted, I guess. Let's save this for the next segment. But the next segment, oh, she talks about she wants action. I mean, none of this can comply with what she's been told. If McBurnie didn't control this, the judge here, Andy, maybe he wasn't strong enough or clear enough because this should have never happened.

No, it should not have ever happened. I know Judge McBurnie is a very good judge. He's a fair judge.

I'm sure he made it very clear. But she is out on a lark of her own, making her publicity statements to all the networks that she chooses, drawing pictures, laughing about things that are happening, making a big deal about giving an oath to the former President. This is if I was picking a jury in a civil or criminal case and this woman was before me on Vordyre, which is where we examine witnesses, Jay, she would be my first strike. I wouldn't want her on any jury of mine.

Yeah. And the secrecy of grand jury proceedings has its own section, a whole section in the handbook, because it points out that there are important reasons behind the requirement of secrecy. Not only does it protect the whole procedure, but it also protects an accused who is later cleared by a no bill. So she is absolutely violating her oath of secrecy that she took. I mean, folks, this is this is absurd. As I watched this unfold yesterday, I'm thinking, what is this?

Is this obsession with the former President gotten to the point now that has the D.A. said anything? Not yet. Has the judge said brought everybody in and said, hey, this is not the way it's supposed to be.

Not that I know of. President Trump's lawyers need to get in the court. This is ridiculous.

It's current counsel. I know what we would have been there last night. That's what I would have done.

I'd have been there last night. We will start taking your calls. We come back for this break at 1-800-684-3110. Again, share this with your friends and family. If you're watching on Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, people need to know the details. They're seeing clips of this on TV. They need to know the details.

We'll be right back on Secular. Let's tell people what's going on here, because I think people need to understand. This is unprecedented in U.S. history. You have a sitting grand jury that did the special report.

It's a unique procedure in Georgia. The foreperson of that grand jury, recommending, by the way, charges to the grand jury that would actually have the capability to indict. McBurnie, the trial court judge supervising this, says, hey, I'm only releasing a very small portion of this report because it could interfere with due process of people that are going to be accused that later are found innocent.

You don't let this out. We've already covered some of these issues with you. Let me tell you who we are for those of you, because we've got a lot of people that are watching right now that maybe are new to this broadcast. Jay Secular, Jordan Secular, and Andy Conmo were counsel to the President of the United States, the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, through impeachment, through Bob Mueller, through all of those. So believe me, we know this process.

Andy is a former federal prosecutor and a state's attorney general and has worked with the DA's office. I've done the same. So we come to this with a unique perspective. I just want to say that, folks. So if you're watching right now on our social media platforms, I want to encourage you to hit like and share this with your friends. Very, very important.

Now, Jordan, let's do this. This is a grand juror who's the foreperson and is discussing deliberative process, which I need to say again, you cannot do. Under the statute in Georgia and the manual they get. That's right. Under Georgia Code 151267, she took an oath, the foreperson took an oath, that she will keep the deliberations of the grand jury secret unless called upon to give evidence thereof in some court of law in this state. A jurisdiction that had proceedings. That's right.

And if she violates that, if she violates that oath, then she can be found in contempt of court or criminal prosecution with penalties of imprisonment up to five years. Right. So this is serious. All right. Let's play this bite here.

And I want to get Andy's comments on this because this is set this one up. So this is what would you feel like if there are no charges? She would be sad.

Take a listen. After everything that you've seen, what would your reaction be if the D.A. decides against bringing any charges after what you've seen?

I will be sad if nothing happens like that's that's about my only request there is is for something to happen. I don't necessarily know what it is. I'm not the legal expert. I'm not the judge. I'm not the lawyers.

But I, I will be frustrated if nothing happens. This was too much, too much information, too much of my time, too much of everyone's time. Andy, this is breathtaking. I mean, it is breathtaking what this woman is saying. How in the world is Judge McBurney? You say he's a good judge. How is he not hauling them all into court today?

Really? I would have been the first thing I would have been doing was to issue an order to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and her actions referred to the D.A. for criminal prosecution under the statute that C.C. read. But this is the fact that the foreman of the four person of the special purpose grand jury says that she would feel sad if something was not done.

What kind of attitude is that? The criminal process is not one in which you feel sad. You do justice. You make sure that constitutional rights are protected. Your personal emotions and your sadness or happiness has no role. And to make a comment that you would feel frustrated if nothing was done basically impacts upon what this grand jury was doing and what the next grand jury may do. As I said earlier, if I was the district attorney, my case would be in disarray and I would be angry right now. I would be seeking criminal sanctions. I would be this is fruit basket turnover, the worst nightmare that a district attorney can face.

Here's the problem. This is a high stakes, high profile criminal investigation of the former President of the United States conducted by a local district attorney. That's exactly what I argued to the Supreme Court. Should not be happening. Do not give these local DA's this kind of authority.

That's why under that opinion you can go to federal court which his current lawyers in Atlanta need to be doing. And I got to tell you something. The foreperson of the grand jury is saying I will be sad if something is not done. And she's saying this on TV and we have all these charges we could bring. Here's the other problem with this folks. And I want people to be clear on this.

Okay? And this is where the outrage is. People's liberty is at stake.

People's lives will be forever changed if they're indicted by a grand jury. And they're making a mockery, a joke out of this. And this is in Atlanta, Georgia. Grow up. Go ahead. Yeah, well I want to go to the phone. It's at 1-800-684-3110 with Jerry in Rhode Island on Line 3. Hey Jerry, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Hey, welcome.

Thanks. You're showing us what can happen to the head foreman. But I know Mr. O'Connell has got a state history in Georgia. Can this result in throwing out the entire grand jury on a motion to dismiss with prejudice?

Or are they just going to restructure and come at them again? Andy, interesting question. We talked about this this morning. I think that's a very good question that Jerry raises. If I was President Trump's lawyers or the lawyers for any of those people who appeared before the grand jury, I would say that this should bar criminal prosecution whatsoever and that this report should be quashed and suppressed and that the process has been undermined by the foreman of the grand jury and that no criminal prosecution should ensue.

And if that doesn't work in state court, I would go, as I said, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia just right up the street. And I would say that this prosecution should be enjoined under the law as it stands today. You know, I want to play it by because this is, again, I think speaks to it because she talks about the people who will be indicted. And will they be people that you know?

Take a listen by 35. But in your view, people will not be surprised when they see the list of names to come out who you recommended to face indictment. Especially if they've been following the investigation, I can't see it being a shocker.

Well, how would you like to be Senator Lindsey Graham, Mark Short, Mark Meadows? Innocent to proven guilty, right? Don't even have to be.

Never. I don't think they should be. I mean, I could list the 75 witnesses that went there and say, how do you feel about this? You should feel that this is outrage. It is so outrageous. It's hard to believe this is actually happening.

And it's hard to believe. And I hope I'm proved wrong on this. I hope that Judge McBurney is taking control of this now.

But you know what my guess is? Nobody's moved and done anything yet on either side. I would have been in court last night, no question, done. And if the judge would have ruled against me, I would have appealed it. Because you know what it shows? This is a mockery. This is a joke. This is not how you do things with due process. Yeah, and the fact that we, I'm going to go back to that statement when she said, you know, she's going to be sad if nothing's done. Because it's just taken too much of her time.

Well, I'm sorry. That's what happens when you're put on a grand jury panel and when you're a foreperson, hopefully you are taking the time to get it right. We're here for another 30 minutes. She also indicates we'll play this for the next half hour and we've got more sound to play. There's more. She kept talking. Went to more news outlets like NBC Nightly News. She asked about, well, how many people did you recommend being indicted? Is it more than a dozen?

She answers that question. We'll play it for you when we come back. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110 to share. You're paid to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Donate today online. ACLJ.org. And if you're watching this broadcast visually, so if you're on Rumble or Facebook or YouTube, I encourage you to share it with your friends and family.

Click the like button, the thumbs up on Rumble especially. And if you want to be part of this show on the air, you call 1-800-684-3110. But again, to support the work of the ACLJ, it's ACLJ.org. Donate today. And by the way, when you go to ACLJ.org and support the work of the ACLJ, you're also supporting this broadcast. So we encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org. We're giving you real analysis.

Like I said, these are the lawyers that handled the former President, representative. And we're going to tell you what this is all about. We're back with more in just a moment.

Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome back to Sekulow.

So if you're just joining us, let me just set the stage here. So we have a special grand jury in Georgia. This is unique to Georgia. This grand jury does not have the power to indict. It is the power to recommend to the indicting grand jury, which is, again, a separate grand jury, who to indict, recommend, who should be indicted. They hear all of the testimony. They heard all the individuals come. And if they asserted the fifth, they knew that. The jury foreperson here, her name is Emily Kors, decided, she's 30 years old, the jury foreperson, she would be the one swearing people in before giving their testimony, to talk to the media.

Wide-ranging. I mean, she went to CNN. She went to MSNBC. She went to NBC Nightly News. And she talked about discussions.

Another word for deliberations. That item, Drew, if you're going to go to talk to the media, you're not supposed to talk about. And she used that term. You know, we talked about this a lot.

We discussed Donald Trump a lot. She even went so far on NBC Nightly News to talk about potentially how many people they recommended to indict. So what she's also indicated is that they have recommended indictments. Which none of this is supposed to happen.

Let's play Byte 13. This is NBC Nightly News discussing this with the jury foreperson. How many people? Was this a long list? It's not a short list. So we're talking about more than a dozen people?

I would say that, yes. Are these recognizable names, names that people would know? There are certainly names that you would recognize, yes. There are names also that you might not recognize. Or there are names that, like, you might recognize as someone who's followed this case. But then, you know, your mother might not recognize because she doesn't care about the intricacies of the case.

But there definitely are some names that you expect. Andy, I am, I am, this is such an outrage. OK, this is, this is, I would, I would be in court pounding the stinking table over this.

I can't agree with you more. I have prosecuted in the district attorney's office for nine years, five years as a federal prosecutor, three years as an assistant attorney general. I have handled hundreds of grand juries. I would be absolutely outraged at the foreman of the grand jury or foreperson of the grand jury going out and making statements like this. Taking a flippant attitude, taking a silly attitude about someone's liberty who could be at stake here. About constitutional rights and privileges. Compromising their ability to defend themselves.

Compromising their right to a fair and just presentation before a grand jury, which does exist at law and a trial thereafter. She has violated every single one of the rules. As I said, if I was the district attorney, if I was Fannie Willis, I would be shaking in my boots right now from fear of what she has done to my criminal prosecution. Let's go to the phones. 1-800-684-3110. Kathy in Indiana online three. Hey, Kathy. Hey, thank you very much for taking my call.

We appreciate everything you guys do. But my question is, where in the world, who's right is it that we have to prove our innocence because we've already been proven guilty? You're a hundred percent correct. And that is not the way the system works. You also are going to ask, is there anything the ACLJ can do? So here's what we can do. First of all, as I said, three of us represented the former President. So we know this intimately. I'm going to look and see what actions are taken by the lawyers in Atlanta, the local lawyers.

And if it comes up to constitutional issues like denial of due process, fundamental denial of substantive and procedural due process, then there may be a position that we can advocate as the American Center for Law and Justice because we deal with constitutional issues. I am that outraged over this. This is this is unprecedented. This is outrageous. It's disgusting, actually, that people's this what you got to understand. She said people, you know, people you don't know, famous names, some not so famous names. Folks, their liberty.

They could go to jail over this. And a lot of these were edited interviews. Yes. So should we get to see the full? Oh, yeah, I want to see the whole thing. I'd subpoena the whole thing.

I want to know all the records. We'll be back with more, including your calls. Eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten in just a minute.

We are taking calls as well, one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. I want to play this one for you again, the video as well. This is again the jury four person, Emily Kors.

She put herself out there. She decided no one makes juries for persons after they're done with their job. Talk to the media. And in fact, usually we get instruction that we can't stop you. There are things you should you cannot talk about and you probably shouldn't talk at all because you might get questions.

And then start sharing things that you shouldn't talk about. And then that becomes that creates issues, especially in this unique two part grand jury system where a lot of states don't have this. So this would have been done. These interviews would be done after the fact after indictments were issued. So wouldn't be really news anymore.

Issues like that. But this goes to another grand jury. So it's tainting the new grand jury who's receiving the recommendations from the special grand jury.

And I know, again, that might not be usual to hear because Georgia, some other states may have it, but not every state has it. Certainly that's not how the federal court system works either. But take a take a take a listen or watch if you watch the broadcast. This interview with CNN or the jury four person. Did you recommend charges against Donald Trump? I really don't want to share something that the judge made a conscious decision not to share. I will tell you that it was a process where we heard his name a lot. We definitely heard a lot about former President Trump and we definitely discussed him a lot in the room. And I will say that when this list comes out, you wouldn't there are no major plot twists waiting for you.

I got it. I mean, first of all, the judge issues an order where he only releases a small portion of the report because of what? Tainting the process, protecting people that may be found innocent.

The due process clause of the United States Constitution, which still applies in Fulton County, Georgia. Maybe they don't think it does, but it does. And that this four person of the jury fills in the blanks and says, by the way, and says, we heard an awful lot about Donald Trump. There's not going to be many surprises. She's rolling her eyes when she says it.

Right. She says she doesn't want to release anything or send anything because the judge specifically held back, which he did. He did not release the whole report, but she's doing exactly the opposite. She is releasing all the information that the judge held back. So she's violating her oath of secrecy. But she's also directly going against the judge who made a conscious decision not to release that information.

So she's taken it upon herself to do it herself. Yeah. We'll go back to the phones.

One eight hundred six eight four thirty one. Did Kenneth in Texas online one? Hey, kids. Hey, thanks for taking my call. My question, my comment is I look at it as how dishonest is the media, because I'm sure that the media knows the rules and knows the guidelines. So why would they even take her interview and put all the information out? Because they're protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the media was allowed to put her on if she was willing to say it. They're not culpable for what she said.

The problem is not the media here. In fact, I will tell you this New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman. Here's what she said.

So will he or won't he? Maybe, perhaps. I mean, look, she certainly seems like she's teasing that, you know, stay tuned that something is coming related to him.

But she doesn't go further than that, I assume, because she got some instructions on what she could actually say. Unusual to hear. I've never heard. I've covered courts on and off for the last 20 years. More than that, I've never heard of a grand jury for a person speaking this way. Now, this is a fact-finding grand jury.

This is this is this is Maggie Haberman, who's, I think, a very good reporter. But Andy, it is unprecedented. This is there is no precedent for this.

No, Jay, there is no precedent. And I am appalled. And that is because I can't think of a stronger word to say when I heard this woman chattering about what was going on in the grand jury.

About discussions that they had, about witnesses who appeared, about whether we would be surprised. But maybe her mother wouldn't be surprised, she says, as she has because her mother... Andy, hold it. Andy, I don't know if you have the bite. OK, there's a bite where she says she talked to her boyfriend about it, which also violates the rules, by the way.

But go ahead, Andy. No, I mean, you know, she she's just flipping about this and very off the cuff when people's liberty interests are at stake. She just talked to whomever. This is not the person that I would want sitting on the grand jury or a trial jury to hear my case.

But what it does is I agree with you, Jay. If I were the lawyers for Donald Trump or if I were the lawyers for any of these people who appeared before the grand jury and who are facing potential charges, I would be rushing either to the Superior Court of Fulton County or to the U.S. District Court to take action with respect to this absolute breach of total propriety by this foreperson. She also described indictment recommendations that were explicitly not described in what was released by the judge.

So take a listen to this and watch. You all wrote a majority of the grand jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it. Is perjury the crime that you all believed was the main crime you all believe was committed?

I wouldn't say that. I would say that I would say that it ended up included there because it was less pointed of a of a suggestion than some of the other things we may have written in the parts of the report the judge chose to keep confidential. I mean, she was asked what the reporter, when they have the right to do it, asked, what are you charging? Is it just this perjury thing? And she says, no, which is not what you're again, the rules say you can't do this. Yes, she keeps going further. It's crazy because she keeps saying, hey, the judge made a decision not to release this.

And so I don't really want to say anything. But then she says it. She just keeps going further and releasing information that the judge did not release and that she swore an oath to keep secret. And apparently she does not take her position as foreperson or the oath that she swore seriously because she's just randomly and freely spouting information that she should not. When I did open the impeachment proceedings as the defense counsel for the 45th President of the United States, I went through the parade of horribles of all the outrageous things that had happened to this President.

And I'm going to do the same thing here for a moment. Former President has a grand jury, an FBI investigation called Crossfire Hurricane that started when he was running for President. After James Comey three times told him he's not subject to investigation, all of that was a lie. We now know that because we've had Freedom of Information Act requests. We've had other proceedings.

Total lie. Then it was Russia collusion. Bob Mueller after $40 million in two years, who knew by the way in about three months there was no Russian collusion, concludes there's no Russian collusion. Then we have a phone call that's made to Zelensky of all people in the news on Ukraine. We have an impeachment proceeding. Then we have the President leaves office after the election and his house gets raided through an execution of, to be technical, an execution of a search warrant on his personal residence because there were documents that were more classified in storage facilities at his personal residence in Florida. The U.S. Attorney, the Attorney General Merrick Garland knew that that proceeding was going on and also knew at the same time that they were having the same issue with Joe Biden. And that they found documents in his office, in his private office that were top secret. Then they found them at home next to his Corvette. Then they found them in his office at home. Then they found him in some lawyer's office in Delaware. But Merrick Garland allowed a search warrant to be executed while Joe Biden was having the same thing. And then there was a voluntary search of Joe Biden's residences and his offices and his house and his lawyers.

And why was that? And it came out clear the press got this because if they didn't do it, they were going to get what? They were going to get a search warrant. Then Mike Pence, same issue. So that kills this whole document case in my view.

That was the end of that one. Now you've got this election tampering investigation through the special grand jury, a very unique system in Georgia. And it's a special grand jury. They're going to gather, fact gathering, they're going to issue a report. The judge has a hearing and he says, you know, we're only going to listen, really put out a very small portion of this report because it could taint the investigation of people that liberty interest could be at stake. What that means is you could face prosecution in jail if you found guilty.

And the foreperson of the grand jury goes on a national media tour discussing what the judge did not put in the report. Now ask yourself, is that the way it's supposed to be in Fulton County, Georgia in Atlanta? Is that the way it's supposed to be in the United States of America?

The answer to that is no. This is a fundamental violation of due process. And these amendments to the constitution are to protect those that are accused and that are innocent as well. And Judge McBurney should be getting in control of this case and the DA should hang it up. Because enough's enough.

Jordan? Yeah. Folks, again, we're going to continue to discuss this. Continue to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110 for Bill, Warren, and Karen who are holding on. We will get you right when we come back.

It's shocking. I think that, again, we wanted to spend more than just the moments that you saw on TV to try to break this all down for you and get the full scope with all the different interviews when you put them all together. The question is, is she going to keep talking today? I'm sure.

Maybe she'll be selling her artwork next. Some of it was live, some of it was obviously pre-taped, some was clipped out. There's questions there, too. Support the work of the ACLJ.

That's what keeps the broadcast on the air. ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Alright, we're going to go right to the phones on this at 1-800-684-3110. First, Warren in Idaho online, too. Hey, Warren. Hey, thanks for taking my call, guys.

And right off the bat, I just want to say how much we appreciate the ACLJ and can't even describe how wonderful you guys are for bringing this stuff to us. The more I hear this, it just angers me, and I wonder how do they really think they're so far above the law that nothing can happen to them? And if something doesn't, it really shows a two-tiered justice system in our country.

So, Andy, that's a great question by Warren, and that is, you look at this and you say, it looks like a Saturday Night Live skip, except it's for real, and people's liberty interests, not just the former Presidents, but other people's liberty interests are at stake here. And when I look at the situation, I say to myself, how could this be happening in a county you've done cases in for 50, 45 years? I've practiced law in Fulton County, Georgia for 48 years. I've been in Fulton Superior Court. I've been before the Fulton County Grand Jury. I've presented cases before the Fulton County Grand Jury. I've handled special purpose grand jury investigations. I've been before all kinds of grand juries seeking indictments in cases where I was the prosecutor. I have never seen a situation as outrageous as this, where the foreperson of the grand jury goes on a public relations tour displaying her silly artwork, talking like a child, like a 12-year-old about what's going on in the grand jury proceedings, who took what oath, who took what privilege, who asserted what right, and did the things that they did were discussed in the grand jury. And disclose that information. It is just an outrage beyond words.

I've never seen anything like it. And as I've said, and I'll repeat it, if I was Fannie Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, I would be very distressed right now about whether my case is going to go forward in light of what this person who has done. Yeah, because she has violated the oath that she took as a member of the grand jury and as a foreperson of the grand jury. She has violated the oath. She has gone against what the judge has pulled back and did not release. She is releasing that freely. She has not taken this job seriously. And of that violation, she can literally be subject to contempt of court or criminal prosecution with imprisonment up to five years and fines of $1,000. And she should be held accountable because she's made a mockery of the justice system.

But you know what? This judge better get control of those proceedings and the DA better do the right thing. But the judge, Judge McBurney needs to be, you know, and maybe they are. I don't know.

I'm not in there. I don't know what's going on in Fulton County right now in the chambers. Maybe they're having some hearing. They sure should. Because let me tell you, when I would have been in court last night, I would not have given them the night to take that report and send it to the grand jury.

Now, maybe they already did. But I wouldn't have done that. And even if they are, I'd be in court now. And you know what? If the court rules against me, I would appeal it.

And if I lose on the appeal, I still made the point that this is not the way it's supposed to work in the United States of America. Jordan? Yep. All right, folks, we'll be right back to the phones. We'll go in order. Karen in Montana online for Hey, Karen.

Hello. I share your outrage over what has happened here. And I want to know why haven't Trump's lawyers taken action on this yet? They may have.

They may be doing that right now. I could tell you that he's got some good lawyers there. They may be in court right now. I don't know that. But if you were a defense lawyer in a situation like this, and remember, they have information we don't even have, Andy.

So they have a broader base of knowledge. But I can't see of a reason you would not be in court. It's not just President Trump's attorneys.

I mean, there were 75 people. She said there's over a dozen, at least, who they recommended indictments for. So if you're any of those people's attorneys, not just the President's, he's the most high profile, you could be taking these actions. So, Andy, I was gonna say Jordan's actually right. If I was any of the potential targets, and some of these people have received target letters, probably, I would be in court right now.

Yeah, that's absolutely right. It's not just President Trump's lawyers who should be raising these constitutional issues, but it should be the lawyers for every single person who appeared and took an oath and testified before that grand jury, or whose name was mentioned in the grand jury proceedings, because they could be considered to be parties to the crime or aiders and abettors. And I would be forcing the issue before a Superior Court judge, whether it's Judge McBurney, who's overseeing this special purpose grand jury, that's what it's called, or whether I go to federal court seeking an injunction against further proceeding in Fulton Superior Court, because of the gross violation. You know who grossly, the foreperson of the grand jury violated the constitutional rights of these people, not just any person. Let me tell you how outrageous this is, and for tomorrow's broadcast, I'm gonna have our video team put together a montage of all the statements of I can't believe this, I've never seen this from MSNBC and AP and the New York Times and Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe and MSNBC. Listen to this. If the judge says don't talk, yeah, I mean, that's some talking going on right there. I'm telling you, folks, this affects the entire country, because it makes you question the entire judicial system. Bill's calling from Wyoming on Line 1. Bill, go ahead.

Hi, thanks for taking my call, and I appreciate your work on this. I'm confused. Maybe you can help me out, because what is this gal? Does she know what she's doing? Is she supposed to be a court artist, or is she supposed to be in charge of the jury?

Listen, when you're selected for a grand jury, there's a criteria, you have to be a certain age, you gotta be a resident of the state, you gotta be a resident of the United States, so on and so forth. And then you're given instructions, and those instructions tell you what you can and cannot do. Yeah, there is a whole handbook. There is a jury handbook.

She's got it in her hands. Let's see, here it is. Grand jury handbook.

State of Georgia, there it is, for those that are watching. And it's pages, pages, 30, 40 pages long, and it absolutely says, it has a whole section on secrecy. Secrecy of grand jury proceedings. There's a whole section on that. And the oath that you take specifically tells you that you cannot, there is, there's a secrecy requirement.

You shall keep the deliberations of the grand jury secret. She's violated that. Andy, if you're Judge McBurney and the motion came before you, or if you were in federal court, what would you do if you were the judge? I would grant the motion for injunction in federal court against any further proceedings in the state court and remand the case, or take the case under the jurisdiction of the federal court, because the state court DA and its system has shown itself incompetent to handle it.

Let's cite Trump versus Vance, which is the case we argue in the Supreme Court. I mean, this is, this is Jordan. Why should she keep going on the tour? Well, who knows?

I know we're going to, we'll find out for tomorrow's broadcast. Does she have an attorney contact her, maybe, or does she have a friend that says you need to stop? The harm has already been caused. Could the judge step in, give her a call? Oh, sure, certainly.

The judge sui sponte on its own motion could say, get her in here, because I can hold her in contempt. Now, is he doing that? I don't know.

I mean, we're going to find out. Yeah, these are all potential options available to the legal system to make them so it's not looked like, again, a banana republic. Start, that's right, folks, stay engaged at ACLJ.org, sign on to all of our social media, at Jay Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, and at ACLJ. And of course, go to ACLJ.org, we'll have updates and, and like these broadcasts, share it with your friends even now, because we'll keep it in the feed. And we're going to have more on this tomorrow, but folks, this tells you why, sporting the work of the ACLJ, you get an analysis here on this broadcast, you're not getting anyplace else. Tomorrow, I will play the outrages. I'm sure there'll be more developments on all of this. And again, stay with us, folks. ACLJ.org, we'll talk to you tomorrow.