Breaking news today on Sekulow is Donald Trump is indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith under the Espionage Act. 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. Hi, welcome to Sekulow. Folks, we are taking your calls. I'm sure you have a lot of questions at 1-800-684-3110.
As you can tell, we're remote right now, but we are live. And we wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to learn as much as we can. I provide you with the information involving the indictment, the federal indictment, against President Trump. Now, we have not seen the actual indictment. What we know about is a summons, which explains some of what would be in the indictment. A formal indictment could be released earlier than Tuesday when President Trump faces arraignment in federal court in Miami at 3 p.m. Eastern time. But it could also be similar to New York, where we didn't really see the actual indictment until that procedure was ongoing. So we will provide you with as much information as we can.
I want to go right to my dad, Jay Sekulow. We know that the top level charge that everything else stems from is the Espionage Act, which dates back to 1917. And it's the provision of the Espionage Act not about sharing what is called defense information with a foreign government or a foreign representative. That, again, is the crime that can be punished by death. This is the retention crime, which is retaining classified. Well, would not classified because that word didn't even exist at the time. But retaining national defense documents.
Yeah. So, Jordan, what is clear here? And again, let me tell you what's not clear. No one has seen the indictment other than the government. The lawyers that were representing Donald Trump yesterday, Jim Trusty and Attorney Rowley, have now been dismissed or they have retired or resigned rather.
They're out. There are new lawyers coming in. I suspect those lawyers will be probably from the Miami Defense Bar, which is a well-known and well-respected defense bar. The espionage claim, which sounds like you think immediately think of spying. That's not what this is.
This is the retention. It appears based on the summons, not the indictment. It appears that it's based on retaining documents and then an allegation that the former President then talked about those documents or maybe shared those documents with people in the room. There's a report that the government actually has an audio of the former President discussing the document.
But let me just say this. Some of this is speculation right now. But we also know that another individual, because there is a conspiracy charge here, has been indicted. And that conspiracy charge is with Walt Nuda, which is one of the President's personal aides.
He was a U.S. Navy chief when he was at the White House. Let me go to Andy Economo on this. Andy, the lawyers are basing their statements, the former counsel, they're not the lawyers now, on the issue of the summons. They're saying this is what they think the charges will be from the summons. But that may not be what it is at the end of the day.
That's exactly correct, Jay. The summons is merely a skeletal outline of what it is that the government is actually charging a defendant with. The actual charging instrument, the indictment, will be disclosed either prior to arraignment or at arraignment. Arraignment is simply a fancy term for the presentation of formal charges against a defendant. They either read the indictment or they simply waive the reading and they give them a copy of it. But that is exactly correct in what you said. Summons merely means come to court, you're going to be arraigned, you're going to be presented with formal charges, and you enter your plea at that time, whether you plead guilty or not guilty to the charges.
Yeah, and I wanted to kind of clear up a couple things just so people know right off the bat. President Trump, that will be fingerprinted, will be photographed, but last time around we didn't see the photograph. Is that the same kind of negotiation you think happens at the federal level, or because it's federal, do you think the photograph comes out?
It's hard to say. There are no cameras in this courtroom, so that's not allowed at all. So there's not going to be a camera in the courtroom that is reviewing the, you know, providing materials.
So that's number one. Number two, I don't think there's going to be the traditional mug shot because he's not being arrested. He's responding to a summons. It's a short procedure. We'll get into it in the next segment. It's basically entering a plea of not guilty. All right, folks, we'll take your calls, 1-800-684-3110.
Let me underscore this, though. The Biden administration is trying to put President Trump away for 75 years. That's life in prison. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to SECO. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. I just want to make clear here with the charges that we know about in these summons that have been put together would carry a maximum of about 75 years in prison.
So think about this. Merrick Garland and the Biden administration, while Joe Biden is being investigated over his handling of classified documents or national defense documents as the law actually pertains to them because classification didn't exist when this law was actually written or when it was rewritten and redrafted. So they are asking for 75 years in prison against a former President of the United States and the leading candidate for the Republican Party to challenge Joe Biden in the next election, what amounts to be a life in prison sentence, 75 years. This is just the charges that we know about from the summons. I also want to go, and we're trying to break it all down for you, too, about how long this process takes. So we know there's this kind of rush, rush, rush to get the actual indictment that we'll get sometime between now and Tuesday afternoon when President Trump is arraigned in the Miami federal courthouse at 3 p.m. Eastern time.
There's also the length of time this actually takes. I'm sure on a lot of people's minds right now, including a lot of Trump supporters, is could he be, this trial be done before people even cast their votes for him? Not likely that that could happen because here's what happens next week, and Andy, I'm going to go to Andy in a moment to go through the particulars, he's going to answer the summons. Then there will be a series over many months of motions on evidence, on constitutional issues that may come up, legal issues that may come up. I mean, no one anticipated initially that this indictment was going to be coming out of Miami, and it is.
And so that was, they've been doing all this work in D.C. So I think when you look at it realistically, the timeframe, there is no way. And under the constitutional protections, the President's allowed to make a vigorous defense, he's allowed to appear.
You can't interfere with his running for office, he's the leading candidate, may well be the nominee. Andy, you looking at it right now, what's your sense of timeframe here? My sense of the time is that it's going to move rather rapidly, but as you say, nothing in the justices program moves rapidly. You're going to have an arraignment, you're going to have a plenary of a plea of not guilty, and then the judge is going to set a period of time for the filing of motions. And then the government can file motions in response to the defense motions. There's going to be hearings on those motions, the judge is going to rule.
There might even be interlocutory appeals, which means appeals to the court of appeals from rulings of the district judge on motions that are filed. So it could take a while for the process to unfold, and I think it's definitely, it's now June. I don't see this thing going to trial this year, quite frankly, to tell you the truth, because criminal cases just don't work that way. It takes a long time, evidentiary hearings, as I said, motions, appeals, things of that nature, pretrial that occur in a case, so that's, Jordan, how the way that this thing works. It's a drawn out process, and it's a process that's intended to give due process to the accused in this case, and to the government for that matter. But I mean, it seems though, even dad, from that timeline, that there's a potential that, wow, I mean, the case would not be finished, but that President Trump will, the trial will have begun while people are voting in states like South Carolina, in the Republican primary.
Early 2024, but still, that people will have to now decide when they vote, talk about what sounds and feels like election interference for the Biden administration. Because this will be hanging over President Trump, we will get a good sense probably the next week, dad, whether or not this is a boost, which the Manhattan DA certainly was. I mean, President Trump has been kind of on a upswing, a rollercoaster ride all the way up to the top since that indictment. If people respond the same way to this, as this is just a continuation of a witch hunt against an American politician, you just happen to disagree with politically. You also have to put this in the context of the Durham report that came out, which as we know, because we represented the former President then, that that whole Russia thing, the entire Mueller probe, all of that was bogus.
There was no basis to start crossfire hurricane. There are irregularities being reported here already regarding witnesses, including the person that's the lawyer that is representing the individual, Walt Nuda, who's been indicted that there's been allegations of some impropriety there. That's going to have to be reviewed by a judge as well. I don't know if you would get into a trial by next October, November, that would be lightning speed and that would also keep the President off the campaign trail.
And I think that would raise serious constitutional impact on our electoral process, our constitutional republic, the way in which we elect Presidents and nominees to become President of the United States. Now, like you said, there's a political side, Jordan, of what happens when you get all this information in to the polling. But I think from a trial standpoint, what Andy just said, I want to go back to that for a moment. There is a lot that happens between now and a trial, Andy, including trips to the courts of appeals and even the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's exactly correct, Jay. This is not something that simply you're arraigned, you enter your plea and you go to trial the next week. That does not happen in this case or in any case for that matter. You've got motions that are filed, you have challenges to the indictment that are going to be made by the defendants. You're going to have evidentiary hearings. You're going to have responses from the government.
It's a drawn out process. You may have a case, an instance here where an appellate court may intervene on an interlocutory basis, as I said, or may even go, as you pointed out, Jay, correctly on a matter to the Supreme Court. But we're trying to have a balance here between conducting a Presidential campaign, which is ongoing at the same time as conducting a judicial proceeding. And the right of the President to defend himself is going to be put to the test here, the right of people to choose who they want. And by the way, an indictment does not prevent him from running for President.
The indictment is simply an allegation and a charge by the grand jury and the qualifications for President are set out in the Constitution. So it is a lengthy process, Jordan, that we're going to be seeing unfold over the entire year of 2023. Let's go right to the phones.
1-800-684-3110. Part of the show today is that we want to answer as many questions you may have about how this impacts the election, how this impacts the Republican primary. Let me start first with Jerry in Rhode Island on Line 1, because Jerry picked up on something interesting as well that we haven't gotten into yet. Hey, Jerry.
Hey, team. And I've been listening to everything the professor said, Mr. O'Connell says, and I just, the cynic in Radio Land says, when was this grand jury in Miami? When was this indictment? And was it timely released today right after the bribery scandals facing Hunter and the Bidens?
I mean, there's certainly a lot to unpack there. One is, you know, you had the major explanation by the members of Congress what they saw in that skiff. And they saw that skiff was that it was a Burisma board member who is alleged to have paid then Vice President Joe Biden $5 million to enact specific U.S. policy.
That comes out the same day, literally, that this news breaks. So there's obviously questions about the political motivations. But let's be honest at this point. Do you have any question, really, that this DOJ is politically motivated? Do you think Joe Biden is going to be treated this way? You think the Espionage Act is going to get used against the sitting President of the United States or his son?
I doubt it. Now, that's first. That second is we heard this week, actually, and I think it was maybe early or late last week about this Florida grand jury. And there was a little bit of question about what it was looking into. Now we realize it was because they were going to use that as the main venue. That's because they had a venue problem.
The activities that serve as the corpus, the basis of the indictment, took place in Florida at Mar-a-Lago. They did not take place in Washington, D.C. So getting an indictment out of the D.C. grand jury could then raise another legal issue, which was it was improper from the outset.
So you would have to start all over again. And again, I think the Department of Justice chose this venue because they had to, not because they wanted to, because the truth of the matter is this is a better venue. This is a better venue for Donald Trump. You'd rather be trying a case like this in Miami as a defense lawyer than you would in Washington, D.C. And I, you know, as we know, two of the lawyers are now not no longer representing the President's rally and trustee.
They're out. And I think I suspect we're going to see some lawyers from Miami. Andy, you're from Miami is a very aggressive and very well-respected defense bar in Miami, Florida.
That's exactly right, Jay. I was born and raised in Miami, went to Dade County Schools. I know Miami pretty well. The defense bar in Miami is indeed very, very vigorous, very proactive. They're not going to let anybody's constitutional rights be trampled upon. They are vigorous in their pursuit of justice for the defendant in the case. So I look forward to a very vigorous defense here of the President. And I want to pick up on something that Jordan said with the Hunter Biden situation and the bribes thing. This is perfectly timed by the Justice Department to further its political goal here. This was a diversion because of the Biden announcement that had been made.
So the way they diverted is to simply indict him. All right, folks, we'll continue to take your calls. 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching this broadcast, this special broadcast, as you can tell, a lot of us are on the road.
Please share it with your friends and family. If you are watching, if you are listening, keep it on that dial, keep it on that station, and support the work of the ACLJ. ACLJ.org.
Donate today. That's ACLJ.org. We come back. We'll take more of your phone calls about the indictment, what this looks like moving forward, the politics of this, the law regarding this.
We return in just a couple minutes on Secular. I was on Newsmax this morning before I did this interview, and I think what I said there, which I think it hit home with that audience, is just to take a step back from all the specifics for just a moment and realize that Joe Biden and his Department of Justice include the Attorney General Merrick Garland, because they okay these decisions by special counsels. This is not an independent counsel. This is a special counsel.
They work for the Department of Justice and for the Attorney General. They okayed the charges that would put a former President and leading candidate right now in prison for the rest of his life. This would be a life imprisonment sentence, because he had documents.
He didn't share the documents. It's about retaining documents, and he was in a negotiation with turning them back, but yet the former vice President, who's had these documents, some of them since he was in the U.S. Senate, no one is expecting him to get a potential life sentence because of holding those documents. So just to underscore the seriousness of these charges that have been greenlighted by what feels like a banana republic Department of Justice, these are charges that if put together, and these are just the ones we know about, would put President Trump in any one, really, because he cared about 75 years in prison. It's a life in prison sentence. Now, it doesn't rise to the level of execution. That's the next charge in the Espionage Act, because there's no allegation that he shared this with a foreign government or foreign citizens to harm the United States.
Those are the high profile cases that you learn about, the Snowden's, the Rosenberg trials, Jonathan Pollard, where you've actually got the dissemination, not the retention, but dissemination of classified documents. And even there, it has to be specific to certain national defense scenarios to elevate to a death penalty case. But when you combine that, all of these charges, just for a minute, stepping back from the politics, I mean, the politics in a sense, Joe Biden and Merrick Garland just okay to life sentence against, they believe, I mean, they're not supposed to bring these charges if they don't believe them, that they believe Donald Trump should be in the jail for the rest of his life.
They have to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, because that's the standard upon which this case, when it goes to trial, will be tried. But I go back to what I said earlier, we just had the final Durham report. And while Durham was not successful in my view at all at bringing anything to justice, he tried two cases and he lost them both.
So that was another waste of taxpayer money. But the one thing that did come out was that the whole Russia investigation and the whole crossfire hurricane, which was the predicate to all of this, was never should have been authorized by the Department of Justice, period. Now, there's already been allegations by witnesses, lawyers of inappropriate conduct regarding the lawyers and the witness that will also be litigated.
But I want to put this back into a framework. We now have and we've not seen it yet. We have a summons. There will be an indictment unsealed probably today, Monday or Tuesday. Of the former President of the United States, who happens to be the leading Republican candidate for President by a long, wide margin. And the question then becomes, if under our constitutional republic, it's up to the elected representative, elected people, the individual, the citizens of the United States to make this decision without the government putting their hand or thumb on the scale. You look at this and you say, this is not a dissemination case, at least it doesn't appear to be. It's a retention case.
And they put their thumb, Andy, on the scale. Well, that's exactly right. This is an interference by the incumbent government to stay in power by politicizing the judicial process. And simply saying, we are going to kill this guy and his chances of being President again of the United States by indicting him on a retention. We're not saying that he gave these to a foreign power.
We're not saying that he somehow is a traitor in that sense of the word. But we were negotiating with the National Archives about documents. He said, I should keep them.
They said, no, you should give them back. And meanwhile, with 53 percent of GOP persons favoring President Trump, the government now puts its finger on the scales, the incumbent government, and says, you know, we're going to take care of this by simply indicting President Trump on these matters and say that national defense was impaired because he retained documents that he should have given over. This is a political prosecution. I feel like we are somehow in Palestine with Yasser Arafat running and locking up his political opponents until the election is over, Jordan. Yeah, I'm going to go to the phones now.
The phone lines are full. And listen, I understand why people have a lot of questions. There's no bad questions, by the way, when we're talking about this complicated and groundbreaking. This is the first time a former President has been charged with federal crimes.
New York was the first time a former President been charged with state crimes. So this is all historic. And so we're starting from a place of uncertainty in some respect.
But we can answer some questions definitively. And one of those is from Joyce in Florida online three. Hey, Joyce. Hi.
Thank you for taking my call. My concern is with all the stuff that they're charging him with. And now this thing, how is that going to affect his ability with the, you know, running and and all of the primaries and stuff? Will we be able to hear him and see him? And if the American people do vote him in with all of this going on, can he become the President? I think they're so afraid that he's going to that they're pulling out all the stops. But we're praying.
So that's my question. Are we going to be able to hear him? Is he going to be able to go out and do what he usually does when he's running for President?
So some of that, dad, was based on the timing. It doesn't appear that this will seriously impede yet his ability to campaign. I mean, it certainly hangs over him the entire time he campaigns.
And there will certainly he's going to have to spend a lot of, I guess, brainpower and time off the campaign trail, working with these attorneys, working with his defense team. So, yes, it of course, in a sense, it does impede him. I mean, whether it's not an illegal impediment in the sense that it doesn't there's no law that says he can't go campaign. He certainly is still qualified to be President. That qualifications clause is basically you just have to be a certain age, 35, and be a natural born citizen that lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
So he's he he he checks all those boxes. But I think Joyce was getting to the bigger question, dad, which is, fundamentally, could you actually be President if you were convicted of these charges? And what you brought up something at phone call earlier today we had is it you if you actually became President, it would actually make it easier. Well, sure, because under Article two of the United States Constitution, which sets forth the power of the executive branch, it's important to remember that the Department of Justice serves at the pleasure under the direction of the President of the United States. So if Donald Trump becomes the 47th President of the United States, if that were to happen, well, then his department would order it.
I'm sure I haven't talked to him, so I don't know this. But you can imagine that this is exactly what's going to happen because it would only make sense. You believe it's a political prosecution. You instruct the Department of Justice to null process or stop prosecuting the case.
And when that order comes down from the attorney general, that is the end period. The case cannot go to trial. There is no case, at least on the federal claims. And then on the state claims, remember, you got the New York AG and maybe something coming out of Georgia. Well, the rule of the of the of the most of the cases, and we argue these at the Supreme Court, is that you're not going to be able to try a sitting President in a state court proceeding.
Investigating is one thing. Trying a President is something else, because that would interfere with their Article 2 authority and under the supremacy clauses. And under Article 2, the commander in chief would be exempt, if you will, from prosecution at that point. And that's why, Andy, I don't see any way this goes to trial before the election.
Now, the question will be, if Donald Trump is not the nominee of the Republican Party, you know, Andy, how does that all play in? But from a timing standpoint, what happens next? Well, we'll answer that when we get back. We've got five seconds. We'll be right back on Sekulow. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to the second half hour of Sekulow.
Folks, we will take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Folks, I have plenty of them, and I understand it because they found out last night President Trump received a summons. So we haven't seen the actual indictment, but the summons contains a summary of what you're going to be indicted for. So people are able to put together at least an outline of the kind of charges President Trump is facing in federal court. He will be arraigned on Tuesday in Miami at the federal court there at 3 p.m. Eastern time, sometime between now and then. And the indictment should be released so we would see the actual charges, whether or not that was something we could address on Monday's broadcast, or do we have to wait until Tuesday afternoon? Because remember, that's what happened in New York. Of course, that was a state proceeding.
So we're taking your calls and questions about how this impacts, of course, the legal questions, the political questions. And let's be honest, I mean, Dad, it's actually hard to separate those in this kind of situation because everything seems to reek of politics when you're talking about the historic first time ever the federal government has prosecuted a former President. Well, you have to put it, as you said, in the historical context and in the constitutional framework. And from an historical context, this has never happened.
And for good reason. We don't put in jail our political opponents. The current administration, that's what you have to understand here. Who's bringing this case?
All the focus seems to be on Jack Smith, the special counsel. But in reality, who's bringing the case? Well, the case is being brought by the Biden Department of Justice. The Biden administration's Department of Justice are the ones that are bringing this case against Donald Trump. So it is one political opponent, the leader of the Democratic Party, the current President of the United States, going after another political opponent, and that is the current leading Republican candidate and former President of the United States.
So you cannot ignore that reality, Jordan, in this. Now, you know the politics better than anybody. I don't know how this plays out politically yet because we haven't seen the actual indictment.
No, I mean, I want to go to the phones at 1-800-684-3110. I think politically here, and we'll know very soon, we'll know by Tuesday, does this just double down the support for President Trump? He gained about 12 points in the polls, national polls, from the time he was indicted by the DA until a couple days after that. People just saw it as just a continuation and actually, in a sense, a justification for President Trump using terms like witch hunt. They said, you know what? He's right.
They literally will not stop. And then you see this federal charge. So I think there is a sense that it could play out that way.
But I do already understand from our callers that I'm picking up is they understand it's different when it's federal charges. And they also understand that while it may not prevent you from actually running or being President, that it's certainly going to potentially hamper you on the campaign trail. And I think President Trump is unique in his toughness and ability to kind of take this on and still campaign vigorously. He'd be unique in that front. I don't think there's many other politicians that could balance these two. I think he's shown the ability to do that. The question is, will voters say, I'm OK with someone who is this burdened? And I think that's what the Biden team is trying to do is say, look, he's too burdened to be President of the United States, because they've shifted from almost wanting Donald Trump to be the nominee to being scared that he's going to be the nominee.
And I think that's shifted in just the past three months. I want to go to the phones. We've only got a minute left in this segment. So we come back. We're going to really spend time taking your phone calls.
So I'm going to start with whoever's been on the longest and we'll go from there. So we will stick with these phone calls because I understand all of the questions. I mean, we have questions, too.
Not everything has been answered. But what we do encourage you to do is stand with us at the ACLJ as we fight these battles, as we break these issues down for you. You can support the work of the ACLJ financially at ACLJ.org. It's one of the reasons this broadcast is on every single day of the week. And we're able to bring the team together that we can is because of your financial support of the American Center for Law Justice.
Even while we're on the road, as you see, our team has put together technology so we can still come to you just as live with just as much information. ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll be right back. Take in your questions at 1-800-684-3110 on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Let's go right to your phone calls.
1-800-684-3110. If you're joining us right now, you know why we're on the air and what we're talking about. We're talking about the federal indictment that is upcoming of President Trump. He's been summoned to face those indictments on Tuesday. And he will face those indictments on Tuesday, 3 p.m. Eastern Time, Miami Federal Court. There's been questions even what happened there. It looks like there was a change in venue because the Department of Justice realized they were going to have a fight on venue.
So they wanted to kick that six months out of the case. So they've decided to move it to Miami. Now, that's a different, very different city than Washington, D.C. And I think potentially much more friendly to President Trump because you have a lot of people in Miami, regardless of their political views.
But I realize this, you know, just immediately as someone who lived out there, worked out there as well. A lot of people from Miami, Republican or Democrat, fled countries because of the Banana Republic political persecution of, you know, anybody who was President. The next President puts in jail or those that you support one President, you end up on the bad list of the government if another President comes in. And they fled those kind of countries.
So I think they will be uniquely inclined, a lot of that population of potential jury poll, to just not like the idea of prosecuting politicians and where this sends the country. But let's go right to your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. We'll go to Don in Missouri on Line 2. Hey, Don.
Hey, first and foremost, thank you for having me on the show. You know, President Trump declassified a whole slew of catalog of documents on his last day of being President. One of the files was Crossfire Hurricane, which I feel prompted the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Do you think that this indictment is because of a lot of the names on the declassified documents that President Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago to hide or to cover up the names that were on the Crossfire Hurricane documents? Do you believe that that is part of the reason why they are coming after him so hard, even though the National Archive is unwilling to archive the declassified documents? Yeah, I mean, listen, I think that there's going to be, Dan, obviously, that will be part of this case, is the declassification, which gets very interesting because there's not a lot of laws clear about that when it comes to the President of the United States, other than the understanding that they have complete declassification power that is unchecked by anyone else.
Now, that doesn't continue on when you're the former President, and there is an allegation here. We haven't seen the actual document yet, the indictment, but there is one allegation that would make this more similar to what we have seen in the espionage. Most of this looks like the retention of classified documents, but, Dan, there is one potential charge, if it turns out to be true, how it was interpreted from the summit, that there was a moment where President Trump may have shared information that was classified. In this case, they would call it a national security document because that's what's really important to the law, that he might have shared that information with people. That's one of the allegations that at least is being discussed in the media right now, and that is that the President, former President, had in his possession a document that was not declassified. There's an audio tape purportedly of him with a transcript now that is out saying to the people that he was with, look at this, look at this document. And I haven't, it was not declassified, it was an important document, and the transcript goes on and on.
That could be a difficult, that could be a serious hurdle. I mean, Andy, an allegation like that, that you had a document, you knew it wasn't declassified, which cuts against that whole declassification because I'm thinking about it issue a little bit. And that's why I don't know, all these extemporaneous statements being made on TV are so dangerous to a defense case, but we'll save that for another day. But this is out there right now, and that would be one of the bases of the espionage claim, purportedly was a document about a military action in Iran. We don't know if he showed it to individuals, but they have a recording of him saying, I have this, look at this, this is something that was not declassified, it's a secret document. That could be trouble.
Yeah, it could be trouble. I think that defense lawyers would have to look very carefully at that set of facts that have been reported. But I think one of the things that really we need to focus on is we have not seen the actual charges yet. And if the charges are based on 18 USC 793, that code section does not use the word classification or declassification at all. It simply says information relating to the national defense or relating to, which could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of any foreign nation. So classification or not does not play into that code section whatsoever. Whether you disseminate classified information is immaterial. This 1917 law, and they're prosecuting them under, I think if that's what it is, a law that was enforced during World War I, you know, goes back to talking about national defense and the retention of documentation. He was negotiating with the National Archives about it.
Why are you turning a civil case, an administrative case even, and ramping it up to a criminal case to destroy your political opponent? Yeah. I want to go back to the phones. Linda in New York on Line 5. Hey, Linda, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Hey, how you doing, Jordan?
We're good. Guys, what I want to say first is, um, I want to give sympathy to the, um, Robertson family, um, for the gifts that Pat showered upon this country, following the voice of God to do good. Uh, he was an amazing statesman and, uh, we're going to miss him, but we'll see him one day in glory. The other thing I want to say is that the Manchurian candidate in the white house does not deserve to be called President. And my buddies over ACLJ call him the President all the time.
That's ludicrous. He's not the President. We all know that. But why has it more than done to undo the corrupt election? One number two, Mr. Donald Trump has done nothing but good for us, the working class, who no one's ever cared about in this country. No one. And that's why he's being persecuted.
Everyone knows it, Carrie Lake, all of them. But my last question to you guys is you are the best legal defense in this country to do for Donald Trump. If you don't do it, we can say goodbye to our Republic. It's on its way out.
It might be gone already. And we know what's going on with Biden and the attorney general, just like Obama's attorney general. Well, I want to say this because there's a lot of stuff there. One, I think that President Trump, I think the advice is right, is we have to win this election cycle. And as much as we have seen the past election litigated many states, maybe not yours in New York, but many states have taken efforts to secure the election and to change election laws to make them more clear. Second, there's a ballot chasing program now that's been enacted by the RNC.
I know our friend Sean Hannity is very happy that Ronald McDaniel has done that. And that this will, again, enable us to even begin legal ballot harvesting in states that allow that, that the Republican candidates should be utilizing in campaigns. Every single thing that is legal under campaign law, right to the edge, that you do all of it, that you don't say, hey, we just don't like the idea of absentee ballots. So that's going to be different than the absentee ballot chase program. The laws have been changed in many states to make it clear what is and what is not legal. And there's been more ballot integrity put into the laws. Second, I do think that that was an initial reaction from a lot of commentators who aren't attorneys, is that this does seem to kind of be the end of the America as we at least knew it until 2023.
A country where you didn't prosecute your political enemies because you don't like their politics. Well, that part is, I think, been the problem from this case from the outset, but I want to address a couple of the caller's comments. Number one, we call President Biden the President because he took the oath of office. Whether you question the actual election and how it went out, those challenges did not merit, at least in the federal court's views, any kind of challenge.
So we're going to respect the office of the President, even if we don't agree with the policies of the person that's holding that office. Let me also address this thing about the legal representation. Well, Jordan, the three lawyers you're talking to today have all represented President Trump for over four years, including Mueller, including Ukraine impeachment, and numerous other three Supreme Court cases.
So we're not new to this. We're not handling this case. This case is being handled and it's out of Miami. He's changing his lawyers right now. I don't want, you know, people understand if the President is changing his lawyers, it makes sense. If the case is out of Miami now, he's going to probably bring in a team more familiar with that jurisdiction, Andy, you practiced down there. But, you know, look, I mean, this is, we have not seen the indictment yet, folks, so it's a lot of speculation.
Well, that's right. There is a lot of speculation as to what is going to happen. But I think we need to know, as you say, to realize that until those charges come out, we really don't know what the allegations are.
We speculate that it's about gathering and transmitting defense information, destruction of records, tampering with witnesses, false statements, and so forth. But I want to see the actual indictment itself to see what the charges are, and I'm confident, and to what this caller said, I'm confident that there will be lawyers chosen from Miami, from the Southern District of Florida, who will vigorously defend the President in this case, who are going to take these charges, who are going to really analyze them, are going to file motions with respect to them and bring this thing to a conclusion. And I hope successfully for President Trump. While I believe this is wrong, I believe it's illegitimate, I believe it's politically motivated, I think if you're President Trump, and also the allies of President Trump, you better take this very seriously. I think they are. These are very serious. Like I've said to you, I want to underscore one more time, if you're convicted of this, 75 years cumulative in prison, that's a life sentence for almost anybody, but definitely President Trump. And that's what Joe Biden and Merrick Garland okay bringing charges against the former President with. Welcome back to Secula.
We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. A bit of breaking news. We kind of referenced this in the beginning of the show, but a second indictment has come forward. This is of a Trump aide. Dad, you mentioned this, Walt Nada, who served as a Trump personal aide at a valet in the White House, and later at Mar-a-Lago, has been indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. What this also tells us, Dad, and then I want to get to the phone calls, but just briefly, is Donald Trump is now clearly not the only person who's going to be indicted in this matter. Yeah, we don't know, we don't know who else right now is, other than Walt Nada, we do know that. It was the President's, it was the chief Navy steward at the White House when the President was in service.
He then left the Navy after a distinguished career and went to work with President Trump as a personal aide. He has been evidently indicted for conspiracy, and that conspiracy charge is going to relate to the retention, well, at least it looks like the retention of the documents, and that obviously creates an issue. This is not the final indictment, though, and of course, I expect that there will be other indictments. I don't know this, but based on all the witnesses that went in and the nature of these cases, you would think that there's a lot more ahead. This is nothing to do with the January 6th investigation, which Jack Smith is also doing, although that one is, I think, getting close to wrapping up. And in August, Andy, they're expecting an indictment out of the Fulton County district attorney.
Well, that's true. The state of Georgia, for whatever reason, is looking to see if President Trump somehow colluded in violating the election laws in Georgia. So there's another state charge that the district attorney has been pursuing there through counsel. There is, of course, as you say, other investigations and other charges that may be brought. But in every instance, in my opinion, these are political machinations put into place in order to try to derail President Trump's campaign. This is wrong. This is not the American way.
You simply don't indict your political opponents and seek to put them in jail. That's what I believe. Let's go to the phones. Clay in North Carolina on line 4. Hey, Clay. Well, brother Jordan, brother Jay and brother Andy, thank you all so much for taking the call. Thank you.
I give thanks to the Lord for the job that you all are doing. You know, it's interesting. I'm not a big political guy, but I was watching Newsmax last night and the indictment has happened. I'm just wondering, is this an actual little reality indictment that is going to happen or is it just a ruse and is this going to set Trump going down the road? I mean, you know, I heard about Newsmax also brought up this. This is coming on the coattails of this five million dollar bribe. Are they just trying to do this to say we don't need him here because of what he did? I've got a feeling that they're just trying to say this is happening because of what can possibly happen of him being the next President in line.
So I'm just wondering, is this literally going to happen or is it a ruse? No, I think, listen, this is going to go to trial. If they can get it to trial, dad, they're going to take it to trial.
The endgame here, we have seen it. I mean, they have been more dedicated to this than anything at the Democrat Party, including the weaponization of the Department of Justice against Donald Trump. I won't even say it's Republicans against Donald Trump is that they have been dedicated to one day getting him prosecuted for something in some court. They don't care if it's a state court. They don't care if it was impeachment, but that failed. They don't care if it's a federal court. They want to see President Trump behind bars.
And they have they have been dedicated to that since before he even took the oath of office when he won the 2016 election. I think that this indictment, first of all, it's for real to answer the caller's question. We haven't seen it. We see the summons. The lawyer, the former lawyers have talked about it.
They're now out. But it's an indictment. So it's a real criminal case and it has real criminal exposure.
Now, what it does politically, we're going to have to wait and see. But the the you have to defend this as a case. So the former President is going to assemble. It looks like he's in the process of doing that right now. Just check my phone to see if anybody else has joined that team.
There are two lawyers that are out. And that was the two probably you've had three really in the last couple of weeks. You had Paul Torres out. He was involved. Trusty is now out. You probably saw him the most on air. And Rowley, who you didn't see much on air, but was involved as well.
They're all out now. And Todd Blanch, who's a well-known criminal defense lawyer, is in. And they'll be, they say, an additional lawyers will be added. And the truth of the matter is, Andy, the former President needs to add additional lawyers because this is the real deal.
So to answer the college question. No, no, no. This is the real deal here. Well, that's true, Jay. This is not just a fake indictment that you may not agree with the charges. You may not agree with the the reasons that are being brought here. And we believe and I do that it's a political prosecution. But this is a real indictment returned by a real grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida.
And it's got to be defended as a real active criminal case with all the lawyers necessary with their special expertise. That is an absolute truth. There's no doubt about that. All right. Let's go take another phone call. David in Texas online one. Hey, David. Hey, thank you, guys. Jay, I've been following your work for almost 40 years now.
Thank you for all you do. Quick question. Is there a way to file motion? And I'm ignorant on the terms to preserve the same things that were destroyed during the Mueller investigation, all the electronic devices, the communication that went on. Is there a way to prevent that from happening with this new prosecutor, Jack? I don't know his last name. And that's my question.
Jack Smith. So it's a pretty a pretty I think people now know that name on the top of the list. But that's how people are worried about preservation, basically, is the ideas that we've seen in these investigations. When things went sour for the government, suddenly they had deleted all the information.
Right. Which we raise that with Mueller. I mean, the two agents that were corrupted in the process, according to again, now the John Durham report, a special counsel there said they wiped their phones clean. The government did that.
I mean, think about that for a moment. So that's why you got to remember all of this when you're looking at this prosecution. There has been an issue raised recently in the last 48 hours. Now, they may have raised it earlier, but it's been public for the last 48 hours about a lawyer from one of the witnesses who is a Democrat. The lawyer who has been the allegations are that and he's filed purportedly filed complaints with the Department of Justice that he was basically told to get his client to flip or he's not getting the judgeship. He was supposedly on the desk of President Biden for. Now, I don't know the details of that, but there has been those allegations that were discussed on TV by the President's lawyer, former lawyer Jim Trusty yesterday. If those proved to be true, that's very problematic for the government because you cannot have all of these missteps and all of these calculated moves that change the justice system that requires under our Constitution to do process of law. That's what's required. And they can't just say we're going to dispense with due process because it's a former President.
That's absurd. Right. So, folks, here's our plan for you. We've got we've come to you live for you today. We know that the arraignment is on Tuesday at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
We'll be with you on Monday. We will watch this afternoon to see if there's any movement on the indictment. But again, that could be not that might not be released until the same moments that President Trump is being arraigned. It does look like on the federal court tracking system, the pacer system that they're there, but they have not been unsealed.
So we will see about that information. But also, we want you to continue to support the work of the American Center for Law Justice. You can donate today at ACLJ.
That's ACLJ.org. This is a broadcast. Especially you're watching the rubble Facebook, YouTube. When we're finished, the broadcast will restart. You should share this with your friends and family who care about this issue because you're not going to get this kind of detail in any five minute cable news hits. Share this broadcast with your friends and family. We will talk to you on Monday here on Sekulow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-09 14:33:40 / 2023-06-09 14:53:52 / 20