Trump Pleads Not Guilty - What’s Next?

Today on Sekulow, Trump pleads not guilty. So what happens next? We'll talk about it all today and we'll take your calls on Sekulow. 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. All right, welcome to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to right off the bat at 1-800-684-3110. We don't usually open the phones this early in the broadcast, but we know you got a lot of questions after yesterday, the formal arraignment of President Trump. This is the second arraignment, but the first time in history a former President has been arraigned and charged in a federal court.

The 37 charges which we've gone through, the 31 relate to the retention of the documents, the other six are obstruction or trying to keep documents from a return, moving documents, and even a conspiracy charge in there. So serious charges. I think that some people are being criticized for going on TV and saying they're serious charges.

They would be against anyone normal. I think in this case they look so politically charged that it is almost hard to take it serious, but we should because they're going to have to go to court and going to have to beat the prosecutors. Now the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all this was done, but even if a couple of these stick, you're talking about a former President of the United States.

Dad, this is what gets me. Joe Biden okayed Merrick Garland to let Jack Smith bring enough charges against President Trump to put him in jail for the rest of his life. That is unprecedented in our US history.

And here's the thing you have to understand is what you just said. There are 37 charges. 32 of them I think are easily disposed of in my view as a defense lawyer. Five of them you got to defend, including that conspiracy charge with Walt Nada, the moving of the documents.

The issue then becomes if you were just convicted on one of those five, it could be a 20-year sentence. So the former President is facing real political issues, but also more importantly here, legal issues. Now do we think this is politically motivated? Look, Hillary Clinton utilized bleachbit and destroyed her device and was not charged by James Comey saying no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. And there was dissemination of classified material in that case.

They're not charging that here. So I think you've got to look at all of that and say, what's really going on here? And that's why we want to open up the phone calls to you. We want to know how does this impact how you're thinking about the candidates for office, whether you're for President Trump, excuse me, former President Trump or Rhonda Santas or Nikki Haley or Tim Scott, whoever it might be. We want to hear what you have to say about that. I think that's important, Jordan.

Yeah, 1-800-684-3110. There's no bad answers. We're not going to judge you for supporting this candidate or that candidate. Or if this is starting to change your mind, we're starting to see more Republican candidates say, you know what, the strategy of just supporting Trump outright, well, that's not helping me in the polls. So now I'm going to say things like, well, if this is true, they're not yet saying, you know, he's guilty because that's not right in America. But if this is true, this is so serious, I'm not going to defend this. We even heard that from Mike Pence.

So they're not saying he's guilty, but they're saying if he's found guilty, we're not going to defend the charges within here. Now, that's a political shift that we've seen happen just in the last 24 hours. Before that, it was basically they were lined up in defense of Trump. Now, Ron DeSantis has remained strongly in defense of Trump on this matter, saying that this is just a two-tiered system of justice, which we've talked about and I totally believe is happening.

We see it. Weaponized Justice Department clearly it is. I mean, Jack Smith, when we come back, and we've had to deal with Jack Smith before because he tried to put Tea Party leaders in prison.

I'm not kidding about that. Remember when Lois Lerner was working with the DOJ on bringing criminal charges against Tea Party leaders? Guess who was on the emails?

It was Jack Smith, a guy who loves to convict grassroots Americans and politicians for engaging in fundamental First Amendment protected political speech, one of the core protections of the First Amendment. So we are going to take your calls, your comments at 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching the broadcast, Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, of course, our preferred place for you to watch.

Share it with your friends and family. We're also launching on the Salem News Channel today. So if you're watching there, hello for the first time from Sekulow. We'll be right back taking your calls. Support the work of the ACLJ. We want you to donate today at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Come back to Sekulow. We've got a lot to talk about, too, and new information I wanted to make sure you share because you might have heard President Trump even talk about it last night in his remarks after he was arraigned. He flew back to Bedminster and made remarks to the country. Some channels covered it, some did not, about the experience of being a second-time charge, first time in federal court.

It's historic in the sense that a former President has never been charged in a federal court proceeding. But I want to go to the phones first because we want to take calls. We'll weave in the new information as we go and as your calls kind of get to that information. So let me start with Cindy in Nebraska on Line 1. Hey, Cindy. Hi, how are you? Hey, can you hear me? Yep, you're on the air. Okay. I've been following you for a long time.

Love the work you do. But I wanted to ask if you could explain to us, you know, last night Tucker dropped something and it was regarding Mike Pompeo and I'm so disappointed because I love Mike Pompeo and I don't understand why it appears as though, you know, what Tucker said was that you caught it last night in his third episode that, you know, Pompeo cozied up to Trump but he really backstabbed him and I'm so disheartened. I don't think that's a fair, I mean, I understand that's what Tucker said, but I don't think that's a fair analysis of what Mike Pompeo said. Mike Pompeo said that handling classified documents is serious business and mishandling classified documents is also serious business. Mike also went on to say, Mike Pompeo went on to say that the Department of Justice has basically been weaponized here and that this is the politicization of going after your opponents. So listen, you can't, as a lawyer that represented the former President, as a lawyer that's done cases across the country and around the world, criminal cases in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, cases before the Supreme Court in the United States representing a President.

Here's the thing, you can't say these are not serious charges, the charges are serious. I think the weaponization of the FBI, however, as Mike Pompeo said, is real. So I think people are, Tucker's misconstruing what Mike Pompeo said.

He has been on this broadcast, he's part of our team, he's a senior counsel for global affairs and he has been very outspoken on the politicization of our national entities. But he was also the director of the CIA, so he understands sensitive documents. Yeah, and I think, again, what a lot of people are saying is, you know, if all these were true, this is serious, this is serious. But what the argument is, is that this is totally misconstrued and this misses the power of Presidents and former Presidents and how this document issue has moved throughout centuries. I mean, even going back to the George W. Bush years, 22 million emails were lost. Do you know the National Archives had to announce finally, they'll never have a complete record of George W. Bush's Presidential time in office because so many of those... That was mid... Do you know they're still negotiating with the Richard Nixon Library for documents?

Yes. So this idea that, you know... By the way, the National Archives, very good at targeting students that are pro-life in their museum, not so great at finding records that are classified. No, and this idea that it goes on and on and even when you partner with National Archives to build a center that hosts those documents, you can get access to those documents still as a former President. And so you go through their process. So it's not as clear cut as all these commentators trying to make these laws to be. And we do have some complications in the law because you have a 1917 Espionage Act law, the lowest provision being used here, which is just having the documents, not using them, not like selling them to a foreign country, nothing like that would cause the death penalty itself. But then you also have the Presidential Records Act. And so there's these different laws into play here. We'll talk about it throughout the show, but we'll continue to take more of your phone calls as well at 1-800-684-3110.

I think, listen carefully to what people are saying. You wouldn't be a serious attorney or commenting on this if you didn't say what is being charged here is serious because look at the amount of jail time it covers. President Trump, if convicted on just a couple of these... He's a life person....would spend the rest of his life behind bars. That's what Joe Biden...

Okay. That's what I'm outraged about, is that Joe Biden thinks it's fine to put his top political opponent in prison for the rest of his life. And so does Merrick Garland, who sounds real soft, and sounds real like he's not very tough, except for he would like to see and believes... And so Jack Smith is supposed to believe if you file these charges, you're gonna get convictions, that you're gonna put this person behind bars, a former President for the rest, the remainder of their life. And there may be more charges coming out of the January 6th matter. They're saying there could be an indictment out of Washington DC on that.

And then, of course, we've got the Fulton County DA on top of it. Let's take some more calls, and we're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Yeah. Back to the phones we go.

Kitty in Kentucky, online for... Hey, Kitty. Hey. First, I'd like to make a comment on what I think. I think that corruption in America is at every level and in every state and at every city.

I've been, unfortunately, a victim of it numerous times. But what blows me away is it seems like the globalists and the corporations are the ones that run America now, and they have weaponized our government against anyone, Christian thoughts or so forth, American, you know, Republican or constitutionalist. Why are our lawmakers not doing anything about that when you've got the...

There's the people that are over the guns and all that, they go in checking on people's guns, but, you know... Here's the thing with the government, you gotta divide a government. I mean, the Republicans have the House of Representatives by five votes. They don't have the Senate, they don't have the White House. It's by five votes in the House of Representatives. So, I mean, you live in a representative democracy, that's what happens.

Yeah. I think, again, we are in a very divided time in our country. We know that the next election, Joe Biden could literally run from his basement again, and it would be very close.

Yes. And Donald Trump could work his butt off and be in every state and every city and every town, every county like he's doing after his arraignment, stopping at Cafe Versailles, which I think was a brilliant political move to do that in Miami. It's a visual move that means a lot to South Florida, especially to what is a predominantly Republican, Cuban, Venezuelan, Latin American immigrant community that votes Republican. That's why they have a Republican mayor there in one of the major cities in the country, which is very rare.

You don't see that often. And what do they despise the most is this kind of political persecution, putting former Presidents, putting former politicians, like we still see in countries like Brazil. Your political opponents in jail because you disagree with them. Just because you don't like what they have to say or you don't like their policies or their ideas or the way they talk, which I think is a lot of it on this case. And the fact that they think there should be reforms to how Washington operates. Well, that's too dangerous for the swamp. So again, I think that one move here that is probably is starting to get a lot of attention, Dan, is the fact that this case isn't going to be in Washington, DC or New York.

It's going to be in Miami and it's going to be in front of right now. It was a random choice, but the random choice chose a Trump nominee. And that is not a basis for recusing this judge, by the way. And I argued one of the seminal recusal cases in the country in the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit almost 30 years ago, Judge Patrick Kelly, who I did get recused from a case involving Operation Rescue. But it was because of that perceived statements of bias. Not I disagree with their opinions, not they were appointed by a Democrat and my clients are conservative Republicans.

That has nothing to do with it. It's not a basis upon which you can recuse someone. And Miami was the venue chosen because that's the only venue they could really try the case, honestly. And that is better for the defense.

It's better for Donald Trump. But again, we'll see what I don't think there's going to be, he has the right to a speedy trial. He could say, you know, we're ready to go in 60 days and they'd have to try the case.

I don't see that happening, but they have that right. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Let's go to Cindy, without Christie, rather, who's calling in Maryland and we'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Christie, go ahead. Hi, my question is, with the mishandling of classified documents, during this time, we've seen the amount of documents that have come out against Biden and all this. And since you can't indict a sitting President, my question is that once he leaves office, will Biden face the same charges that Trump has with all this? I think, here's my view. I don't think any of them should be charged with this because the law's vague.

It presents all kinds of obstacles. I don't think Trump's guilty of anything in that regard, based on what I know. And I don't think that Biden's guilty of anything that's illegal. I don't know the facts of each of these cases and there isn't a special counsel that's investigating the President. You cannot indict a sitting President, but I think that would have been enough of a reason not to allow these cases to move forward. The fact that the sitting President, when he was senator and vice President, had the same issue, the current, the former sitting vice President had the same issue, and that would have been a basis for me to say, you know what, we're not charging on these counts. But that's not what happened here, because as Jordan, as you said, it's very politicized, unbelievably so. And you're going to see all kinds of machinations, but let me tell you, and I'll say this after the break, the wheels of justice grind slowly. And sometimes when you're the defendant, that's absolutely fine.

Not to rush. I want to read too, this is an opinion involved Meghan Markle, because the sister of Meghan Markle wanted a Obama appointee removed because of the relationship with the Obamas and Meghan Markle. And this is from the case, President Obama's appointment of the undersigned without Moore does not serve as a basis for recusal. There's no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed her. The identity of the President who appointed the judge assigned to a case has no bearing on recusal.

Zero. So you can't even start there with recusal. That's out of a Florida, a different district in Florida, but they would rely on those kinds.

And that's the basis for recusal is that you don't just get to recuse them because you don't like who appointed them. So again, these ideas, but that's what the left's about to start pushing. They're already starting to push that because they're getting nervous. The uh-oh, you know what would really boost Donald Trump and probably put him back in the White House? If he beats this, he beats these charges and shows again that it's just a witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt after witch hunt. And you know what the American people start saying?

You know what? Maybe he is the good guy and they are the bad guys, even though I don't always like the way he talks. These guys kind of hide in the shadows. People start thinking differently. We're starting to see that too from a lot of politicians.

We'll say we can't allow this in our country like him or not because this will destroy our country. Taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ.

Donate today. ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Sec Hill. We're taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. I do want to play this because it tells you a little bit about Jack Smith. You got to learn who your opponent is in this matter. And again, he kind of hides in the shadows. When he gave that press conference, it was very bizarre. He was the head of public integrity at DOJ.

He tried to come after the Tea Party groups with Lois Lerner. People forget that. We actually have, we had that we were able to get in discovery. We handled that case. That's what I'm telling you something, folks. Yes. So let me tell you something.

That's why you're not getting this analysis anywhere else. We represented the former President. We did the Tea Party cases, which involved attempts to get the public integrity section of the Department of Justice going after our client. Jack Smith is on the emails to Lois Lerner.

Correct. On the emails that we got in discovery. The FBI was initially wanting to talk to our clients to help in this investigation. You know why we cut it off?

Jack Smith. We found out public integrity instead of regular DOJ investigation was a public integrity thing. We knew where this was going. Now we ended up winning the case. So that's the good news. But you have to know who your adversary, your opponent is in the courtroom.

Yeah. I want to play this from President Trump. This was last night in New Jersey. Just one example of just over the top, wildly novel prosecution that destroyed Bob McDonald, who was a great governor of Virginia, who had a big future in Republican politics, hurt his family as well. And he's made a personal comeback. So I don't want to say he's just, but politically took him out.

Take a listen to President Trump by 17. He's a behind the scenes guy, but his record is absolutely atrocious. He does political hit jobs. He's been known to viciously arrest a certain governor. You know, the governor, Bob McDonald of Virginia, and absolutely ruined his life and the life of his family. For all these wonderful family members, I knew them. Only to have the case overturned eight to nothing by the Supreme Court. He destroyed that man and he destroyed that family.

I mean, that's one example. I helped on the Supreme Court appeal on Bob McDonald's case and we won 9-0. We reversed Jack Smith's prosecution 9-0. The most liberal members of the court and the most conservative members of the court said the theory of the case that Jack Smith brought forward did not pass statutory or constitutional scrutiny.

9-0. My friend Abby Lowell defended John Edwards. Abby is one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the United States.

I worked with him when we were representing President Trump. And Abby represented John Edwards. The jury went out for like two hours and acquitted John Edwards from Jack Smith's prosecutions.

Menendez, the senator from New Jersey. Everything overturned. Everything out. So there you go.

And those were all Jack Smith led cases. So going after high profile politicians who are, by the way, getting in the way of other high profile politicians. Why was the Democrat Bob Menendez being targeted then by the Obama DOJ? Because he opposed the Iran nuclear deal. Remember, he was one of the most vocal opponents and he almost tried to sink that deal in the US Senate with a couple of other Democrat senators. Remember, there are Democrats who don't like the Iran nuclear deal.

He's one of them. So they came after him with the full force of law, tried to put him behind bars. And because of the McDonald case, all of that was thrown out. John Edwards, again, getting in the way of people like Hillary Clinton. Oh no, we don't want that.

We don't want him in the way of Hillary Clinton. So going after him over something that he said, listen, I went to an entire... And he's an attorney himself. I went to all these attorneys. They consulted me. They told me exactly what we were doing.

We put together this exact plan, a payment plan, and it was totally above any kind of illegalities. And yet still, they didn't even put that in court until the very end. And then the jury comes back and says, no, we're not. So he's very aggressive in getting an indictment. That's easy. Not so good at winning the cases in court.

And even when he does win, they get overturned. Right. Now let's take another phone call.

Yep. Back to the phones. We go 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Ronald in South Carolina online one. Hey, Ronald. Hey, thanks for taking my call.

Enjoyed all that I've heard. And the only thing I get to add to that in a way of comment is that this is so wrong, the indictment on so many levels. And because of the fact that if he was to pull that thread, it's just like, I think that Andy either said or your dad said that you would literally start unraveling a whole lot of stuff from all of the departments.

You're 100% correct. I mean, the problem with this case is to bring a prosecution on this, well, then you should bring it against Joe Biden and you should bring it against anybody that had classified documents, which I mean, you couldn't even imagine the list of people that would be. And you start unraveling it and we start looking like Venezuela. And in third world governments where you just go after your political opponents. And there's a reason we have not done that. There's a reason that no former President has been arrested. And there were some heated disagreements and accusations of criminality because we didn't go there.

It was like, we crossed this Rubicon here to just let us be like everybody else. And everybody says, well, no one's above the law. And that is true. But the law has to be interpreted and the law has to be applied equally.

Equal protection of the laws is also part of this. We're taking your calls 800-684-3110. Let's take another one.

Yeah. I mean, I go back to the first impeachment trial and President Trump's impeached over asking President Zelensky of Ukraine about potential Biden corruption. And now we've got literally Senator Grassley on the floor of the US Senate. This is a very well respected Senator who is probably not a super fan of President Trump by any means.

He's just a super fan of justice. He's been a judiciary committee chair before. And he's got a whistleblower that said that there's a Burisma executive with 17 tapes, 15 of them are with Hunter, but two are also with Joe Biden as vice-President when he sent them to $5 million to enact specific US policy, which would be a huge violation of many different laws.

Okay. So there'd be an impeachment on that. There should be, there won't, but there should be. But the idea here is that that, is that even being investigated? We don't know.

That's the problem. This department of justice, I would assume not. I mean, it was given to them, but are they even looking into it? I mean, the guy has supposedly 17 tapes and President Trump got impeached for asking about that corruption. We now know there were a lot of people accusing vice-President Biden of that corruption.

Breaking news alert. We did the Ukraine impeachment. Jordan was on the council in that case.

We represented the President during the impeachment proceedings. It was on Ukraine. It was on corruption. There's a horrible military conflict going on between Russia and Ukraine, but you cannot say that the Ukraine government or Ukraine oligarchs are not corrupt. There's a huge corruption issue there. And this is, you know, again, part and parcel of weaponizing politics. We can now no longer have international opinions because we're afraid it's going to, you know, result in an indictment. This is, we can't go there.

We don't need to go there. We've got another half hour of this broadcast left and we want to keep taking your phone calls. How are you viewing this? Has this affecting how you're viewing the candidates that are running?

How do you see this? We'll take all sides and all opinions on this. We want to keep it open at 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. We encourage you to give us a call because we're giving you a perspective.

Look, we represented the former President, including on the impeachment trial and the Mueller probe and all these special investigations and three cases at the Supreme Court of the United States. We can talk with some authority here. We'll take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. We'll open it, keep the lines open during the break. We also encourage you, if you're watching the broadcast on Rumble, on Facebook, on YouTube, make sure you're sharing this with your friends and family, because you know that if this many people have got questions, there's that many more people with questions who can't call in or haven't called into a broadcast before. So I want to thank you all for calling in because you're helping people understand what is a highly complicated process.

It's unnecessary. We're tearing the country apart as we go, but we've got to also deal in reality. That's what we do at the ACLJ. We deal with the reality of the situation presented. The reality is President Trump was indicted yesterday and arraigned in a federal court on 37 major counts.

They could put him away for life. It's wrong. It's not how our country should operate. We've got to fight back, and you've got to have the facts to fight back. You're getting them here on the broadcast, and that's why you should support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. Just updating you on some other interesting moves and comments made by members of Congress. Senator J.D. Vance has announced that Donald Trump is merely the latest victim of a DOJ that cares more about politics than law enforcement. Merrick Garland's department harasses Christians for pro-life advocacy, we know that, but allows hardened criminals to walk our streets unpunished.

This must stop, and I will do everything in my ability to ensure it does. Starting today, I will hold all DOJ nominations. If Merrick Garland wants to use these officials to harass Joe Biden's political opponents, we will grind his department to a halt. It is a power that U.S. senators have that often gets overlooked sometimes, is that just one U.S. senator can prevent nominees from moving forward. And he is saying, until we see change, until we get an explanation, no more new DOJ nominees go through the U.S. Senate. So that kind of gives you an idea of where Congress is on how they're reacting.

What is the rest? I mean, who is, because the Senate's been pretty quiet. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, you've heard from, there's these senators who have endorsed President Trump, J.D. Vance is one of those, Marsha Blackburn, Senator Hagerty of Tennessee, both of them have been very outspoken. Senator Hawley, who I don't think has endorsed him yet, but has been highly critical of the Department of Justice here and how the Department of Justice has been utilized. It's the Mitch McConnells who, there's not a lot of love lost between those two, who are not, let's say, running to his defense. Now, you go to the House, it's about loaded up on Donald Trump's side, not just with endorsements, but with people just saying, you know, because they are actually usually, it's House members who are most vulnerable to these DOJ attacks. They are not, they don't have the kind of staffs, they don't necessarily have the kind of financial background as some of these U.S. senators and executive branch folks do.

And they are often targets of these FBI phishing expeditions to just look to see if they've done anything that they could charge them with a criminal crime form. We want to go right back to the phones. We're answering questions today. 1-800-684-3110.

Take them in order. Allen in South Carolina on Line 5. Hey, Allen. Hello. Thank you very much for taking my call and thank you for J.D.

Vance for taking that stance. I was a contractor for a government agency for many, many years and we handled classified documents. We had, every one of us had to sign a document saying, you know, this is the importance. If you get caught with this, here's the consequences. So, the two-tier system has been in play for years because I was, when I was working, that's when Hillary Clinton did all this stuff and all these other people had done this stuff and nothing ever happened to them. But one of us down here in the lower tier where we are working, if we would have got caught taking it home, in fact, somebody did. They had a face of consequences of it, of being fired. So, I don't know why. Here's the thing, and I mean to cut you off there, Allen, but the fact is you were notified though of how, correct me if I'm wrong here, you were, they told you, this is what you handle, how you handle a classified document and this is how you don't handle a classified document, right?

That's correct. So, here's the problem here. When it comes to a President. Okay, with the President, it's a whole different ball game because literally he can declassify. They're making fun of that, but as commander in chief, he did have that authority.

Now, you can't do it when he left the presidency. So, then you've got that testimony that he said this one document was still classified, you know, so then that's... They can't even find that document.

But now they can't locate the document. So, was he just talking politics? You know, here's the thing. I mean, part of the... There are free speech issues here. Serious, because when I read the indictment, I'm thinking, okay, how many hours did I spend in the Oval Office? I mean, more than I can think.

That's kind of the way he talks sometimes. I mean, what if this? What if that? I mean, clients ask lawyers what if questions. Nobody destroyed any documents.

Nobody took any documents and disseminated them to a foreign power. So, there are First Amendment issues in all of this. All right. We're gonna continue taking your phone calls. That's what we wanted to do today. We're opening these lines up for you.

How do you feel about all this? Where are you leaning politically right now? 1-800-684-3110, Republican, Democrat, and Independent. We wanna hear from you. 800-684-3110. Don't forget, support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

It's a great way for you to help us continue all of these fights. We mentioned the Jack Smith thing in the Tea Party cases. Folks, that was us. That was the ACLJ. We're talking about impeachments. That was us. We're talking about going to the Supreme Court representing a President.

That was us. And the work continues, as you know. ACLJ.org to support the ongoing work of the American Center for Law and Justice. Back with more in a moment. I do have to play a little Hillary Clinton. One, she's selling her shirts and hats again from her failed campaign.

Do we have that for the screen? Yes. But her emails. But remember, those were classified emails that she destroyed.

Destroyed. Which means under the law that President Trump is actually being charged under, destruction is part of that. But Jim Comey said no prosecutor would bring that charge. He's probably right.

And you know, I was gonna say that exactly, Jordan. He probably was right. Because the law is so vague and so confusing, you can't hold somebody to a criminal standard. Right. That they could never prosecute it seriously. And that's their bottom line standard is you don't bring a prosecution unless you believe 100% that you are going to win. Doesn't mean you always win.

But you're supposed to have that belief that you've got enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you will win. Meet that high criminal standard. But she's selling those.

As a joke. But she's forgetting that literally what she was accused of is in the statute that President Trump was indicted for 31 times. And I think she got rid of thousands of emails. So how many of those separate incidents?

Each one is a separate incident. So you've got that. You've also got her coming out. This time we're not deplorables. Now you're a member of a, well, I'll let her say it. The response that we've seen in polling from Republicans suggests that they're going to stick with him. That it's more of a cult than a political party at this point. And they're going to stick with their leader.

Okay. I guess deplorables didn't upset people enough to get them to the polls. Now we're cult members if you support Donald Trump. And that's a majority of Republicans because right now the polls show, and every time this has happened to Donald Trump, he goes up about 10 points more in the polls. Which is becoming significant because in a couple polls now, he's ahead of one and his next challenger down DeSantis up almost 40 points over him, 61 to 23.

And then everybody else is in the low single digits. And then a second poll, which shows a little lower, he's still up 30 points, 51, 21, and that's gone up from the 40s. So whatever they think this is working politically, this animosity towards Trump, to be that it's almost like they have so much animosity towards Trump, they don't even care if it does backfire against the police. No, I think, no, this is the take out Trump litigation strategy.

That's what they're trying to do. Literally he's got one term potentially left at most. I know, but look what they did to Bob McDonald who didn't have another term left either. Because he can only serve one, you can't serve consecutive terms. That's what they did because they thought he was going to be, and he probably would have been a national candidate. Yeah, he was definitely going to be the leading, right out of the bat, he would have been the leading Republican candidate.

Yeah, because he did an incredible job in Virginia. All right, let's go right back to the phones. 800-684-3110. Why don't we go to Bob in California, line six. Hey, Bob.

Yes. I just can't believe that America is so forgetful for all the criminal acts that Obama did, Hillary did. I mean, I'm calling out America. Let's get back to the basics and quit following this party that's going to destroy the rest of the United States like they destroyed California. You mentioned to our call screen, the IRS, the targeting scandal, Fast and Furious. People forget about these.

I mean, on and on the list goes. Remember, they played games with that video. We went to court and got the information on the Iran deal. Loretta Lynch on the tarmac.

Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac the weekend before his wife, the former Secretary of State, was going to be interviewed by the FBI. Oh, that's okay. So, Bob, you're right. The problem is, when you control the lever of the executive branch of government under Article II, that Department of Justice works for Joe Biden. This was a Biden administration prosecution.

Don't kid yourself for a moment. That's why I keep saying, Joe Biden has okayed putting his number one political opponent as the poll show right now. That doesn't matter who you're supporting. That's what the polls show. This would be the person he would run against if the Republican primary was held today in prison for the rest of his life. The only more serious you could go is execution. But this is in prison for the rest of your life.

It's pretty close. It's a death sentence behind bars. And that's what this DOJ okayed. And if they get away with this, folks, which they've been trying to do against grassroots Americans, who's next on the list? Is it a senator that you like who might be a rising star? A governor like a Bob McDonald, who they try to, again, not just destroy, but put behind bars so they can never come back?

So they can never tell that story. And then what happens to your country? What happens- You look like Venezuela and Argentina and all the third world countries. You look like the country that all those people who were at Cafe Versailles yesterday in Miami fled. And that's why they, even if they don't even vote for President Trump at the end of the day, have this such a disdain for using the levers of power of government to go after political opponents.

It's actually the side of the weakest countries in the world. And it's horrible. Denise is calling from New Mexico online too. Denise, welcome to the broadcaster on there. Thank you for taking my call.

God bless you and all the wonderful work you do. I am just so aware that our wonderful President, President Trump, has been wrongly accused and you cannot defend against a negative. He's not done the things he's been accused of and yet he's been indicted with 37 counts. But- What do you put on a real defense? Okay. Let me give some free legal advice here.

Get a real defense team. I mean, this is serious enough because it's for real. This is not a Bob Mueller investigation. This isn't a Senate House impeachment and a Senate trial.

This is a US court in the Southern District of Florida. And you've been accused of 37 counts of felony, including its conspiracy charge. And who knows what else they're going to come up with in the next months ahead. So get real here. But folks, you got to put this through the lens of the body politic we live in. And this is what's so horrible about all of this. It's bad for the country.

It's embarrassing for the country. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. But he's got to use some real- he's got to get some real legal talent. Yeah. Back to the phones that we go, 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Bill in California, online one. Hey, Bill.

Hey, how you doing? I'm a 20 year veteran of the United States Army. I got five years as a department army civilian. I've handled classified documents. I've been through all the training that was needed to handle those documents.

The commander in chief has the power to declassify it. All he does is he turns around and he talks with his intel community. He pulls all his advisors in. He gets all that data.

And then he makes a decision. So this is, I mean, this is a farce. This is a witch hunt. Well, I think like you said, the idea of classification, which people remember the espionage acts doesn't even talk about. That's because it was before classified documents existed was created to benefit a President of the United States and our allies.

It was so that we could have a sense of documents that would be so highly protected that they, that the President could ask for very sensitive information. Like for instance, and I'll just use the one that they're accusing of Iran and say, you know, I would like a plan. I'm not saying we're going to do it, but show me a plan for what it would look like to take out of Iran's nuclear sites. You would want that classified, whether you were going to act on it or not. And then you might decide, you know what, we're going to share it with a few countries that we do that with, which is in this case as well. Now you start thinking about it. Once you start sharing it with the Five Eyes countries, these countries all over the world, guess where it is? Everywhere.

Most of this stuff you can find online. It's true. Either through other leakers or because other countries got it, they have different systems and classification isn't even part of their law. So the classification itself, I think with this got all the way to Supreme Court, they go, this whole process was for the President of the United States. There's a doctrine that's called void for vagueness. You cannot criminally prosecute someone under a law that is so vague, it's subject to multiple interpretations, especially when you have to have a criminal intent.

Mens rea is what it's called. When you have a criminal case, there's two aspects. There's the mens rea, the mental intent, the actus rea, which is the actual act. So here he's President's, former President's not charged with destroying documents, not charged with unlawful dissemination of the documents, possession of the documents. We're going to put a former President of the United States in jail on a law that is vague at best, okay? Maybe unconstitutional at worst, depending on how you look at it and how it was applied.

But there are what's called as applied challenges here. And we're going to politicize and criminalize a political opponent. And he never had a chance to go to court to say, no, I believe this document is mine. Correct.

Bill Clinton did. Right. We have a call on that. I'll go to Rick in Ohio on line three, because I think we can answer it quickly. Hey, Rick.

Hey, I just got a quick question. I was wondering if there was any precedent that by a U S district judge, Amy Berman Jackson, when she decided her case or Bill Clinton's case on the socks and the audio tapes, if that would come into play here. I mean, it was interesting, the audio tapes themselves, he said he was doing for like a record so he could write his memoir, but in the audio tapes, it's a bit alleged. There's serious con there's conversations with foreign leaders. There's conversations about information that would have been classified at the time. And yet the court said, no, the President claims this is his.

That's all we're going to do. And basically that was the decision that it was right. The President says these are his personal, uh, personal records. Now this case, some of these records don't match that exactly because you've got actual documents that were, but they were certainly prepared for him. Why say him and President Trump, they were documents prepared for him. And remember some that might say classified now could have been declassified years ago. You know, I mean, so all of this again is you can see how complicated it is, but it doesn't have to be this way because there was no allegation that the President was selling this off the foreign countries were using this to harm Americans. That'd be an entirely different case, entirely different situation. We've seen that used in our history and people get in serious trouble.

You're absolutely right. And well, the whole process, we're going to get into what the process is going to look. We're also going to take all your calls. 800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. We'll be back with more in a moment. All right, welcome back to Secchia. I want to play a sound bite for President Trump last night. Then take your calls.

1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110 because I really do believe this is very dangerous for our country. It's a precedent I don't want set for my kids or grandkids, which is that if they support a politician, they think that it's the norm that the other politician who's opposed to that one should go to jail because that's what this is teaching them. It's teaching them that your political opponents deserve prison for not being sharing your same ideology. That is communism. That's fascism. That's dictatorships.

That is not what we tried to create in America. It's why we have, you know, we get two ways to choose our leaders and remove them. The founding fathers didn't just say, you get to elect. They also said if you've made a bad decision, you can impeach them. And then maybe it didn't rise to the level of impeachment, but we're going to put them up for election again and you can defeat them that way. So they always had a safeguard in place against leaders who are misusing their office. A strong safeguard.

It's there. It wasn't to be in the regular court system because they realized a President, once they became President, wasn't really a regular person anymore. Let's be honest. They're the commander in chief of the most powerful country in the world with laws changing, coming and going. You know what you don't want your President focused on?

Oh, if I look at this piece of paper, I'm going to go to jail. You know what your President focused on? The border, the economy, wars going on, protecting America, protecting your income, getting gas prices down, building allegiances around the world instead of enemies around the world, not worrying about what piece of paper went where. Because then you have a President who is too afraid to do their job.

And I think that's the, but it's one-sided right now. You know, if you're Joe Biden, you got these documents in your garage by your Corvette, which he loves to talk about, you're not worried. You're not sweating about getting indicted over this. I guarantee you, he's not concerned. So it's not like we're treating everyone the same here.

It's a Donald Trump syndrome. And we've talked about it and it continues on. Let's go to the phones at 1-800-684-3110. Joanne in Ohio on line five. Hey, Joanne.

The most informative hour of my day. Um, I have a question, but when it was announced that the indictment was coming down before it was released, I heard Alan Dershowitz say something about the sheer targeting aspect of this, you know, that all these other people have done the same thing. Nothing's happened. You know, it's Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump could be a grounds for dismissal of this whole thing. And I just wondered what you guys thought about that. Dershowitz is a good friend of ours. We tried the impeachment case with, he was our co-counsel with us, our colleague, brings up the issue of selective prosecution. In other words, the targeting of someone here for a political animus, a political reason, and using the criminal justice system as a way to eliminate someone you don't like.

And which is certainly what this thing looks like. And when you, when you see that you can bring, and I think there will be, and we should say this now that the arraignment is done, which simply was here is, I enter a plea of not guilty. The only condition on release that the magistrate judge put in place is that the President cannot discuss the case with witnesses because a lot of those witnesses still work for him or a part of his security detail.

So you can't discuss the case with them. Now, having said that, that will be a one of a series of motions. I suspect, I mean, I don't know this for sure, but I suspect it will be one of a series of motions that are made here so that all of these pretrial motions are made and it determines then the parameters of the actual trial itself, including evidence, exclusions of evidence, and these issues. There's a lot of that to come ahead.

Yeah. Which is why it's tough to see this really, you know, starting at 70 days, or even if it did start in 70 days, major delays along the way because of appeals, it might be all the way on one issue, uh, multiple times all the way to the U S Supreme court because unprecedented involves a former President. It involves a leading candidate for a major political party running for President, uh, back to the phones. Uh, we go, let's go to bill in Maryland on line four. Hey bill.

Hey Jay. Yeah, thanks. Uh, I have an observation, uh, regarding, uh, Trump and Biden, whatever happened to the Biden smile when he was, uh, asked, could he run against Trump and win?

That is gone. They're like two snipers, both of them. And Trump is going to try to take Biden out through the voting public. And Biden is trying to take him out on a legal, uh, and that's where the weaponization of the, uh, agencies comes into play because you could try to take your opponent out in the political process. That's what politics is all about. You're not supposed to do that in the context of a legal system. You don't take out your opponents through a legal system, but unfortunately you're exactly correct.

That's precisely what they're doing here. We're trying to do now, you know, the President, former President has a hurdle first and that first hurdle is he has to win the nomination as President. And while he's way ahead right now, Jordan, it is early notoriously early.

Uh, although that by the end of the summer, it's not as early and then by the fall or you're in the really, I mean, we're in the heat of it now, right? So we were certainly in the heat of it now because you had the other major candidate, the Republican party announced or Ron DeSantis. So they're out traveling the country. You see President Trump is doing a lot more of it. Uh, even yesterday, uh, after, after going through arraignment, stopping in, uh, at cafe Versailles in Miami, which is a famous location.

They've got to be even at the Miami airports, uh, but a famous location for Cuban, uh, the Cuban community and Cuban dissidents in that corner of what's known as Cali Ocho, which is eighth street in Miami. So intentional, obviously they just randomly choose to go there, uh, intentionally went there because it sends a signal to his supporters as well. Uh, and, and it got a strong response, but yes, this, we are in the heat of the campaign. And I think, listen, just knowing Donald Trump, he's about the only person I think that could go through with all this mentally and still be able to campaign.

We know that firsthand, the guy can take it incoming. Like I've never seen Linda's calling online too. Let's go ahead and take Linda's call. Hi Linda.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. Um, I wanted to make a comment on I am the first born in the United States of America from parents who fled Hitler. I have a brother who is 89 years old now who was 15 when he came here, another brother who was born in a DP camp in Berlin. I can remember conversations in my home growing up about what Hitler was doing and how he was getting rid of his opponents and things that he did. And I was a young child. I'm not anymore, but this is all coming back to me of what these conversations were amongst my family.

My parents are gone. My brother is still alive, but what is happening to Trump is exactly what Hitler did to his opponent. It's weaponizing your legal systems to take out your political opponents.

By the way, I'm only the second generation of my family born in the United States and my family fled Russia during the, the Czarist regime and during the pogroms. So for religious freedom and liberty, but the fact of the matter is you're where you're right is the weaponization of a political system or a justice system to take out your enemies is what the really bad guys do. Yeah. And it starts with the top enemies. It starts with Donald Trump, but then it goes right down to the county commissioners. Right.

It goes down the line until it gets to you. You know, and that's what people under Nazi Germany realized. And so when Hillary Clinton calls us cult members, you know, the Nazis use that too, as an example.

Exactly. If you followed a religious belief that they didn't agree with, you could be executed. You weren't really a human. There was something wrong with you. That's what Hillary Clinton does now. You're not just a, you know, a deplorable deplorable person, which is kind of Nazi sounding as well.

You're a cult member. Don't forget that. Don't forget that in these battles, support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. I want you to donate today. That's an ACLJ.org a new secular brothers podcast will be up this afternoon.