BREAKING: Judge Issues First Order in Trump Case

Breaking news today on Sekulow as a judge issues the first order in the Trump case. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

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

That's 1-800-684-3110. So the judge in President Trump's case in South Florida, in the federal case, the first indictment of former President in history, has issued her first order. Judge Cannon gave, I quote, all attorneys of record and forthcoming attorneys of record a Friday deadline for starting to get in touch with the Justice Department litigation security group so they can expedite the necessary clearance process. That means so they have the clearance to deal with these 31 documents. Now that clearance, again, this I think is what we're seeing is until you get a decision on are you going to rush to speedy trial or not, and that's a decision really that's up to President Trump and his defense team, that Judge Cannon is just keeping things on track. So that is an option because this could be, even though there usually isn't a delay, there could be something, I guess for the most part you get to choose your attorneys. It would be weird that they say, no, you can't have this person represent you. So there'd have to be something pretty major in their background for them not to be able to get the clearance, I would think, in this kind of situation.

But if something like that happened, then you could have to have another appeal. Well, you've got also, these are criminal defense lawyers, he's hiring. So they've represented people that have been accused of high crimes. You've got some interesting things to put on that form.

And, you know, I filled out those forms and they are lengthy and they're extensive and it does go into all of this. And remember, this is South Florida, so there's a lot of drug cases, a lot of money laundering cases. So I don't think there's anything unusual about this order. The right to a speedy trial, as recognized in the Constitution, is owned by, if you will, the defendant. So Donald Trump could say, I'm exercising my right to a speedy trial, and they would have to go to trial now in 60 days. Now, that's a high-risk move. I could see a circumstance where, if they did that, the government would totally freak out because, although they've been working on this for months, I guarantee you, they're not ready to go to trial. But it's also risky for the— Are you even ready to get the discovery out that quickly?

Probably not. And I'm not sure politically it's the right move for the President. I think he's probably better off with this going to trial after the election. I mean, you basically have those two choices, which I think is just interesting for people to note. You could start your trial in August, or you literally could start your trial after people have voted for the next President of the United States.

I mean, pretty distinct, pretty different, extensive period of time. And that's, in a sense, because I guess, even if you invoke your right to a speedy trial, let's say he does want to go in August, but then something comes up and you start motions. I mean, you're not—again, all that speedy trial means is we're going to start the trial then.

It could still take a very long time. But everybody needs to understand what's happening here. They are pounding on Judge Cannon because they're concerned that she's going to actually, what, rule fairly?

Now, here's the thing. This is a judge who went to Duke University Undergraduate School, went to the University of Michigan as the top 10 law school, clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Eleventh Circuit, served as an assistant U.S. attorney—they always leave this out—for the Southern District of Florida from 2013 to 2020, which is, you know, seven years. So this is, you know, and they're saying, well—and the ABA recognized her as qualified. And they're saying, well, she doesn't have a lot of trial experience. I can name you a lot of Supreme Court justices that have no trial experiences as well.

That's not the qualification to be a judge. They don't like it that they had to bring it in the Southern District of Florida because of venue, because in the Southern District of Florida, it's a better jury pool for the President. Yeah, it's, again, it's unlike D.C. or New York or even Fulton County, there's a chance you'll get some Republican, you will get some Republican jurors, some people who actually probably like the President. You won't just, it's not a pool of just very liberal, very liberal or kind of dedicated Democrats, nor it shouldn't be. I mean, and again, that doesn't mean that every juror is going to like him or not. But I do also think that South Florida is interesting because there's many people who fled authoritarian regimes where the norm is that if you don't win the election, if you lose power, you go to jail. And if you're supporters of the person who loses power, you end up in jail or you lose your job or you lose your business, so you lose rights.

So even if they don't like President Trump, I think they will despise the idea of going after political opponents, which then brings the question is, do they try to bring these charges separately in New Jersey? We'll talk about that when you get back and take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110, right back on Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. Remember, Rick Cardell was in the studio with us yesterday. He's a senior advisor with us at the ACLJ.

It was great to have him in the studio. Then he tweeted out, when I saw this tweet, I said, we got to get Rick back on if we can. He tweeted out that he's been told by Intel insiders that the current director of national intelligence is getting ready to manipulate old classified info to make it appear that COVID started in a wet market. And this is at the same time a report has come out that the patient zero with COVID, actually the first three patients, zero, one and two, were all employees of the Wuhan lab.

So clearly a lab leak. So that report comes out at the same time, Rick. We've got your former position, director of national intelligence that you've heard is going to try it again. I mean, the only move here, Rick, is they're protecting China.

Yeah, there's no question about it. And what we're seeing is Intel officials who I've worked with get very nervous about what's happening. There's a process going on right now to declassify some of this information so that it looks and appears like there's a debate about whether or not it's at the Wuhan lab origination or in a wet market. Now, China doesn't want it to be at the lab because that means a mistake. What they would rather have it be is a wet market incident where they can blame it on animals or people eating animals or some sort of interaction with animals.

And that to them helps explain the situation away. Now, the troubling problem that we have is that the Biden administration continues to acquiesce to China. We don't push back and remember Anthony Blinken is on his way to have a face-to-face meeting with Chinese officials. He hasn't had this face-to-face meeting since his original time when they came to Alaska and they spent some time lecturing us about human rights on our soil. You know, Rick, I'm looking at the situation with China through the lens of kind of rewind. And I'm thinking to myself, when you were in office, the chances of Chairman Xi thinking about invading Taiwan or lecturing the United States on anything was zero. I think about Russia going into Ukraine and that would have zero. I think about the Saudis ready to sign the Abraham Accords and now making, you know, arrangements with others in the region to protect their own interests, which is really understandable. And in 34 months, the entire foreign policy of the United States has been put on its head and look with the result.

Yeah. I am reminded of when I was ambassador to Germany, I was talking to Chancellor Merkel once and she said to me, you know, the problem with your President is that we just can't figure out what he's going to do. He's very unpredictable. He just might do something that we are not expecting. And I remember smiling when she said it and saying, you know, Chancellor, that's the exact thing that we want in the United States President. Now she didn't get it.

They don't understand that being unpredictable is really good because whether you're China or Russia or someone in the Middle East, you want a United States that you believe has a credible threat of military action and you just don't know what might happen. Report too. It's interesting because Matt Taibbi, who broke this report, and they've been working with various sources within China and within the U.S. government, they actually named names of the three first people with COVID. Bin Hu, Yuping, Yan Zhu, all members of the Wuhan lab.

So you can search, you can check all of that. They were the first people to develop the symptoms that were consistent, remember that was before a test existed, with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019 before the virus spread. So now you've got, again, a move already to protect China, to protect the Fauci's of the world, to protect those who told us there's no way this possibly was created in a lab, even though the evidence is just starting to mount, finally, about who is responsible, whether it was intentional or just extreme negligence. It's the Chinese who bear the responsibility on releasing this on the world.

Releasing this on the world. Yeah, there's no question about that. So Rick, what would you do to hold the Chinese government accountable for what their actions are?

That's what I said. I know we would have in the previous administration. I have no doubt we would have been working on that together, but what do you do now? Well, I think there's a couple of things that we've always known that work with the Chinese, which is financial really consequences. So I think having a tariff, really making them feel the financial pain of what they put on the world. I also think that this is indicative of an information problem, transparency problem. And so I've never understood, Jay, why the United States government doesn't fund the people who are bringing down the government sensors surrounding the internet and the freedom of information. Why can't the people of China or Cuba or Iran, why can't they get information? Why aren't they able to access the internet and see the arguments that the world is making? It's because the government sensors their information. And I don't understand why the United States and other Western allies cannot have a 24 hour, seven day a week crisis center that simply allows people to get around the government binders. It is something that would save us countless amounts of lives and money because we could avoid war because people with knowledge are the most powerful thing in a society. Yeah. I mean, these are the ideas, Rick, I appreciate you joining us again at the last minute here to discuss it, but I saw that tweet.

It was great to have you in the studio. You see, these are the ideas that we talk about all the time. You can take very strong actions, but it didn't prevent the loss of life. We don't have to, US troops don't get killed. Chinese troops don't get killed. Chinese civilians don't get killed. Ukrainian civilians don't get killed.

Russians don't get killed. I mean, that's a much better world to live in when you're just, yeah, you're handling tough diplomacy, but you're not always on the brink of war. And right now, I think what people feel and why they turn off the news sometimes is, one, it's the economy, and two, it's like, it's war. And it's like enough. Yeah.

People, it gets to a point where you say enough is right. We're taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. We got a lot of calls coming in about the procedural issues going on with the former President's trial and what will happen. We're going to take those. Again, if you want to talk to us about any of this, 1-800-684-3110.

Excuse me. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island on line one. Hey, Jerry, welcome to Secular.

You're on the air. Hi, Jerry. Hello, team. I'm calling about the clearance decision, but may I make a quick comment about what Grinnell just said? Hello?

Yes. My comment is Grinnell just kind of articulated the fact that Markel said, we don't know what he will do. That's exactly why he has a conservative base.

That's exactly why the, these governments wouldn't declare wars in Eastern Europe because they didn't know what he would do. It's also why Washington can't stand him. It is also why, because Washington likes controllable and predictable, but go ahead, Jerry. And you said about your clearance procedure. My clearance procedure in 77 took eight or nine months. I hope this judge is just saying, I want proof that you started it, not to rush it because I know part of the clearance procedure has been farmed out contractually versus to vetted government people. So they'll be treated separately. Yeah, they're going to rush.

Not that they won't do a thorough job, but it will be given expedited treatment. I mean, I've seen that happen and I know that's happened in these kind of cases. But you did bring up an interesting point that these are going to be, especially defense attorneys that have come out of Miami who focus on criminal defense.

Every case you're involved in, who you talk to, every idolist, every foreign travel trip I had. Yeah. If you're in Miami, you're traveling to a lot of Latin America, lots of the world. Well, you don't know who these guys are representing.

They're gals. They're criminal defense lawyers in Southern District of Florida. All right, we're taking your calls and we're starting to get a lot of calls.

If you go to Miami, you can kind of figure it out. There's lots of foreign banks and there's lots of people from all over the world. And a lot of money laundering cases, right.

A lot of empty billion dollar houses. All right. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. A lot of people have questions about what this trial is going to look like, what this judge's order means, we'll take those calls.

1-800-684-3110. Let's take another call. It's a new playbook too, the attack on the judiciary by the Democrats. On the judge. They used to accuse President Trump of doing what they're now doing. They do it to the point where people try to kill Supreme Court justices. Try to assassinate them because they don't like their views, their judicial philosophy.

Now it's not their politics, now it's your judicial philosophy can get you killed in the United States of America. Sidney is calling from Maryland on line two. Do we have time to take Sidney? Do you want to take the next segment? All right. 1-800-684-3110.

We'll take Sidney when we come back for the break. If you've got calls and questions about the trial, if you've got calls and questions about what we just talked about with COVID, because again, it's one of those issues that it might be in some news outlets, but in other news outlets, they're going to be radio silent. That the first three patients with COVID-19 all worked at the Wuhan lab. And they're still going to try to tell us that this is from some rat or bat in a wet market. They don't even know. They don't really even know that. Just a wet market randomly?

No. Intentionally created disease that got out of control. At best, it was extreme negligence. At worst, it was the Chinese unleashing it on the world because they don't even care about their own people either. I mean, you are dealing with a very different culture.

Let's just be honest about that. We'll take your calls. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. We'll be right back on Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We're taking your calls on the Trump legal matter. We've got a case two we want to update you on from the ACLJ, but I do want to go to the phones first because we almost grabbed Cindy's call and then said hold Cindy over through the break because we were running out of time. So, Cindy, it called in from Maryland online too.

Welcome to Sekulow. You are on the air. Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking my call.

I began trying to get through to you a couple days ago when I have two questions if I can. One was, you had quoted Mike Pence as saying, if this is true, I will not defend him. Did he clarify what this he meant?

Did he mean the whole package, certain charges, if what is true? And in addition to that, how do we know it's true? Is he assuming just because a guilty verdict comes through that he will...

I think the media, Cindy, and I'll let you ask your second question too, but let me answer this one. I think the media has assumed things that Mike Pence didn't actually say. What Mike Pence said, if the allegation end up being true, the allegation being, and by the way, he's had documents too. I'm going to make the same allegation.

But hold on a moment because here's where it is serious. If the allegation is true, that's like saying if you're charged with murder and if it's true, I'm not going to defend it. Well, of course, if the former President took a classified document, if it was true, and then disseminated it, which they're not saying he did, to a third party government, that'd be really serious.

But that's not what this is about. So I think a lot of this initial reaction was without anybody reading the actual indictment. Because a lot of it was based on, we think this is what's in the indictment until the indictment came out.

And some of that can be laid at the feet of the lawyers representing the President who started speculating themselves what was the charging document without actually seeing it. Yeah, they kind of undersold how big it would be. They said it was seven counts and it ends up being 37. And it kind of is because it's 31 of them.

Yeah, but it's the same repetitive count. But again, it didn't really prep people the right way. It wasn't the way you would do it.

I mean, you set the bar so low at that point that when it came out... Keep it honest, too. We think the difference between, I think what happened to Mike Pence and Donald Trump was that somewhere there was a lapse in his attorneys keeping the negotiation window open with the FBI. Like if I was them, I would have been on the phone three times a day, or at least called them three times a day to make sure, hey, we might be disputing and maybe we're going to end up in court civilly over some of these. But we've got them or here they are, this is what we have.

This is what we have, this is what we think is ours, this is what you think is yours. And we can go to court if we have to, or we can try to negotiate. Not the way we would have handled it. It fell through and that's what gave them that little window to get the raid. It fell through when they made the representation that they had all the... What are the attorneys left to?

There was like no one there for like a day. It was also they made the representation that all the documents had been reviewed when they hadn't been... It was a bunch of errors that I think legally you wouldn't have done. Cindy, you had another part of your question.

We are taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Cindy, what was the second part? Okay, the second part is if despite all of this, when President Trump is declared President, does he have the authority to issue himself a Presidential pardon? Well, that's an issue that's been debated by scholars. I mean, I view the pardon clause of the constitution as absolute. And so I think it's a plenary power of the presidency. But I don't think that's the way it would go. If the charges were still pending and President Trump were to be re-elected as President, he would simply instruct the Justice Department who works for the executive branch, they're under Article 2, and you would say, dismiss these charges. And they would, and that would be the end of it. Do you think it would be the end of it, or you think he'd be impeached? They might bring an impeachment. I do not see a way they would again.

Oh, I don't see... They keep an impeachment so low now. They dropped the bar so low on what an impeachable thing is.

They're self-parted or... But you certainly have... You know, they'd be impeaching him over exercising a right he clearly possesses as President. Right, not over the charges. Yes, but he is the right over as President.

Yeah. I just be interested to see. They've cheapened impeachment to nothing. I feel like if you're President Trump and you're one of his supporters, you've got to just accept that that's probably coming.

And we have to treat it differently than we have, which is, does it need to be wall-to-wall coverage? It's going to happen likely. It's the way I would have done the second impeachment. Remember that I said, I would have gone in there, I said, John Roberts is not sitting in the chair.

Not wasting our time. So this is over. The constitution says the President, not a President. John Roberts is supposed to preside as chief justice.

He's not, which told you what he thought of it, not an impeachment. Therefore, we filed this as a dismissal. Thank you very much. Let us know when you vote.

That would have been the end. All right. We're going to continue to take your calls, 16431.

Tim, before I get back to the next calls though, I do want to update you on a case out of Nevada. You know, in that school district, we have a teenager in a drama class. Each student wrote like a monologue to perform, but they didn't get to choose which one.

They basically put them in a hat and you draw one. So you've got to do someone else's monologue. And of course the teacher reviewed them. And even admitted that they made edits to some. Well, our, our client drew a monologue that they were very uncomfortable with.

Told the teacher, I'm just uncomfortable doing this. It's very sexually obscene. So it wasn't just curse words or bad language or a reference to something sexual. I mean, it was, it was sexually obscene. We have the monologue available for you at ACLJ.org. I can't read it on the air and I don't want to do that while you might have kids in the car. But, but if you do want to see where we're not just blowing smoke here, that this is, it was extreme, very extreme.

It's up there at ACLJ.org. And the mother goes to the school board and starts reading it saying, this is what made my daughter, which she was forced to perform, so upset. And again, when the daughter complained, they did, the daughter says, don't put me in a room by myself with a man.

What do they do? They put herself with the principal, who's a man, by herself. She gets yelled at by him. Then says, if I'm going to confront the teacher on this, I want other people to be in the room. They shovered a room with the teacher, with the teacher, no one else. The teacher grabs her and assaults her. Assault and battery.

So what does Clark High do? They say, you know what? We really messed up here. This teacher is going to be fired and, you know, we'll try to settle. They even try to do that. No, they filed a motion to dismiss. They've doubled down on this. Went to a big law firm? Yeah. They've doubled down on it.

They've got, yeah, a major law firm representing them, a DC based firm that has an office in Las Vegas. They've doubled down on it and they are going to fight this and we're fighting it too. Now the interesting issue here is the student did not want to make the statements because she found them personally offensive and they were obscene. And the mother then was going to read it to the school board who said, don't say that because you can't have pornography. Do we, we played that clip or let's go ahead and play that. I do think this shows you the dichotomy of what's going on in our nation's public schools right now. Take a listen.

This will be horrifying for me to read to you, but that will give you perspective on how she must have felt when her teacher required her to memorize this and to act it out in front of her entire class. I don't love you. It's not you. It's just, I don't like your or any in that case.

I cheated, Joe. I'm sorry. Excuse me.

I don't. Thank you so much for your, thank you for your, uh, comment. Forgive me. I, we're not using profanity simply. This is a public meeting. I asked for decorum.

If you don't want me to read it to you, what was that like for my 15 year old daughter to have to memorize pornographic material? And Clark County is double downing on this. They're double downing. They're, they're double down. They're gonna, they're gonna fight this and continue to fight it. And we're going to fight back. We did, we amended the complaint. I'm willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court of United States. The idea that the daughter is required to memorize it and then say it, 15 years old, and then the mother can't go to a school board meeting and say, hey, this is what happened to my kid's classroom.

And this is what she had to read. I don't know. We don't allow pornography and profanity in our decorum. That's decorum for a city council meeting of adults, but for a 15 year old in a classroom, it was appropriate. You think there's a problem in the school systems right now?

You bet there is. That's why the ACLJ exists. Your support of the ACLJ allowed us to do that. File this lawsuit, amend the complaint, and take it all the way if necessary. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

Any amount you donate, we appreciate. That keeps us in this fight. ACLJ.org. It is time, folks, to fight back.

ACLJ.org. We'll be back with more in the second half of the broadcast in just a moment. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We said at the beginning of the show, the judge in the President Trump's case out of South Florida in the federal court has made the first order, the orders for the attorneys to start their clearance process so they can handle all the documents necessary to again defend if you're in defense and also in the prosecution to make sure you have the right clearance. It doesn't have to be, though that it can be a very long process.

This is a special situation. So I think what she's allowing, Judge Cannon is allowing President Trump still the option to move forward with a speedy trial. It doesn't mean he has to, but it's keeping things on track and keeping things moving because these are the kind of things that there could be hiccups on because, again, criminal defense attorneys, like we said, with all the clients they're going to have to disclose, we know that some of those people going through that might have some follow-up questions and issues like that. She wants to get all that done as quickly as possible.

Now, she didn't have to put in the order. We don't even know who all the lawyers are yet. Correct. So that's, I mean, not for the prosecution, but for the defense team. And the lawyers are going to have to get their security clearances. They'll have to do that, and that can move fairly quickly.

But as I said earlier, this is between Trident and South Florida. There's an active and very good criminal defense bar, but they handle really high profile cases with sometimes really ugly facts. Yeah, messy stuff. Drug trafficking, sex trafficking, money laundering, cartels. But, I mean, that's what lawyers do. A lot of the Latin American government officials... But the attack on the judge is the left doing exactly what the hypocrisy of this is. When President Trump called out a judge for bias, they were going ballistic.

They do it and they get away with it. So anyways, we're taking your calls 800-684-3110. Yeah. Let's go to the phones. We got Joe in North Carolina on line three. Hey, Joe.

Hey, how are y'all doing? Thanks for taking my call. I've got two quick questions for you. In the run up to the 2020 election, I recall Jordan commenting that one of his biggest concerns was foreign policy because the President had so much power in that area. So I was wondering if he'd comment on that. And the second question would be, when Donald Trump had his speech in Bedminster in New Jersey, he stated that he could end the Ukrainian war in 24 hours. I wonder what that strategy would look like. So I think the first one is, that's why I was most concerned about Joe Biden.

It wasn't just me either. Was it Robert Gates who was the CIA director and Secretary DeFitz who said, every single major foreign policy decision Joe Biden was wrong on. So don't just take Jordan's word for it or look at his record and look at the countries he would meddle in like Ukraine. We could get into all that right now.

We don't have to, but we we've done that already this week. So yes, Joe Biden is miserable when it comes to foreign policy. Barack Obama was horrendous when it comes to foreign policy.

The different, I think Joe Biden's even been worse. The domestic policy hasn't been so great either, but the wars that have begun, which started under Obama, took a pause under Trump, which was the war in Ukraine. They invaded Crimea. They stopped, tried to move forward while Trump was in office. Then they immediately relaunched their war to take Ukraine once Joe Biden was President.

China, the idea that we are always on the brink now of some full invasion of Taiwan, that was not something we were concerned about. The Middle East was uniting together against Iran with Israel and the United States, and we were all working to isolate Iran. Now those same actors are having to come up with deals with Iran because they're worried the U.S. won't have their back. That's just what Joe Biden has done in two and a half, three years. His advisors are horrendous too because they're the same people.

The same people that allowed the Russians to invade Crimea are the same people advising Joe Biden now on how to handle that war. Now your second point, remember, if President Trump gets elected, there's that transition period. He'll get to make very clear statements about what he will do to the Russians if they do not stop the war. What will happen? What will the consequences be?

So that's why I think he's right that on day one, the conflict would be over, but he would have time to make it clear to them about why they better end it. We'll be right back on Secular. We are going to continue to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. I want to update you on another ACLJ case, those two pro-life sidewalk counselors in Baltimore who were brutally beaten by a pro-abortion extremist outside of Planned Parenthood. We represent them. The suspect is still at large.

Of course, we'll represent them in the civil case. The police are also in Baltimore, have gone to the decision now that they have released a video. We've showed you some of the still images before. I want everybody to know who's watching right now. You're about to see very graphic imagery, so if you don't want to look at it, you can keep the show on. You can even hear the narration and maybe just look away from your screen. If you're driving or listening to us in just a regular radio format, not watching, it is narrated by the Baltimore Police Department, so you will understand what the voices that you're hearing are Baltimore PD explaining who they're looking, what is happening, and how they are looking for this suspect is graphic.

Let's take a listen. Baltimore Police Department's Central District Detectives need your help identifying a suspect involved in an assault that occurred on May 26, 2023, around 1020 in the morning in the 300 block of North Howard Street. Surveillance video shows the suspect, a white male with a beard, approaching a group outside the Plant Parenthood building. After a heated conversation, the suspect tackles one of the victims into the ground. Another victim, who came to help, is then assaulted by the suspect. Anyone with information about the incident or the suspect is asked to call Central District Detectives at 410-396-2411. To remain anonymous, call Metro Crime Stoppers of Maryland at 1-866-7LOCKUP.

You can also submit a tax tip by visiting the MCS Maryland website. All right. My first question is, and I appreciate the Police Department doing that, where's the FBI? The FBI, who brings in their highest profile lawyer to handle abortion protest case when they're going after the abortion protesters, and then goes to the home, no problem identifying those, go to their house with guns a blazing, then takes them to trial for violations criminally for free access of the Clinic Entrances Act, and then lose in 45 minutes after the jury returns a verdict of not guilty. So where's the FBI in this, Merrick Gartland? I know where they are.

What am I thinking? They're investigating the PGA and live golf because of the merger of the two entities as an antitrust violation. That, the FBI and Department of Justice, they can spend a lot of time on golfing matters. But pro-lifers get, that's why the ACLJ is engaged in this, folks. And I'm glad we were able to show that. It was graphic.

I look at it every time I see it. The police need to find them, and I know they're working on it. We're working on it as well. And if you have information, because we're on WAVA and a lot of other stations at Metro DC area, call those numbers that they gave you, and we'll post this I'm sure on our website as well. Maybe we can get some coverage on this over the weekend or Monday on some of the other networks too. Yep.

1-800-684-310 to talk to us on the air, so we'll pivot back. But again, it's a reason to support the work of the ACLJ. We're able to represent those clients.

We deal on their behalf with the police department. I know that some of that video was video that the police department were able to get even from Planned Parenthood. I mean, because you can tell from the imagery.

So it was different than even some of the other video that we've been able to assess before it was released publicly. But you saw the brutality now. You saw the aftermath. You've seen the images of the aftermath.

Now you understand why those images were so graphic, because the way these two individuals were beaten. I do want to go back to the phones, but support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Let's go to Brenda in California, online one. Hey, Brenda. Hello.

Thank you for taking my call. So when there's a fire, the fire inspector goes out and looks where the fire started. And it started in Wuhan.

The three people that got sick first, that's where it began. Yeah. I mean, I think, listen, it is very bizarre to me that we are still going to have our US government is going to come out.

And this is what Rick Cornell is nervous about, why he tweeted out the tweet that we had him on back on the air today. While this report comes out, they're going to come out and say, no, it's a wet lab, because they are doing the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party, because the Biden team is compromised by them. I don't know if it's financial, I don't know if it's political, but it's not just bad policy. I mean, let's be honest, there's no reason to do this for bad policy. There's some other reason going on that you would cover for them when they're committing genocide against their own people, which your administration acknowledges, but you don't think they're bad enough to screw this one up and allow this to be released from the lab.

It's absurd. What we should be talking about is how we're going to hold the Chinese government Communist Party accountable for what they did, wreaking havoc on the world. That's what this discussion should be. Instead, we're still fighting over, was it a lab or was it in a wet market? Of course, they're going to cover for them.

But that's why politics matter and elections have consequences. Let's go right back to the phones. We're taking your calls, 800-684-3110. Yeah, Michael's in California online too. Hey, Michael.

How are you doing? Great. What did I want to speak about is the fact that when Bill Clinton was President, and Mark Levin has went over this multiple times on the Sean Hannity show and others, and reading the statute of the Presidential Act, and the Department of Justice defended Bill Clinton, when the documents that was taken out of the area that was secure and safe, secure and safe, and they didn't, that and I, when the judge came down and said, because he is the President of the United States, he can do anything that he pretty much wants to do in that arena, as far as because he's the commander in chief, and he can declassify anything he wants. And by him just taking them, declassified them. And I'm not saying Trump himself took anything, but someone took it, and then once it's in his possession, because he was the President, he can declassify whatever he would like. Presidents can declassify. That's right. Former Presidents can't. Right. So once you're out of office. And they're going to use that statement that they have on audio tape, where the former President said, I can't show you, I can't let you see this because it hasn't been declassified.

I still think, I'm nervous about, I'm always nervous for those statements, because that's all they're telling us right now, and that's got to be a much longer call there. And when you get the full context, it might be very difficult. Well, here's the full context. He didn't show it to anybody. Didn't show it to anybody, and they don't even know where the, the document that he was supposedly describing doesn't exist so far. Well, they can't find it.

NARA can't find it, nor can the Trump lawyers find it. And let me just tell you... So was it just a conglomeration of... But he also didn't let anybody see it.

Yeah. I mean, this is not a dissemination case. This is a, you know, retention case, but it's turned into a criminal case. And I think you said something earlier that's right, and I'm not criticizing the lawyers here, because when you're up there bobbing and weaving, you don't know what the constraints they were dealing with, what was coming at them. But the lack of... There had to be a gap in communication here.

That had to be what happened in part here. It's just because I think... Well, let's... We can't really litigate that, and it's not our responsibility. We're taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. Let's take Chris's call out of Nevada, actually.

We're talking about a Nevada case. Hey, Chris. Welcome to Secular.

You're on the air. Hi. On the Clark County School District case, what, if anything, happened to the student who wrote the profane monologue?

Nothing. I don't even... It might have been anonymous too, the way that the...

I'm not... The way that that process was, but I don't think that... Again, this is not about the reaction. It's the opposite. They were not just defending the student who is not the issue here, because the teacher reviewed them before even... So the students wrote them. The teacher made the student recite it after reviewing it. Even though they objected to it. And she reviewed them.

Correct. So the teacher actually reviewed the monologues before they were put into the hat, randomly selected, and made edits. There's actually some discussion. We're not 100% sure, but there might have been monologues written by the teacher in there. We don't know which ones were. Yeah, we don't know yet. Well, that's why we'll get... Hopefully, we'll beat this motion for summary judgment and get discovery.

And that's how you fight back on those cases. We're taking your calls again, 800-684-3110. We've opened up a couple of lines. 1-800-684-3110. Let's take Kathy's call out of Kentucky on line five. Hi, Kathy.

Hello, and thank you for taking my call. I have a question, and I'm wondering if you can let us know what we can do about it as the people. I heard a report, part of the report, where the House Judiciary Committee was saying that they wanted to have oversight of Supreme Court decisions, that they felt abused ethics. And I'm wondering if you can let us know if that could have something to do that would impose on President Trump's case. Let's see what they can't do.

They could say they don't like this, they don't like that. They can change the number of justices that can be set by Congress. There's all kinds of things they can do. Let me tell you what they can't do. They don't get to override a Supreme Court decision.

You know why? And that means whether you win or lose. I mean, so it works both ways. Now, they could fix something if there was legislative fixes to it. If the court says, well, this is something the legislature should determine. This is not something that should be determined by a court.

That's different. But they don't get to override a Supreme Court decision. It's called Marbury versus Madison. And that's where judicial supremacy as to whether something is constitutional or not rests squarely within Article 3, the judiciary. Article 2, the executive. Article 1, the legislature.

So that's where we have separation of powers and all of that comes in place. Our phone lines are jamming up. You want to talk to us, 1-800-684-3110.

We'll take your calls. Support the work of the ACLJ. We mentioned the case involving those pro-lifers in Maryland.

We just showed you those pictures. We've mentioned the case in Nevada. We're defending students in federal court there.

Your support makes a huge difference. Keep us in the fight. ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment.

All right. Welcome back to Secula. We're taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. President Obama starting to make more comments about the election, this election cycle specifically, and Republican candidates. And surprise, surprise, who is he targeting? Tim Scott, who is, again, a well-known, well-liked senator amongst conservatives and his constituents in South Carolina, I think could run a very interesting campaign in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, has got a lot of financial support already. I think like any of the other candidates, it's an uphill battle right now when Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket with 30- and 40-point leads. But still, the idea of Tim Scott is just so upsetting to the Barack Obamas and the Democrats of the world. Take a listen to President Obama.

This is new. I think there is a long history of African American or other minority candidates within the Republican Party who will validate Americans, say, everything's great and we can all make it. Nikki Haley, I think, has a similar approach. I'm not being cynical about Tim Scott individually. I am maybe suggesting that the rhetoric of, can't we all get along, that has to be undergirded with an honest accounting of our past and our present.

So there you go. There's President Obama, could not take the swipe at Tim Scott because he happens to say that he loves America. And that he's experienced the American dream. Harry Hutchinson, Professor of Law and Economics and our Senior Counsel at the ACLJ, you, I've looked at this, you have written about it in your book, this kind of latent racism that the left is kicking up constantly.

It'll be very interesting to see when we get the admissions cases out of the Supreme Court on the affirmative action cases, that should be in the next couple of weeks. What's your assessment of this statement made by President Obama on David Axelrod's podcast? First, let me say that President Obama's claims are despicably retrograde.

Why? Because the Democratic Party is the party that has emphasized racial essentialism for the last 200 years and has profited from using race for the last 100 years. If you look, for instance, at what happened after the termination of the Civil War, General Sherman, for instance, gave land to freed slaves.

Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, took the land back. So the Democratic Party has been committed to utilizing race for at least 100 to 150 years. If you look at Wilmington, North Carolina, Wilmington, North Carolina, under the leadership of the Republicans, had a biracial city council that was working effectively. The Democrats didn't like that. So what did they do? They stirred up their friends in the Ku Klux Klan, and they used riots, mayhem, violence, and murder to retake political power. And that has continued for the last 100 years, looked at virtually each and every large city in America that has a minority population, a significant minority population. They are led and have been led for decades by Democrats, and the policies are failing. They are leading to pathological developments within the African American community. So President Obama needs to revisit history, and therefore I would support the efforts of Senator Tim Scott to redress the history that the Democrats have badly misshapen.

To me, it's just interesting. They still see, and I think they realize, Tim Scott has been excluded from the Congressional Black Caucus. He asked to join. He was told no. It's not the Congressional Democrat Black Caucus.

It's the Congressional Black Caucus, but they said no. He, again, has told his story in his own narrative. And by the way, it's from South Carolina. It's a state that has the greatest record in history. There's things that went wrong there that have been corrected, but he talks about his life, his experience. And again, it upsets just the fact that he exists on that stage, and now he's got a bigger national platform. And I think he is running for President, understanding that the uphill battle with President Trump at the top of the ticket, even Ron DeSantis, to be a national figure, which he already was to some extent in the Republican Party for people who follow politics closely. But for people who don't follow politics closely, he now has a reason to come to your state and talk and have an event and kind of give you a different perception of what the Republican Party looks like. We had dinner with him last year, and it was interesting to me, and it is interesting to me, that as you see his political assent, and I think Tim Scott is in a political assent, and you got to listen to what he actually says. So let's play what he has said.

This is by three. This is Senator Tim Scott. Okay, so Tim Scott basically echoing what Martin Luther King said in the I Have a Dream speech. It's the same idea. You'd be judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. He says it, Tim Scott says it, and then you got Barack Obama basically saying, I'm not trying to disparage Tim Scott as he disparages Tim Scott.

Absolutely. So there are two prevailing narratives for disparity in the United States. One is the so-called systemic racism narrative, which the Democrats favor, but ironically enough, it's the Democrats that continue to engage in systemic racism. The other narrative is the development narrative. The development narrative says you focus on what Martin Luther King focused on, which is fatherhood, strong families. You graduate from high school.

You don't have children before marriage. If you have those three things going for you, you will be a middle-class American. And if you look, for instance, at the state of Idaho, this is instructive to the Democratic Party and to the American people. In the state of Idaho, the average African-American income exceeds the income of white Americans.

Why? Because they focus largely on the development narrative. Their income is equal to 106% of white income in the state of Idaho. And you see this coming through loud and clear in many other states.

The ethnic group that has achieved the largest number of graduate degrees, law degrees, and medical degrees in the United States today, that ethnic group includes Nigerian Americans. And so the whole racism narrative that the Democrats continue to push is basically a backward-looking narrative that fails to account for the Democratic Party's insidious racial history. I think when it comes to Tim Scott, Barack Obama is pretty quiet these days when it comes to politics. He sometimes weighs in on cultural things. But it's like Harry said, he had to take a swipe.

He tried to, you know, I'm not taking a swipe, but I must. Because there's a real, I think there is a real hatred in the Democrat Party for those Tim Scotts who just defeat their entire narrative just by existing. Support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll talk to you next time on Secular.