Schiff’s Trump Lies Come Back to Haunt Him

Today on Sekulow, Adam shifts, Trump lies, come back to haunt him. 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're taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. You might have seen yesterday, the Democrats chanting, Adam, Adam, Adam on the floor. Congress said, shame to Republicans. And that is because Adam Schiff was finally, and I say finally because he should have been held in contempt a long time ago and censured by Congress, which is a specific move.

It is serious. It doesn't mean that he is going to be removed, but it means he could be removed from Congress. There's likely not the votes.

If you go to the Constitution, it requires two-thirds. So, unfortunately, I don't think enough Democrats will be honest with themselves. And knowing that this guy was literally as the Intel chairman and why he got censured is because he kept going out in public and saying he had evidence that he did not have. He had proof that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. He had proof. He had whistleblowers he was supposedly talking to who had evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. Even yesterday, during the Durham hearing, he's still doubling down on Donald Trump Jr. getting a phone call from somebody who happened to be Russian saying, I've got dirt on a political opponent, as if that is somehow groundbreaking.

And Durham said, it's not. People get phone calls, especially in campaigns, always with people offering information. Most of the time, it's bogus.

They're just trying to get money. So, he gave the official Congressional record as fact. He supported the FISA awards on American citizens, even though we now know that those FISA awards were doctored and information was doctored before. So, the reason he got censured was because he never said, I was wrong.

He never said, I was misled. In fact, there's no indication that Adam Schiff was being misled. He, as Intel chairman, would have had all of the information. That the FBI would have had, including all the information that was exculpatory.

They may not have been sharing that publicly, but he would have had access to it before making claims. Remember, Adam Schiff was not able to bring an impeachment charge against Donald Trump involving Russia. That failed. He wasn't even able to convince Democrats, who had a majority in the House, to bring an impeachment on Russia because there was no evidence.

It all crumbled. It was so salacious. Remember the accounts that they were accusing President Trump of? It wasn't just being a Russian agent.

It was all these acts that were just unbelievably salacious. No facts. No verification. And, in a sense, Adam Schiff was doing the bidding of Russia. You've got to flip this on them and tell the truth. When you get up there and make that kind of accusation, you're almost building Russia up. That has to be an intelligence system, as if they really had the ability to bring up a U.S. individual, turn them into a Russian asset. That person happens to be one of the most high-profile people, if not the most high-profile person, who's ever run for President in history, who is now a Russian agent, whose sole purpose was to elevate Russia, even though we were sanctioning Russia more while he was President. And there wasn't conflict when he was President because he was willing to get on the phone. He was willing to get on the phone, trying to hold the Ukrainians to account.

Instead of sending $400 million over to you while you give $10 million of that back to the Biden family, maybe I'd like to know, what are you doing with the Biden family? That's what Donald Trump got at peaceful, is asking the question that everyone now is talking about as fact, that at least the money was exchanged. We know Hunter was on the board of Burisma. That's not an allegation. That's fact. We also know Donald Trump was not a Russian agent. That's fact. It's being investigated, and Adam Schiff knew it from the beginning.

So now he's been held in, he's been censured. We can talk about that. We want your calls. 1-800-684-3110. What I'm worried about is that Democrats are about to elevate Adam Schiff to the U.S. Senate in California. I want to take your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

What do you think should happen to Adam Schiff? Be right back on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. I would say this too. I think I can say this fairly. Adam Schiff was one of the impeachment prosecutors from the House, and I would say of all the Democrat members, they were all doing it, I think, out of bad faith at impeachment. So I'm not going to give them any credit for saying that they really believed what they were doing. That's why they weren't convincing.

Because it looked like they were just doing it for politics in a show, instead of actual impeachable offenses that are serious enough that rise to that level. He was the nastiest person as part of that team. He is not just a political foe who leaves it out on the field. He takes it really personally. He's nasty, behind the scenes. He's a jerk. I don't know how he treats his own staff, but I would imagine not great.

I don't know if there's been allegations of that, but I think there's been some issues with the intel staff. At least he throws them under the bus. But the idea is, again, one concern here is that while we see this so clearly as just a liar, take out the fact that he's a Democrat. Let's just say he was an opponent of Donald Trump. Let's say he was a Republican, never a Trumper.

Just a liar. He can't go against Donald Trump for actual disagreements he has with him, like just policy disagreements, or just beat him in elections. Instead, you have to remove him. You have to allege that he's done all these horrendous acts in Russia, and that he's also a Russian agent. And you literally go on TV claiming that you have evidence that you don't have, to the point where Republican members of the House Intel Committee, who again, would usually have deference to fellow members of Congress from the other party, knowing that yes, publicly, they would oftentimes have disagreements. But on serious national security issues, that would overcome partisan politics.

But we don't live in that world anymore. We live in a world now where security and the idea of do you have a document, do you have this evidence, is just used as politics. I mean, listen to Adam Schiff, how many times he lied in Congress, so officially, not just on television, but on television too.

Take a listen. This is about as clear evidence you could find of intent by the campaign to collude with the Russians. Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help, and the President made full use of that help. There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion. There is ample evidence of collusion. It got to the point yesterday where Anderson Cooper asked him, do you regret it?

Literally, this is yesterday. Do you have any regrets on how you handled the Russia issue? Obviously, the former President was never criminally implicated for anything involving Russia.

No, not at all. I think the investigation of his misconduct was very important. He lied again. Well, the investigation was very important, even if there was no proof there. What was the misconduct, too? He just said the investigation of the misconduct.

That's true. There was no misconduct because your investigation, you didn't even, Mueller came up with nothing and said there was nothing. Then Durham comes and says, you made it all up. So we have two special counsels, one saying there was nothing there, the other saying not only was there nothing there, you made it all up and you knew it from the beginning. And Adam Schiff is still holding on, and this tells me a lot about Democrats. This is what I want to talk to you about. Maybe you have friends who are Democrats, maybe not many more.

Used to, you would have more friends on both sides, yeah. They, honest to God, still believe this. They love Adam Schiff. They think he's some hero. I don't think you're a hero for being, one, a failure, so accusing your political opponent of something serious and not having the evidence on and not being able to deliver an impeachment. He couldn't.

He failed. So why do they keep propping him back up? Now they're going to possibly elevate him to U.S. Senate. My hope is that he's not liberal enough for California and Adam Schiff becomes a footnote in history, not even a footnote.

Yeah, hopefully that's what we see. My little concern is definitely that that's not the case and that, as you said, he's kind of become hero-worshipped in some ways, which is a weird thing, like you said, to someone who hasn't necessarily pulled off a lot of the things he claims to have. Has really been proven false over and over again and it's been, like you said, someone who's not necessarily the most likable guy, so much so that you do have this much pushback for him within his own party, when he's trying to move forward. However, they love to hero-worship and I wouldn't be surprised to see him around for the majority of our lives.

No. I mean, I would hope maybe in California it doesn't work statewide, but it seems like yesterday, I mean, they're on the floor chanting his name. They're chanting shame on Republicans. To me it's the same way as I've always cared when I did a Newsmax hit this morning, is don't go on there and over-promise what law can do. Don't over-promise what investigations can do. Don't over-promise what a censure can do in Congress.

I can tell you what is the outcome. The Ethics Committee can vote to then have a larger vote on the House floor to expel you, but the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote. So is that going to happen? It's like, is Joe Biden going to be convicted if the House impeached him? Is he going to be convicted in the Senate? No. I can tell you that because I can do math. Should it be that simple?

Probably not. We shouldn't be able to just determine these things before they're even explained, but after going through partisan impeachments personally and seeing it that way, that's all it is. It's a partisan impeachment. Personally, I understand the idea of impeaching Joe Biden. I don't know if there's enough solid evidence to convince anybody who's on the fence. So maybe there's enough for Republicans, but I don't even know if there's enough for all Republicans. Some of those moderates, and then are you really going to be able to convince a Democrat?

So I also think Adam Schiff should be guilty inside his own party of overselling what he could do, and he actually made them kind of a laughingstock. Maybe not to the hardcore Democrat, Logan, but I think the average person, he's seen as a lunatic. Like kind of a weirdo, obsessive with Donald Trump.

Does he do anything but Donald Trump? Well, it seems like you turn on CNN. It's always still, that's what they're talking about. How often do you flip on and not hear a January 6th?

They're not here. Those are on repeat, it feels like on CNN, and have been for now years. We're already around almost to another Presidential election, and they're still talking about it.

And I think that we'll see how it goes, but people do tend to seem to feel like he's some sort of unsung hero, but maybe you're right. Maybe there is a pushback that I'm unfamiliar with, but I feel like the more aggressive you get, and the more social following, the Twitter Democrats are the ones who maybe he's listening to the most. Yeah, this is him on the House floor.

He loves this. In a sense, it's kind of like impeaching Trump also makes Trump the only news story. So you have to be careful when you take these actions on, because you will put this person front and center.

So do you think you're going to have enough front and center to damage them? He doesn't think so, Adam Schiff. Take a listen. To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you. You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth tellers, and I stand proudly before you. To me, this underscores the hatred. Now, maybe it's not everybody. I'm not talking about all people and all voters, but when you get to the upper echelons of politics and you're actually, you really cannot no longer befriend the other side, because you have to realize if you're a mainstream Democrat, you're embracing this guy, Adam Schiff. So the nastiness that he speaks of, like, this is not just about me.

I thank you. You're a bunch of liars. He just got up on the House floor after being censured for lying and called the other group lying, but we actually have evidence that he lied. He's talking about the election in 2020. Half those members of Congress weren't even there. And you no longer, like you said, have that world where they work together symbiotically and everyone gets along at lunch. It doesn't feel like that exists anymore.

It doesn't feel like that exists in society, sadly, anymore. Maybe we're more of a reflection on what happened politically, because I think it did in Washington, but now your constituents cannot accept that. So Adam Schiff cannot sit down with a Republican for lunch.

If people got pictures of that, it would kill his career. And like, if you flashback 25 years, if you go back to like a Clinton era, like a Bill Clinton era presidency, but also, let's say pre-impeachment, it was a very different time when it comes to the way Republicans and Democrats could work together. Even the impeachment was taken more seriously. Right. Because the allegations of just a President lying under oath, that was serious enough. Democrats ultimately voted against conviction, but they weren't all like, you're the worst people in the world. That's more what I'm talking about. It was a different vibe, but that's all changed really in the last decade and really in the last five years, I'd say even more so, where it's not just the people getting more divided, it's also DC getting more divided.

And there's no longer really a path for a conservative to be liked on the media. No. Or in the world.

And it's sad that you have to stop doing that. Unless you're a Denver Trumper. Yes. But only to an extent. Remember, if that Denver Trumper got to the top, it's like how Mike Pence is popular again. Let's all be honest. Mike Pence is more conservative than Donald Trump.

Oh, yeah. Socially conservative at least. Traditionally Republican conservative. To a point where he's not even outside where the party is now.

I'd say he's more socially conservative than where the party is. And they put him on scene like he's a hero because he disagreed with Donald Trump some. Do you think if Mike Pence got to the top that they're going to keep doing that to him? No, they're going to, remember they boycotted his entire state. Yeah, he was the most evil.

Yes. Because of his social conservative. Because of the entire state. They left the NCAA tournament.

Indiana, basketball state. They left because of Mike Pence. Because. Because he was pro-traditional marriage. No, I'm saying because he didn't do what President Trump asked. He's a hero for a moment.

He's now a hero for a second. And that's the problem, too, is you're playing to a crowd who is never going to really like you. No, you're not going to get their vote.

No. I don't know what the waste of time is. Why even go?

I get why Donald Trump, you go on and you can say like, look, I'm bigger and better than you. Other than for that reason, going on there to make nicey-nice makes me sick. We'll take your calls.

Maybe it makes you sick, too. 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Secular.

Take your calls to 1-800-684-3110. Tulsi Gabbard is coming up later in the broadcast as well. We're going to talk about Hunter Biden and this new move by China. And I want to ask her because of her military experience and ongoing military experience, this move by China to open up a base inside Cuba. It's like this constant reminder of what has gone wrong with that U.S. foreign policy. That we can't figure out how to deal with this island nation and turn it around to where our enemies are still not able to access it so easily. And then put their threat right on our – I mean, it's literally more of a threat than some places in Mexico, it's close. You can see it from parts of America.

You go to Key West. And we know that they're so isolated economically, Logan, that they will literally take it from whoever. So whatever adversary comes along – it used to be the Russians, now it's the Chinese – they're going to say yes to it.

We make a bunch of steps forward there and I feel like we make giant leaps back. It doesn't make any sense. I would love to see some sort of resolution there, but it's sad and scary.

Because it is right there. I don't know if the policy is too rigid. Yes, it's post-Castro now. Post the family.

It didn't stay within the family. It has stayed within a dictatorship. It is an oppressive military regime. But we work with plenty of oppressive military regimes around the world.

Maybe too many. So if we do, what is the reason why we keep this one so isolated that our enemies are then able to exploit it? I mean, if you've got more proof of bad action, I almost feel like they've got to – why? Why are we doing this to them? It seems like an old policy is now coming back to haunt us. It's old news. You can never hear about it.

Until something like this starts to happen. Well, then they opened our embassy and then there was that whole issue with are they using that radio technology or microwave technology and everyone was getting Havana syndrome? And then the CIA came out and said it doesn't exist.

I don't know whether you want to trust the CIA on that, but they basically said there wasn't an intentional move. But if it's just – if it is a hotbed of just wrongdoing, why not go in and clean it up? Why not offer them a deal they can't refuse? We're the United States. We should be able to offer an island nation a deal. So we'll talk about that with Tolstoy.

We'll talk about Hunter, the two system of adjustments. Listen, I think that after all of these years, I think with Durham you were talking about it yesterday. There's a lot of wrongdoing there. But I think as he pointed out, it's not necessarily criminal wrongdoing. It's people not following – it's exploiting policies to the point where you have to question whether or not these institutions can work because either we have to like go in in law and criminalize all behavior, which is not really a conservative idea to put more crimes on the books. But if you can't follow basic policies of investigation and you're just being used for political purposes, then how do you ever get – how do you really reform that? Do you just have to one day say we're doing away with this and we'll restart something that would carry out the function that we needed to, which is law enforcement, terrorism?

I mean I think in post 9-11 the whole idea of the FBI changed and like they went on a power spree and they never would give it up. They got all those powers under the Patriot Act. They got all the powers under the FISA court. When does FISA have to be renewed?

It's pretty soon. FISA has to be renewed. And it'll be interesting to see does Congress end up just rolling over and saying here because they get threatened by them to say, well, if we don't have this power, 9-11 will happen again and we can't prevent it. So they always go to Congress with that threat.

So it's going to take a pretty bold Congress to say we're going to do away with you or that we'll actually reform you. And one of these issues too, we talk about Cuba and we'll talk about it later in the broadcast. The Indian prime minister is here today. You never hear about India as really, obviously it's a developing world country so there's a lot of issues economically. There's slums and there's a lot of people living in poverty, hundreds of millions of people in poverty. And so of course things are not perfect there.

But you also hear most of these about business and the economic relationship. You don't think of them as being particularly an oppressor when it comes to religious liberty, when Pakistan is next door. Yeah, India we think of largely as our friend. Yeah, and I think globally they are.

Probably is, yeah. Because we have lots of economic alliance with them, military alliances with them. But we work in Pakistan too. So I would say both of those countries were able to play a very important role with those two nuclear powers. Their nuclear weapons are not pointed at anybody else but each other. And we're able to play a role economically and have more influence there. But you don't think of them as being one of the top oppressive countries in the world for Christians because I don't think that's the way it's just perceived. Which is maybe a good job by the Indian government but also this idea that maybe that's not the top of the list when it comes to India. We do a lot of work there. We have an organization that does humanitarian work there that my wife oversees, One Life Movement, for kids in the slums.

And I will tell you, you have to be very careful about how you move forward. And people may not realize that about how you move forward about your faith. You cannot advertise as you are going to indoctrinate your child. Mission work, yeah. You have to have a separate purpose.

I wouldn't call it secular, totally. Humanitarian. Humanitarian purpose. Then if they want to have the conversation, like who are these people helping?

Then you can kind of open a door. And there are parts of India that are less oppressive than others. Some of it's regional.

Some of it is when you get outside of major cities. I mean India also has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. It's not because Muslims aren't going to be anywhere near the majority there.

It's just because it's one of the biggest countries in the world and there is some religious diversity. So the Indian Prime Ministers here, this is when I get a little frustrated with Cuba. It's like, we're not going to cut India off. They're not like China. They do some work with China. They do some things that we don't necessarily agree with foreign policy. But our strategy with India is we would keep working with countries like this, point out when they are doing things wrong.

But not totally give up on a relationship like that. So the thing to me is how can we not figure out the Caribbean? It just doesn't make sense to me. No, yeah. I mean in your extent it's our neighbors.

It's right there. It's something that could be economically thriving probably. It's a real problem.

Yeah. But Haiti doesn't pose the same risk. They have a lot of internal problems. Externally they're not an enemy of the United States. They're massive internal problems. They're not an enemy of us. They're run by a mob essentially. They're not an enemy of the United States. No, they don't pose any threat to the United States. No, not like this. No, not where it would be if you visited you would be threatened. But yes, if not externally, no.

Not exporting. It just seems like is it just those old people at the State Department, they have a policy and they will not divert from it. Until the Cubans do, they have to do all these things. They're not going to totally reform overnight. And also look at the world. Like you said, we're working with plenty of countries that are not reformed and have not reformed.

Probably less. Yeah. I think it's a pretty serious – obviously we have a lot of Cuban exiles. Maybe we need to take more advice from them. I know that they don't want to support this regime. But the idea is too, I've got to look at the bigger picture which is do I want this regime putting a Chinese military base there? Is there not a deal I can make with them that would say economically it would be so beneficial to that Cuban government they would say no to the Chinese at least? I think people even have a – We've got to outplay the Chinese. You have a Guantanamo Bay.

I think people also ask, well how does that all work? It's very complicated. Yeah, it's not something – We occupy a very small part of the island. Right. With a prison. With our off – The Ron DeSantis was an – Off US territory prison. Yeah.

So we don't have to abide by the laws of the United States. Right. The Ron DeSantis work.

You get to play that Pantera very loud. Yeah. Luke, we've got another half hour coming up. We'd love to hear from you. Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110 as you said, Jordan.

Tulsi Gabbard's joining us. I'm going to slow down that call read. 1-800-684-3110.

I know it by heart but you may not. But call us. We'd love to hear from you on the show today but also coming up in just a few minutes Tulsi Gabbard and we're going to go over some other content as well.

That's right. So give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. I'm going to talk to Schiff. We'll talk – if you still got calls about Durham and just kind of this whole idea of what can you actually do through the courts and what needs to be done through our elected officials. And I think that I would imagine at this point you're all realizing it can be very frustrating to think you can just do it through courts and so what can our legislators do? And obviously that's going to take more than just a slim Republican majority of the House of Representatives to see reform. But Lord knows we need a lot of reform in different areas. Very quickly. I don't think we can wait on these things much longer.

Sport the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. All right.

Welcome back. There is some breaking news because there's been a lot of attention on this submarine. And I kind of take – I'll take the great gun film position but you might say, oh my God, what is that? It's actually the position which is like I'm not going to be real judgmental.

People are going through a horrible situation right now, likely loss of life in a potentially horrendous way. And I think you can judge the company after the fact. But the people who did this and they're kind of like sometimes they make fun of these people because it costs a lot of money.

I always say this. The people who are groundbreaking and risk takers do usually have to spend the more money early on and take the risk that goes with it, whether that's going to space, SpaceX. Don't be so critical of these folks and then be supportive of Elon Musk. We used to celebrate the explorers.

Because half his rockets blow up, if not more. We used to celebrate the explorers and those who put their money in changing the world. But a lot of explorers are wealthy people because they have to have resources to put behind things that might fail and risk their life. So I'm not going to mock these people who made this decision to try new things. I think there will be an investigation over that. But there is breaking news, Logan, on this. Yeah, there is breaking news.

And that is a debris field has been found within the search area that they've been searching for the sub. So likely, I mean, it seems like they wouldn't even break into this as much if this wasn't maybe more confirmed. So we will go into it. We're not going to spend a ton of time on it here.

That's not why you listen to this show. But I know a lot of people are watching and have been following the story. So, I mean, sadly, it looks like that this is a good chance.

This is sort of the end of the story. And that is that likely they found at least portions of something that could be this submarine. So very sad for their families. And like you said, these explorers take big risks. And a lot of times those risks end up with loss of life. And it's really horrible. But if you don't have people, as you said, willing to spend the money to do these kind of things used to be something that we we praised here in this country or in the world, really.

Whether that was an Elon or whether that's the guys from Virgin or any of these people who are willing to try new things, even though they know they may end up either loss of life or with just egg on their face. But instead, we've just decided to kind of move to a world where they get mocked. But we'll move on from it. But we'll keep you updated. We do know a lot of people have been tuning in and asking those questions.

So for those who are covering from the news, a debris field has been found within the area of search, in the area where they believe the submarine may have been. All right. So there we go. We go back to the phones. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Kevin in South Carolina, who is calling on Line 1. You're on the air. Hello.

How are we all today? Hey, Kevin. I was listening to the Durham meeting yesterday and I thought the funniest part yesterday, there weren't very many funny parts, but the funniest part was when Durham responded to Schiff. He was talking about Don Jr. receiving phone calls from foreign agents and Durham said, well, you've got some experience with that, don't you? And you just kind of didn't expect Durham to say anything like that.

But I just about fell out of my rocker when I heard that. That whole incident when I think it was a Russian talk show. Yeah, they like prank called him. Prank called him on the air live and he didn't know it. And so he then takes a phone call from Russians.

I think we have it, right? With dirt. He's got dirt on. Russians calling Adam Schiff with dirt on President Trump.

He takes the call very seriously. He's like, write down the names. We have naked photos. It's like some silly kind of comment.

Nude photos of Donald Trump. And he's like, oh, what's his name? And it's like they made up some Russian name and he's writing that down. So he was just being punk. But the idea was there he goes. He will take a phone call from Russian agents to try and get dirt on who?

His political opponent. What he said was so over the line that people call you. This idea we say, criminalizing getting phone calls from people like you can control that people reaching out to you and you're going to be penalized. Why would they even call you?

Why would they do that? We should ruin your life over that. We should take you to court, indict you twice, impeach you twice.

The list goes on. But as we get it, we'll continue to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Do we have that set? We may be able to find it. Tulsa Garrett, those coming up.

Yep. Make sure you stay tuned. It's going to be a great rest of the show. Again, if you want to call in 1-800-684-3110. There are a lot of new people who are watching right now on Rumble and on YouTube. A lot of people on YouTube today. I'm going to ask you to click that subscribe button. We do this show each and every weekday with tons of extra content. Hi, welcome back to Secco. The next time we broadcast, take more of your phone calls too.

If you want to call in at 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. This is the time to do it because we'll screen all these calls. We'll get you all up on our computer system ready to go.

So when we're done with our next segment, we'll take you. And I think you might want to call in about a couple of these issues as well, whether it's Hunter Biden or the Chinese military training facility in Cuba. Tulsi Gabbard is joining us right now.

She's a contributor to Secular Broadcast. Tulsi, I want to talk to you first about this because, again, you're in the military. And this idea, it's pretty frustrating to us when we see maybe what is going on with this Cuba policy that we can't figure out. It's 100 miles off our coast, an island nation. Why can't we figure out some kind of deal that would make them, instead of being such an enemy of the United States, or willing to take resources from enemies of the United States?

So there's a new report that the Chinese military is going to put a training base, a joint training base with the Cubans and the Chinese, and it's 100 miles off our coast. And to me, it just feels like if that moves forward, it's a total diplomatic failure of the United States. And it seems maybe because we have bad policy towards Cuba and we're not willing to kind of rethink our strategy towards Cuba, instead of making it kind of demonizing it as this kind of country we can't work with, even as it's gone through generations of leaders.

But what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, Jordan, you know, there are, I want to take us kind of to take a step back farther and look at the many different examples as we look at our foreign policy with different countries around the world. What we see as a direct consequence of isolating different countries or putting draconian sanctions on them, not really looking at the world from a pragmatic realist perspective, but instead going around and using a stick to punish other countries that we say are not good or that are evil, but not looking at what are the effects of this? What are the consequences of this policy? When we question why are these other countries turning to those who we have an adversarial relationship with? Well, what do you think is going to happen when we isolate them from both the United States, but really any other countries that we do business with? So unfortunately, the United States foreign policy has been largely based on it's us or them. You're either on the side of democracy or on the side of autocracy. And I think it's interesting when you look at the relationship with India, you know, President Biden just had his big welcome for Prime Minister Modi and a state dinner.

He's addressing Congress. This has been a tough challenge for President Biden and his team to stick with their kind of puritanical democracy versus autocracy approach because India is the largest democracy in the world. But they also have a policy of building relationships and doing business with any other country. They don't they don't actually have treaty allies intentionally. And so they do business with the United States. They do business with Russia. They do business with other countries that the United States is sanctioning. And it's put the United States in a pretty tough spot because of that.

So all of that is to say, whether it's Cuba or any of these other countries, we need leaders who have foresight and who are actually looking at, hey, before we advance a certain policy or sanctions, which we know really almost never have the intended effect. And there's many unintended negative consequences, both on innocent people as well as our country. Before we do these things, we should really put on our realism glasses and understand what will the consequences of this be both in the near term as well as in the long term? And does it actually serve the interests of the American people and our country? We got to stop having a foreign policy that's just focused on, well, we got to go punish this guy and punish that bad guy and punish this country. How does that actually help us? How does it help the American people?

How does it help our security and our economy? Those are the questions that our leaders need to be asking themselves and making their decisions based on that rather than just running around the world with a big stick trying to be the world's police. It's said it's like I think we need to talk about India, too.

It kind of gets to this size. And at first they're developing countries. I mean, you can look at China. It's kind of not similar in the sense of politically.

But this is you'd look at their development. It's not really it's a real threat to us. It's economically important. So we'll just kind of look the other way. And then we don't really discuss those bigger issues and then it gets almost too big to figure out. It's too big to take on because you can't actually give up the economic relationships. You've given up a lot of your diplomatic power. But it comes to a country the size of Cuba. And I do know we have a lot of Cuban dissidents in our country who do not want us working with this oppressive regime. I understand that.

But it seems like there's ways forward that we're just not utilizing. I want to go to the Hunter Biden because I know you've been talking about this, too. I saw the five yesterday time at the two tier system of justice.

It's unfortunate to even use that kind of language about our own country. But I think people have now gotten enough experience through the last few years of seeing how, you know, someone like Paul Manafort is, again, not a huge name. But a political consultant could end up in solitary confinement over a fairer violation, which is a how you register if you are doing work for a foreign government. It literally ends up in solitary confinement, ultimately gets pardoned by President Trump's release, but never fully vindicated. And yet if you're Hunter Biden, there's actual crimes committed. It really is a slap on the wrist.

I'm not even sure when this is ultimately done, it's even going to be a slap on the wrist. Yeah, you know, you mentioned the fairer violations. When you look at what Hunter Biden has been charged with and the things that he's looking at, the things that he's agreeing to plead guilty on, the things that he's hoping will get swept under the rug.

None of them have anything to do with his relationships with other countries and how he's exploited his position and his father's position to advance his own his own economic interests. And I know part of the investigation was supposed to be about potential fairer violations, but apparently that that didn't occur. And the fact that his his attorney was on TV saying, well, I don't even know if they they looked at the contents of the laptop.

The laptop never really even came up. So it you know, this whole thing has. Yes, you're right. It is evidence of this two tiered justice system. You know, one one way of special treatment for those who are part of the power elite and those in power. And then another way for those who are political opponents of that power elite or just, you know, for the rest of us in this country.

I totally understand why people are frustrated, rightly so, with the unfairness of this. But the bigger consequence here is that the more we see this exploitation of our justice system for personal or political ambitions by those in power, the less we the people can have faith in the rule of law. The consequences of that cannot be underestimated because our ability to have law and order and prevent total chaos and anarchy is centered on the rule of law. We cannot become like a dictatorship where those in power direct their law enforcement, national security agencies and judicial system against political enemies here in the United States of America. Once we do that, we lose who we are as a country.

We lose the freedoms that really define us, that their country was founded on. I think there's a couple of minutes left, but this idea, too, which I think is the goal of one side here, which is to make it out to be is basically to scare people out of talking about these issues. So if they if they show you enough examples of, well, this is what happens to you, but it's not going to happen to us, maybe you'll just shut up and go away and you'll be afraid of getting involved in politics. You'll be afraid of speaking out. And I think that's the biggest harm that comes from this. So we see it time and time again at the ACLJ where there's issues we'll get involved in where we're taking on the government, we're head on and people are less likely to sign their name to a petition because they're a little bit afraid of taking it, putting their name onto that government institution or putting their name out there.

But I think that that's the whole goal of this is to scare you into silence. And you're right, this is not just happening to people with the last name Biden or the people with the last name Trump when we look at examples of that two tier justice system, it's also happening in many cases to people who are peaceful pro-life protesters. And I know you guys are representing some of these cases or have in the past where the FBI is choosing to go after and enforce so-called crimes that frankly haven't been committed by a peaceful pro-life protester outside of an abortion clinic, choosing to go after and kick down the door in these people's homes in the middle of the night, but not choosing to go and prosecute those who were perpetrating incredible violence and harm and attacks on law enforcement. In the midst of these Black Lives Matter protests and riots, the two tiers of this justice system are happening at the very highest levels, but they're also happening on our streets and they're happening in our communities. And it's clear that they are being motivated by political objectives, political interests, and this is just what is causing such disillusionment and lack of trust, frankly, in the system and those who are making decisions.

I appreciate you joining us and weighing in on all those issues. These are complicated issues for the country, whether it's the Cuban policy, but then hear about the Chinese or these issues of justice and how we speak out, not to just be frustrated, understanding, take the frustration on them. We're like, okay, it's time to move, time to fight back, time to make reforms, make the changes we need. I think we see that with the FBI and places like that, even if it means kind of starting over. It's not the idea that we don't need these law enforcement agencies and we don't need this in the federal government.

Maybe, you know, changing the name and changing the idea and changing the structure. Looking at laws before you reauthorize them is important to do because we've seen how they can be weaponized against Americans and not just enemies of America. 1-800-684-3110 to join us on the air. We come back for this next break. That's 1-800-684-3110. More kind of dangerous foreign policy news, which we've become kind of used to in the Biden administration. This time with Iran, back with another Iran nuclear deal. Why is the question?

Why right now? We'll be taking your phone calls on that too. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on the air. We do have calls on Adam Schiff. I do want to take this because people do get very frustrated with they see the censure in Congress. That is a bigger deal.

I mean, I think you go through a list. There's only been like eight or nine of these in the last since 1979. So it's not a normal move by Congress to take this step. It's not something that they've totally politically weaponized. The last person this happened to was Paul Gosar, who apologizes because he shared that video with AOC.

It was like a fake video, but she got physically attacked in it. They ultimately actually apologized and made nice, but he was cintured for that. You go back into history and it gets a little bit things that probably you wouldn't be cintured for now, except for a couple of other types of bribery, other crimes. But you were right in saying that, and I think you were really correct in saying the same thing with this impeachment attempt that's going on right now. We don't have all the evidence yet. By the way, they've lowered the bar to impeachment so low that you can impeach for anything. But you're not going to get a conviction. We know that.

We've done them. There's no one to convince. There was no one, even in that situation, in the first or second impeachment, the second impeachment, I think it was tougher because there were more people turning, even though it was ridiculous because there was no... People are hostile. There was also, he wasn't the President anymore, so there was also the idea of it doesn't even matter what they were voting for. But it was a more hostile environment, and yet still you don't really have anybody to convince because when you have no...

It's just made up and there's not an actual crime. It just becomes partisan politics, so you could break down the votes basically by party registration and maybe get a couple crossovers one way or the other. Let's go to Carol's call in California, online one. And Carol, one question is, too, is Adam Schiff, will he become your next U.S. Senator? Hello. I want Adam Schiff to go to jail.

You know, I'm in California and I've been a witness to the deterioration that's taken place in my state, in my city, you know, in the cities that I'm used to traveling to. Is there any reason why he wouldn't be able to go to jail? Let me say a couple things and then... And Jordan can handle the political side. First of all, there has to be a crime, and not telling the truth in a media statement is not a crime. So you don't go to jail for a misstatement to... No, in Congress it would really just be the... Well, then you got the speech and debate clause that also protects them constitutionally, so there's no... And the Department of Justice isn't going to bring an action against Adam Schiff, so that's not going to happen. Let me say something about California for a second, because it's still, for the ACLJ, our largest group of donors. For the entire organization, we're a global organization, it's still California.

We started with a lot of donors from California because of our relationship with Jews for Jesus and TBN and those organizations, so we've always had a California base, but it's still our strongest base. So I appreciate your state, I appreciate what you're going through, I know you've got difficulties, but you can't put them in jail because you don't like what they say. But you don't have to elect them to the next US Senator either. Right, we don't have to keep giving them power. And like Congress did, they did remove them from the Intel Committee. Republicans were able to do that and say... And I think they had a legitimate, very legitimate case to that, which is you misused your position in the Intel Committee. And even Durham pointed out, he was taking phone calls from Russians hoping they had dirt on Donald Trump. He literally took a phone call, and it was of course a talk show in Russia mocking him, but this idea too, he still obsessed with the Russians, he won't apologize to this day. No.

Won't even acknowledge he was wrong. Well that's just if you deny him long enough, you pass the lie detector test, the old story, so I mean that's exactly what it is. Should we play the phone call? Sure.

We should play. Remember that it was the woman who was the attorney who we don't even know if she was actually a real... Lawyer. Russian FSB or not. But all she did was get into a meeting where they said, this is a crazy person, and everybody left. Yep.

That was it. That was the only time there was even a Russian involved for everybody else. But Adam Schiff during this, which is wild that his staff... He's the main Intel staff. Remember he used to make up phone transcripts?

Oh yeah. When they had the actual transcript. He'd say all the time he has evidence.

I said that a lot on the floor of the Senate. This was a phone call that came in. You would think he has staff. He's the Intel chair at this point.

So he's doing a lot of... He's handling a lot of classified information, a lot of phone calls. You would not just probably put him on the phone with some random Russian who called in, but yet you realize it's still at the House of Representatives, and their staff's mostly 25 years old, and they're not so smart, and they're not so great, and they're not so street smart, I would say. Really not street smart. Is there a street smart? Not street smart. They go to fancy schools, they get the jobs right out of college, so they think, oh, we're getting this phone call for the Russians on Donald Trump. This was absurd, but listen to how Adam Schiff take it so seriously.

He didn't realize this is a junk call right from the start. She met with Trump, and she brought him one hour Russian girl, celebrity Olga Buzova, who also known as a person with a strange reputation. Olga, and how do you spell her name?

Olga Buzova. The nature of the compromise. Well, there were pictures of naked Trump. And so Putin was made aware of the availability of the compromising material? Yes, of course.

Thank you very much. We will be back in touch with you through our staff to make arrangements to obtain these materials for our committee and for the FBI, and I appreciate your reaching out to us. First of all, what you just said is, what staff member allowed this? That's why, too, his committee should have, if they thought that was legitimate, the only person should be is the FBI. Yeah, and the investigators of the committee. He should be doing that himself.

But here's the thing I don't understand, and I do not understand this. He talks about compromise, like as if this was some real thing. It's so obviously a setup, and he fell for it, but that is okay with any questions, you know, when other people get a phone call. Yes, it's criminalizing phone calls, criminalizing the idea of people reaching out to you, and you're in a public campaign role, just like Adam Schiff. You can figure out the phone numbers, and you can put a call in, and he got burned by it. He's not realizing, okay, this is stupid politics, move on.

But the seriousness he takes is writing names down to people. Again, this is what scared me. The problem is that these are the people that are working on these major foreign policy things, like why the Chinese are going to end up with a base 100 miles off our shore.

And they're going to. Because we can't figure out how to deal with a country the size of Cuba. Because we stuck with a policy we had in 1961. There's no Castro left in power. No, I mean, there are dictators there. Yes, but not the… But it's not the same regime. So how do you work the regime to get a result which would mean no military base in Cuba from the Chinese Communist Party?

You can buy that off. But when you have a President that is weak on foreign policy, that does not cause his enemies to be concerned, they do things like invade Ukraine and maybe go into Taiwan. And then we say, well, our policy is one China, but we will defend Taiwan with munitions even though we believe in a one China policy.

And none of this makes any real sense, but I think we have to be clear. When you have leadership that is weak, which we do have, this is what you get. Kennedy's back in politics, maybe another bet. This is how you get to those scenarios where you have the initial crisis. You let the Chinese put a base 100 miles off your coast. They're your number one military competitor right now in the world, if you don't want to say enemy competitor, certainly.

They're the only ones that can match us with attack. And then we're seeing, we only have a minute left, they're back to the Iran deal. They're going to try to push that through right before the election too because they use it as a goal. They think they'll be able to check a box like this is good.

But even under the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the time frame is now a couple of years. So it's ridiculous. All it is is politics. We should not be doing deals with Iran.

Period. I feel like, why can't we do a deal with Cuba first? Why don't we start there? Deal with an island nation 100 miles off our coast. That could really cause us problems if we're not careful. It's a serious problem because they're open to taking anybody who will support them economically, anything. It's like, I feel like we could write that check as a country. And it wouldn't even cost the taxpayers that much. And we could solve the problem for so many of the dissidents that live here and so many of the people who have had to flee and figure that relationship out. It might not be perfect from the start, but it seems so ridiculous that we're talking about Cuba still as a threat to the United States of America. That's where the Biden administration has put us back to. This is what their policies take us back to. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.