Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: CNN Leaks Trump Iran Recording

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
June 27, 2023 1:12 pm

BREAKING: CNN Leaks Trump Iran Recording

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1042 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


June 27, 2023 1:12 pm

CNN is reporting that they’ve obtained an audio recording of a 2021 meeting where President Trump discussed details, and allegedly displayed classified documents regarding Iran. According to CNN, “The special counsel’s indictment alleges that those in attendance – a writer, publisher and two of Trump’s staff members – were shown classified information about the plan of attack on Iran.” Jordan and the Sekulow team discuss this breaking news and more today on Sekulow.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Breaking news today on Sekulow as CNN leaks the Trump audio recording on Iran. We'll have the recording to play for you and we'll discuss the legal implications today on Sekulow.

Alright, we have got a lot to talk about today on Sekulow. There is breaking news involving President Trump and that is leaked audio. It appears like this leak would likely come from the author of one of the authors who was helping Mark Meadows write his memoir as serving the President of the United States, ultimately as Chief of Staff, and meetings that you would do to people that were in the book they were writing about to get more information about. And it looks like this would be the author's recording because if it was President Trump's recording that would bring up a whole host of issues of like the DOJ leaking it out. No indication that's what happened here. The indication is that this author had it. And Dad, you said from the beginning there was not an order to this author or anyone else that had tapes not to release the tapes.

It was kind of interesting that they didn't do something like that. Everyone is talking about this major breach of protocol but from a protocol standpoint here is the situation. Apparently this was tapes of an interview that the President gave to the author that was working on the book for Mark Meadows, former Chief of Staff. President Trump had some of his staff in there. The author said he was recording it and eventually that tape ended up with the Special Counsel because they asked for tapes. And there's nothing that was prohibiting the owner of the tape, here the writer, from distributing that. He gave it to CNN. So it's out there. I think people are over-analyzing the significance of this or saying, oh, this is a bombshell.

I saw the commentators on CNN. You've got to listen to what it is to understand what he's saying and then realize that the burden of proof is still on the government to actually show this document existed and so far nobody has it. Yeah, we're going to play for you the entire exchange when we come back for the break so you don't want to miss that. So if you're watching on Rumble, on Facebook, on YouTube, share this right now.

We'll play for you but we're also going to break it down for you. This is audio that was just released, you may not have even heard it yet, between Donald Trump and this author who was writing the book for Mark Meadows and then one staffer who is unnamed. And again, to point out, this document that supposedly President Trump is mentioning does not yet exist. No one has been able to find it. The Special Counsel does not have it.

President Trump's legal team cannot locate it. I have a theory, I'll tell you when we come back for the break, about how he talks and how you would try to convince, because he was upset that Milley leaked that, that Milley said Donald Trump was trying to take over Iran and wanted this full-scale invasion of Iran. Folks, I've been around Donald Trump a long time. The guy is the most averse to war, only if necessary for America's interests, and if you can do anything but full-scale war and putting young American men and women in harm's way, you do that. And what did he do? He freaked Iran out by taking out Soleimani. He destroyed ISIS by limp special forces and ultimately killing al-Baghdadi. And he brought into the wars Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's exactly right. Now, we'll get into the particulars, but I can imagine we've had enough of those conversations in the White House to know how the President, I can tell you with what he said and what it means. And there's a reason they probably haven't found the document. You want to know what that reason is?

We'll talk to you about it after the break. But let me also say this. This was a guy that was risk averse to war, and he is right that the military leadership, he used to make this statement, he told this to me a number of times, they never met a war they didn't like.

And I think there's a lot of truth to that, and he was risk averse on war. There's no question. We're going to take everyone's call, but if you're watching on Facebook, YouTube, or Rumble, share this with your friend. We've got a lot of people that joined us even on Facebook.

It's interesting. We're going to play the audio, but I bet you're going to have some questions about this. So give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Will this affect your vote? What impact do you think this will have on the election, on the primary?

1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back on Sekulow. All right. So remember, right now the motions were due on this weekend, the pretrial motions. In the Trump trial. In the Trump trial.

And it's still scheduled to start August 14th. Now, a lot of that will be determined by motions that have been filed. I don't know if we've gotten a good sense yet of what exactly how. Some of those are broad. Some are, you know, usually you do the motion to dismiss and the broad kind of things. Some of these, I think they're going to look at some of the attorney-client privileges. Sure, they're going to look at the motions. There'll be motions for specificity as to the charges. Yeah.

What are you actually looking at here? The motion to dismiss is a big one. They're still scheduled for August. The government came back and said, we're not going to be ready in August. How about December or March? Trump's lawyers have said nothing so far publicly.

Yeah. I mean, I think if they're at that point, that part, I'd say how about after the election? How about after the election or force them to trial in August and they're not ready to go? But I would probably say wait until the election. Because the difference is, remember always when you're going up against the federal government, you have to remind yourself, they have as many resources as they want.

They can staff it up. Yeah. All right.

Regular stuff. I want to play for you this sound. So this is the key sound that they say is the smoking gun that Donald Trump kept classified documents to utilize them, which by the way, isn't really actually the charge. The charge is that he just had the documents.

There's a different charge for using the documents. Alan Dershowitz actually said, stop using the word espionage because even though it falls under the Espionage Act, espionage is the second part of the act, which carries much higher penalties. And that's already tainting the jury pool by saying espionage, espionage, espionage, when in fact, this is a crime that doesn't require any kind of giving over of information to people.

They're saying this is that evidence. Now I want you to just take a listen closely. You all know how President Trump talks. We're going to break it down for you in two bites so we can explain each as they go. Here's Donald Trump.

This is in July of 2021. These are bad, sick people. That was your coup, you know, against you. Well, it started right at the beginning. Like when Millie's talking about, oh, you were going to try to do a coup. No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in.

That's right. Trying to overthrow your election. Well, with Millie, let me see that.

I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't it amazing?

I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came out. Look, this was him. They presented me this.

This is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. Wow.

We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me.

This was him. All sorts of stuff. It's pages long. Wait a minute. Let's see here.

Isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know, except it is highly confidential. Okay. Let me first of all say what this is in reference to.

That's part one. All this was, was General Millie had out there that Donald Trump wanted to attack Iran. Now, I could tell you, Jordan can tell you because we've been in that Oval Office a lot with him. This was a guy that the President was risk averse on war. Yeah.

He would only attack Iran if Iran was about to launch a nuclear missile into the United States. I really do believe that. And that's in response to Millie. So that part, there is nothing here. There's nothing in there that is illegal. There's nothing that... Now, Jack Smith is going to say, who he's already pointing to, that this document that he's allegedly holding is highly confidential secret. I haven't found it yet at that point.

He was slipping through things. They have not found it as far as we know at this point. I'm not sure he found it if you listen to the audio. He probably remembers the document from when he was in the White House because I'm sure they gave him a detailed plan. Yeah. That he didn't request.

Right. That's one thing he did not like. He did not like these military leaders constantly coming to him with war plans that he didn't ask for. Their job is to create war plans that he asks for. If he says, hey, could you give me some options if we need to do something bigger in Iran or if we need to do something bigger in named country, then they are supposed to... They're not supposed to be pressuring the President into more conflict. And I think what he did, when you look at the President's... His way of defense was to use special forces and then focus on the really bad actors. And if you can use a drone to get rid of them instead of playing... You'd rather do that.

Do that. And I mean, you look at the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, gone. Gone. And it threw Iran into a spin that they are just starting to... Only getting out of it now because the Biden administration is giving him rope to get out. Yeah.

They're going to play the second... This is the second part. And this is where they think this is the gotcha part. This is the smoking gun for the left. This is secret information. Look at this. You attack and... Hillary would print that out all the time.

She'd send it to Anthony Weiner, the pervert. He's pretty. By the way, isn't that incredible? Yeah. I'm just saying, because we're talking about it.

And he said he wanted to attack Iran and what? It's true. This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can probably... We'll have to see. We'll have to try to figure out a... See, as President, I couldn't be less. Now I can't. But this is... Now we have a problem.

Isn't that interesting? Yeah. So to me, I hear that. Dad, I'll get your thoughts.

To me, I hear that. One, I'm not sure if he ever found the document, because he keeps flipping through paper. I'm not sure. Then second, it's not clear that he actually showed it to the person. Here's what the left is harping on. And this is what Jack Smith's going to do in the proceedings. He does say these are not declassified. So that's number one.

So they're going to say, well, he didn't declassify the document. Number two, the staffer says, now we have a problem. But she's kind of half laughing when she says it. Right. But this is interesting. Now, you said... So is that the smoking gun?

It's smoke. I'm just not sure there's a gun. Which means the document... I'm not sure there's a document.

And if there's not a document, then this is hyperbole or puffing talk is not the way it goes. Well, he's trying to beat a narrative from Milley that said he was the one that wanted to invade Iran. Correct. Now, he came up with a story to this author. And this was the Mark Meadows bio? Yes. Was it released yet? Yes.

Did it have much about the Iran? A little bit. And there was not... So the author did. Yeah. Was convinced.

So, I mean, I think this was... To me, it was a Donald Trump special of... Yeah, hyperbole. Let me tell you something. It never came from me.

It came from Milley. Flip, flip, flip, flip, flip. Look at this stuff. I can't really show you this stuff, but it exists. And then... But they haven't found the document that... They don't find the document, but they have this.

What does it mean? I don't know if it's... I don't think it would be admissible. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it would be... His statement would be admissible as to what? You'd have to show that there's... You've got to show that the charge is the possession...

Right. Of retaining a classified document. So if I say, I've got this classified document here, but actually what I have is the rundown for our broadcast today. I didn't tell the truth if that was the way it came out, but that's not a crime. No.

So to me, that's interesting. You want to take a phone call? Yeah. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island on Line 1. Hey, Jerry. Good morning, team.

It's amazing. After every poll comes out where he's in front, they come out with this document. Yeah.

It just seems too convenient. It's almost every time there's a good poll, you can expect another accusation. I actually... And I just heard... Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

And actually I was... The things you were just talking about, if you were to attorney for the other side, would you try and get that statement in under one of the hearsay admissions? Yeah, I would try to get it in as an admission against interest is what it's called under the hearsay exception rules and criminal procedure that applies as well. The problem is, and I think the judge would have a difficult time allowing it in because if the document doesn't exist, then there's no... The allegation would just be... Puffery?

Yeah. But puffery is not a crime. It would show that he knew he didn't have the ability to declassify something now, but he knows he doesn't have the ability to do that. The difficulty with this is, and this is where I think this is fascinating the way it plays out is, the government has to be very careful here because if they make this a big part of the case, which I don't think they will.

I think the media is making this a huge thing. I don't think they'll make it a big part of the case because what are they going to say? Do you have... Upon cross examination, I get the FBI agent on the stand. Agent Smith, do you have this document? No.

Have you ever seen this document? No. Did you execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on President Trump's residence and surrounding areas? Yes. Did you take documents?

Yes. How many boxes did you take? You know, 150 boxes. How many of those did you go through? We went through all those. How many of them had this document?

None. So that document is not at... As far as you can tell, the President did not have that document. Right. He didn't have the document as far as we can tell.

And you've not seen it since. Right. That's pretty devastating cross examination for the government if they're going to allow that. I bet they don't bring it in. I think there's a good chance they don't bring it in. You know... Because you just saw how I did it in five minutes.

Can you imagine if you gave me an hour? So, to me, it feels like it's more of the trend to get, like Jerry said, a political hit out of this. Yeah, I think they... Because it might not have any of this. Now, are they? You tell me that.

No. Look at the polls. The polls for Donald Trump inside the Republican Party are just out...

I mean, if you're Donald Trump, they're outstanding. The only question is, one, is it like in New Hampshire, those states where anybody can vote in the primary? Yeah. You can only vote in one. But, like, he's at 50% in almost every one of them.

Or 60 in some. And these are the states that, like... And Chris Christie is right on the edge of DeSantis in New Hampshire. And Tim Scott is right on the edge of DeSantis in Iowa. Right.

And then in South Carolina, Trump's in the lead against two South Carolinians. Yeah. No, I know.

Because they're dividing their vote. And then I think, you know... We should talk more about this next time. Yeah. 1-800-684-3110. We'll continue to take your phone calls.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Putin did put out new sound. We'll get to that later in the broadcast and address to the nation of Russia. Be right back on Secular. Support our work. Donate today. ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular, everyone.

We're taking your phone calls at 800-684-3110. We're analyzing this, quote, smoking gun. But also, we've got a lot of people that I know listening, but Logan, we've got a lot of people watching right now.

That's right. A lot of you are watching. Maybe you're new to this broadcast. I encourage you to, whatever platform you're watching, whether that's on Rumble, I encourage you to follow. If you're on YouTube, subscribe. If you're on Facebook, like. Do what you need to do.

Just make sure you keep engaged. And if you can, if you have a platform that doesn't, share this broadcast with your friends because you need to be able to share what's actually happening and we're here to break it down for you. All right, so we played the two aspects of what it is, and I think the biggest issue here is the media went with this in a very big way because they had a tape. But when you really analyze the tape, Logan, I'm telling you, if they don't find the document, the tape's meaningless. Yeah, but you can't help but reporting on a news story. I think that it is a breaking news story regardless of what it is. However, yeah, if there's not the actual tangible evidence, then I think that maybe you're right. But it is a bit of a court of public opinion in some sense, and this just plays into more of the media narrative, which doesn't necessarily deter a lot of Trump voters, but what it may do is deter the people that may be on the line or maybe encourage Biden voters. So there is that bit of it where you have to make sure you're not just playing into their trap in some sense of going, well, it doesn't really matter legally, but yeah, but they already won the court of the media.

So one of the things we want to do on the broadcast, we wanted to break it down for you to show you what's there and what's not. Now, there's no evidence right now that the document exists or that the President has it. I'm sure the document probably exists, but whether he has it or not. They did a search one. I just gave you the cross-examination.

You put the FBI agent on the stand and you say, hey, have you seen this document? No. Did you do a search of the President's house and facilities? Yes. Could you find that document? No. Do you think the President had the document, actually had the document? I can't say that underwrote that he did.

Well, then the document, then all of this is interesting, but irrelevant. And I think that's part of it. We had a lot of calls coming in, 800-684-3110. We're going to give you, we're giving you analysts on this, analysis on this. Let's go ahead and take a call. Yeah, I want to go to, let's go to Deborah in Illinois online too. Hey, Deborah. Yeah.

Hi. My, um, question or comment was I had heard with an, a clip that President Trump had said that he felt like the raid itself was not conducted properly. And he wanted to be in the room when the, when they were going through boxes that he hadn't even gone through and, and that, um, so that therefore that, uh, that they could have introduced and corrupted evidence, introduced things into the boxes and corrupted evidence. And therefore it should all be thrown out because of the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Well, the fruit of the poisonous tree is the Wong Song case, a famous case that every law student learns. And that is if you get evidence in a way in which was not constitutional, that evidence cannot be used in any capacity. Now you don't have the right to be in the facility when a search warrant is being executed. Um, that's just not the way, that's just not what the law requires, but you still have to be able to admit the evidence. So let's, let's go back to this tape. What does the tape actually say? Well, the President is trying to defend his position saying that Milley wasn't, General Milley was not telling the truth because he didn't draw plans to attack Iran and didn't ask them to.

They did. They put this information forward and then he's waving what appears to be fumbling through papers and waving and say, oh, this is a secret. This is not, I haven't declassified this. I don't think you could see this.

I don't know. And then he describes it. Here's the situation. He never described what the plan of attack was. Is it any secret that there were plans drawn up to attack Iran if necessary? I'm sure every President's had that since Jimmy Carter.

Yeah. And I think again, the, but the allegation was that President Trump was the, was this warmonger by Milley. And in fact, let me tell you some about these guys. They were the guys who were the warmongers. I mean, all they want, they were trying to use Donald Trump and the idea that this, that they thought he was this like wild guy who would start wars wherever that, that they had met their dream President who would just let them launch wars wherever they, and they got very angry.

When they realized he's more isolationist leaning, he wants America to lead the world, but let's do it. Like Tulsi always talks about use and she's in the military, use our special forces. Uh, if, if, if able to use drones and then only use full scale, like invasion when America's security is clearly at risk, when the whole country realizes we must go to war and we haven't, we haven't, we're not near one of those conflicts right now. No.

Uh, Ukraine is not that point. No. All right. We're taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110. Who's next?

All right. We go to Kate in Colorado on line three. You're on the air. Hi Kate. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. I am livid and incense and disgusted at how low the media will go to take one little thing and twist it into such an obnoxious accusation without proof for one thing.

This is unheard of. And I wish I could tell everybody I know that are going to vote democratically or whatever to switch their minds back to something that's good. This isn't going to change my vote. So let me, let me tell you what's interesting here. I don't, you can't blame CNN for running the tape. They got it. That's a new scoop. They had it.

They played the audio. Here's what I do blame. I blame all these experts that come on CNN, all these former prosecutors who don't really analyze the evidence. And what is the evidence here? There is no evidence that an actual document existed in the possession of Donald Trump about this document.

There's none. They haven't been able to, they executed a search warrant folks and could not find the document. So let me take you through this cross examination one more time.

They tried to get this in saying, oh, he knew he had the authority to declassify him when he was President, but he knew this wasn't declassified at Mar-a-Lago. That's great. I would object relevancy. Why? A couple of things.

Let's lay a foundation. You get the FBI agent in the stand. Did you read this transcript?

Yes. What did that transcript tell you? That there was a document and this is what it'll say.

The document, it was classified document and he hadn't declassified it. That's what it tells you, Agent Smith. Yeah. So that's what it tells me. Well, let me ask you a couple of questions. Have you seen the document? Well, no, I haven't. Have you looked for the document? Well, yes, I did.

We executed a search warrant on the President's residence in Florida, as well as searched other facilities and we did a thorough search. Have you found the document? No. Have the lawyers given you the document saying the President had this in his possession and turned it over? No, they said they don't have it. So do you know under oath, can you tell the jury and look them in the eyes and say the former President of the United States actually had this document he was talking about and the FBI agent, if he's going to tell the truth under oath without purging himself, is going to say, no, I can't say it. Your Honor, strike the evidence. That's what I would do. Yeah, 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. That's 1-800-684-3110. We want to continue to take your calls on this.

We come back second half hour of the broadcast as well. We are going to preview the affirmative action case and some other cases at the U.S. Supreme Court as well. That is a major case and it's a two-part case because one is a private school, one is a state college and university, so we will talk about that as well. We will talk about some of these in FOIA work that we are doing in Nigeria, but specifically how they responded to our FOIA. We actually got their response to, uh-oh, these guys are going to be looking at us because they are furious at what we have done by removing Nigeria for countries of particular concern and they even say in here, which I hold in my hand, we expect a robust FOIA on this and they got it.

That's us they are talking about. I just want to make that clear. So we will talk about that when we get back to the break to show you a little bit more about the ACLJ work and I encourage you to keep your calls coming in. I know this is some complicated stuff when we are breaking down this phone call and if we need to go through that again, we can.

1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air, but let me encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ. Where else can you get this kind of information, this kind of analyst? You are not just getting it for five minutes on a cable news show. We dive deep. We decide to dive deep throughout the first half hour really to explain this to you because we know you are going to be being inundated with this soundbite, this leaked audio for at least the next two days on the news. No question. And the left is going to say you should go to jail based off this and conservatives need to understand why it's not the smoking gun that they think it is.

Certainly not if they have no document that matches the discussion. It's almost laughable. Be right back the second half hour or so. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, so leaked audio out this morning. You may have listened to it. You may not have heard it yet, but we do know that some of you might just be joining us in our full hour broadcast and people are still calling in with questions about it.

So if you are just joining, I want you to understand what we are talking about. So in the next segment, I will replay the audio again and we will break it down for you. But, Dad, just briefly kind of explain to people what you heard in this audio, which is the one we have heard about. It's in the indictment that President Trump was talking to people without security clearances. It was an author working with Mark Meadows on his memoir serving as chief of staff, I guess. And one Trump staffer, unnamed. And they were both the authors, unnamed as well. And it talks about this idea that Milley said in his book that Donald Trump wanted to strike Iran and wanted more plans on Iran. Which, by the way, doesn't sound right if you know Donald Trump at all.

And Trump responding with, no, it's not. And he was like looking through pieces of paper saying, I'm trying to prove to you that it was actually Milley who did it. And what's not clear from the audio is, one, if he even ever found the piece of paper. So if the paper, which hasn't been found.

Hold it. We know the paper has not been found because the government has not said it's been found. The Department of Justice executed a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago. They did not find this document.

The lawyers representing the President have not found this document. So the President may have said, look at these plans and held something up. And it was puffery. That would not shock me at all. But here's the problem.

All of this sounds really interesting. And I understand, as Logan said, why CNN had to carry it. Because it's a breaking news and you have the President on audio.

That's a big deal. But if there is no document that was being held, there is no possession and unauthorized disclosure of classified documents. Because if the document doesn't exist, it's puffery. That's not a crime. So I think the government's got to, I already took you through the way I would handle the witness, which would be the FBI agent. You could discredit that.

I think the FBI agent wouldn't tell the truth. No, we haven't seen the document. No one's produced it. We don't know if it existed. We did do a search and we couldn't find it there either.

So that makes this really suspect. Let's go ahead and take a call. Let's go to Brian in Missouri on Line 1. You're on the air. Hey, how you guys doing? Good. Thank you for what you do. We appreciate you very much.

Thank you. I just want to say that as an American, Midwest, we're tired of these people and this administration who has absolutely everything to destroy this man. I'll be quite frank with you. We will vote for him if he's in prison because he could run this country in prison. This administration could run it outside of prison. Well, I don't think there'll be a trial before the election. I mean, there's two ways to do this trial. One is you say it's got to wait till after the election because you're talking about election interference, a trial of the leading.

If he's then the nominee, that would be ridiculous. But also there's another approach, and I'm not saying to do this, but I don't think the government's ready to go to trial, Jordan. I mean, they've set a date. The court has, under the speedy trial act for August, the government's already filed a motion saying we're not ready by August. It may be December or March until we're ready. There's a part of you that says, you know what?

We're ready in August, so let's go to trial. And I think the government would have trouble. Having said that, there's a political side to that. Maybe that's not the best move.

Yeah. I mean, I think, again, you look at it two ways. I think you'd have to know that you're totally prepared to go to trial if you're the President's legal team. You have to be 110% ready. And I don't think they are at this. And I'm not sure they are because, you know, as President Trump, unfortunately, just because of who he is, has had a tougher time getting attorneys, even in places like Miami where there's a big criminal defense bar.

And they're used to taking on much more controversial clients than a former President of the United States, but they think that, you know, their firms will not allow them to do it. So you have to look at that and then you say, okay, can we catch them up? Can we basically say, if we were ready, the government's not prepared, but the government has to start by August 14th. Now, some of these motions might already bleed through that. But the other question then is to say, you know what? You're already saying December.

How about we say after the election, so no election interference. And I think that to me is probably the safest way to go because unless you feel like you are 110% ready to go to trial next month. Yeah. And I can't imagine that they are.

Most defense attorneys would never do that. All right. That's very unusual. You got a lot more ahead in the next two segments. And we want to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

Is it affecting how you might vote or your friends might vote? Give us a call. We'll be right back on Secular. All right.

Welcome back to Secular. We are taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Let's play the Trump sound for people because I know when we're on for a full hour, most of you can't listen for a full hour. So for those of you holding on, we're going to talk about it. But I do want you to understand this is that big leaked audio that almost the entire government's case is based on is the 31 documents found. But the fact that this was what they were saying is that Donald Trump knew that they were classified.

Now this is the issue. What's novel about this is no one's been prosecuted at this level for just having classified documents. Mike Pence had classified documents. He did not get prosecuted.

Again, Joe Biden has classified documents. I don't think he's going to be prosecuted. Actually, I know he won't because he can't prosecute a sitting President and I don't think it's going to happen after he's President of the United States, even if the statute of limitations held there, which I think it would in this kind of a situation unless he was reelected. But even that might toll it. But I don't think that will ever happen.

I also want to tell people, and this is my honest truth and this is not necessarily the opinion of the ACLJ or even my dad's. I never believe, I do not believe that Donald Trump will ever be behind bars. I really do. I think that Democrats might have this idea. They'll just keep pushing it. And pushing it, but I think that whatever happens, I think he should be found not guilty of all of these.

I think it's all bogus. But I honestly believe that even in the worst case scenario, he should get the Hunter Biden treatment. Yeah, I think that that's true.

I think a lot of people see that and go- If you're a former President, you know, no better, slap on wrists. Yeah. Let's go ahead and take a call?

Yeah. Let's go to Dan, who's calling. He's watching on YouTube on Line 4. Dan, welcome. You're on the broadcast. Hi.

Hey, Dan, go ahead. Hey, for seven years we've watched the DOJ release information concerning their case against Donald Trump, whatever it is. And the judge on this, I believe, put a ban on any information going outside the courtroom, and yet here's this tape showing up at CNN.

How does that happen? Okay, so that's people inside the courtroom. This tape, we believe, is from the author who was writing the Mark Meadows book, so they would not be subject to that order. If it was the DOJ that leaked this tape, that would be very serious.

I mean, that could be the end of the case. But that's not, or at least this part would be inadmissible. But that does not appear to be the case, and it doesn't appear that Donald Trump leaked this. It appears that they were, as is normal, when people are interviewing you for a book, they will ask to record, and you usually, because of your own protection, record as well. And then it appears that the author decided, I'm going to release this tape.

Yeah. This is not, I'm not necessarily saying is the right thing to do, because there's not a jury assembled yet. I mean, it's not like we're into the trial. So someone, I don't know, it'll be interesting to see if the author eventually comes out on TV and like wants to make an issue, be somebody over this. Yeah, and who knows who it went from them. You know, sometimes it could be, oh, the Comey level, you send it to someone else who then sends it to someone else who, you know, leaks it.

It's not necessarily always, it's just- Right, it could be the author working with someone else at the publisher they're with. Yeah, it says here's my, you got to show them your footnotes. Especially when you got to prove pretty big things, like Donald Trump told me this.

Let me play it for you. This is, we'll do it in two parts again. So this is Donald Trump talking to the author for Mark Meadows, helping him write his memoir, and then one Trump staffer, they're unnamed, take a listen.

These are bad, sick people. That was your coup, you know, against you. Well, it started right at the beginning. When Millie's talking about, oh, you were going to try to do a coup. No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in. That's right, trying to overthrow your election. Well, with Millie, let me see that. I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't it amazing?

I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this.

This is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.

We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me.

This was him. All sorts of stuff. It's pages long. Wait a minute. Let's see here.

Isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know, except it is like highly controversial. To me, like we said, it looks like he just keeps flipping through a bunch of pieces of paper.

And that then makes sense because guess what, Logan? They've never found this document. Yeah, according to all the searches. So who is it saying that? Who is saying that they don't have the document?

The special counsel, FBI, and President Trump's attorneys, that no one has been able to locate a specific document, which to me makes sense because in this he says there's just all these papers and also no indication that he showed them to anyone. And is he just kind of talking it up? Because he's trying to get the book written in a different way. He's trying to say you're about to write that Milley was responding to a Trump order to make a plan to attack Iran. And he's writing back, he's responding back saying, that is not the case. Do not print that in your book. It was Milley putting these strategies forward even when I didn't ask for them. I am not that type of guy.

That's not me. And here, let me prove it to you. It doesn't make it clear that he actually, even in the audio, Logan, that he ever said, hey, look at this piece of paper. They keep rumbling through. He's like, look at all this.

It looks like he's going to, like he thinks he'll be right here. You know what? That alone, that doesn't meet the elements of this crime because it doesn't, if you can't find that smoking gun is not the words, it's the document. The document is what makes this even a potential crime.

I don't think it should be, but a potential crime. Then take a listen to the second part. This is secret information. Look at this. You attack and Hillary would print that out all the time. No, she'd send it to Anthony Weiner, the pervert. By the way, isn't that incredible? Yeah, I was just saying, because we were talking about it and he said he wanted to attack Iran.

This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can probably, right? We'll have to see.

Yeah, we'll have to try to figure out a, yeah. Since President, I couldn't be blessed. Now I can't, you know, but this is the lesson. Yeah, now we have a problem.

Isn't that interesting? He'll be right there. It's just he didn't show it because he wasn't sure if he could. He said, maybe I can, maybe I can't, but it's like he never gave it over. So let's assume the worst. He did actually find this document, which, by the way, doesn't exist right now, as we know.

And then he decided, you know, I'm not going to hand it over to you, which is what he sounded like at that, because I'm not sure I can. No one has been prosecuted for that in our history. Not a President. Now, there are people in our government that do get prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. That is, the President is treated totally different from any of those people. They are not, like if you're in the military and you don't turn off your computer the right way, you could go to jail if you had left classified documents access. If you left the classified document behind in a car, you could go to jail.

The President of the United States does not, those laws do not apply to him. Yeah. So the whole thing gets very complicated. If they think this is their smoking gun, Logan, if they don't find the specific Milly document planning an attack on Iran, then either it didn't exist, or it wasn't classified, or maybe National Archives already has it. Yeah, well, I'm sure we'll find out. It's just weird that before they put this in the case, before they had the document. Yeah, well, is it they put it in the case or was it, or yeah, because they need to go over it. Yeah, it's not just a media story. I wouldn't twist this in the indictment. Because regardless.

They have this, they have some smoke, but they don't have the gun. Regardless, you can win the sort of news report. That's what they're doing.

You can win the news by saying, look at what he said here. And it is interesting. It's fascinating. A lot of people will listen.

Obviously, there are a lot of people watching right now on all the different platforms that we're broadcasting on, because it is an interesting thing to listen in to. However, they think that there could be damage done. Now, do I think there's damage done to the already locked and loaded Trump voter?

No. Do I think that this could be damage to the, what it could do is maybe reignite some people who are kind of souring on Biden, which I think is sort of the more biggest issue right now. Which is the overall distaste for the current President, even amongst Democrats. They're trying to figure out ways to really push forward.

Yeah, but at least it's not what Trump did. And here's more recordings. Here's more things that we have. But we'll see. We'll see how it plays out.

Yeah, I think it's going to be very interesting. Do we have time? Okay, so we come back. We're going to take your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And I want you to support the work of the ACLJ. The reason why we're able to talk to this and tell you about President Trump so much is we spend so much time working for President Trump. So we know how he talks. We know how he thinks. We also know his foreign policy. We have Rick Grenell and Secretary of State. All these folks who will tell you what it was like working for him directly and what he thought.

So when it conflicts with what Milley was saying, it's very easy for us to say, yeah, that's not Trump. That's not the kind of stuff he'd want. If he really thought he needed a war plan, he would ask for it. But what he didn't like is these guys always constantly throwing in war plans and putting pressure on him to start a war that would get American young men and women who serve in our military killed.

And that would be only the last case scenario for him. So we're able to provide this real insight for you. That's just a little bit of what we do at the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. We need your financial support. Over 178 case requests have come in this week alone for ACLJ's help.

Welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. What we want to always do is educate you because you're going to be inundated with this today. And the left is going to say, this is it. This is the smoking gun.

And what we're telling you is that this is some smoke at best, but there is no gun. And even when you listen to the audio tape that we just went through, I think you realize that as well. Flipping through the pages so much and then didn't share it with the author, obviously said, yeah, we've got to work on that.

I'm not sure we can. So again, there was a confusion over whether or not. See, confusion over whether the document is something you can share or not also goes to the heart of the issue of even on this crime where it doesn't require intent, it requires you to have the document. If you don't think you had the document that was actually classified, at least you had the right to have it.

Maybe others didn't, but you did. These are things that should be handled in civil court slogan. If DOJ really wants this back, go file to get it back. But you know what? They did a raid. They went back in. They did multiple requests in different places all over, Bedminster. And guess what? This document so far doesn't exist. It's not been recovered if it didn't even exist. I don't think it does.

Well, a lot of people have a lot of thoughts. Let's get some phone calls if you have a call at 1-800-684-3110. Let's go first to Linda who's calling in New York online. Linda, welcome. You're on the broadcast.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. I have a comment and a question. My comment is that I definitely think that this is negatively impacting Trump because for some people, the negative media coverage on him became such a mental burden.

So I would love to hear this all quickly. My question is how come you guys don't represent him? Well, I think, listen, we have represented him before. We have a great relationship with President Trump.

We're closely and even Trump family members that we've done work with. This is right now a criminal trial where you need, again, your experts need to be people who work a lot with juries in a criminal sense. The kind of work that we do typically, obviously we handle Mueller, which is a very political special counsel investigation.

We brought in criminal experts. We also did the impeachment, which is also very much political and more similar almost to a Supreme Court case. If constitutional issues arise that are serious, it's not like we're not saying no to assisting.

This is just not the right time usually for our thought process to take the lead, I think would be the right way to say it. But you did bring up also the adverse effect of the news. I think there is some of that. I don't think it really deters the hardcore supporter. The polls keep going up. Right, but it is a mental burden, I think, on a lot of people.

I think she's right that it is exhausting. It'll be interesting to see if this tape affects any of the polls, because they're going to play it like a million times. I just kind of doubt it. I just kind of doubt it. I just don't see... Well, I mean, do Republicans say, you know what, he was talking too much?

I'm just saying it from a different perspective. Yeah, I would think in a normal election time, yes, but with Donald Trump specifically, I don't know. Because I don't really know if there's something there that could really derail it, because what hasn't been said and done. So, I'm very curious to see, but I would kind of highly doubt it. As much as, like I said, in a regular election season when it wasn't a former President and all this type stuff, sure, maybe it will really affect, or if you had a big rising star.

Right now, there's not that big rising star. You have the debates, which who knows what that's going to look like. So, it's not this normal time for politics. Let's go, though, moving on to some other calls. Let's go to Robin, who's calling in Virginia on Line 4. You're on the air, Robin. Yes, thank you for taking my call. No problem. Go ahead.

I have maybe a comment and or a challenge. First of all, I had to call in because I feel like there's so many other issues that are going on in the country, and the whole Shakespearean line, pray tell ye, protect us too much. Right? So, being somebody who voted as an independent, I feel like a lot of what goes on in our country and with our Constitution is based on honor and honesty and trust.

You know, like anybody who drives a car on the road, sits down in a chair, eats some food, you know, that you bought from the grocery store. So, part of what's really, I think, wonderful about Jay Sekulow's organization and you guys is the reason why I trust your show to listen on the radio for the interpretation because they say, you know, a picture says a thousand words and who knows what the audio tape would say. But it's like, you know, you guys have legalized that you can put on it because there can be so many twists and turns and things that aren't true when it comes to the interpretation of something. And I feel like the biggest insult is to the American people because of the way the media and I'm an independent.

I voted for Ben Carson. So, what I want to add as a challenge is that you guys, if anybody, I'm between jobs right now, but if anybody can donate to help you guys do what you do, it's a huge, wonderful gift and a blessing that you ferret out and use your legal perspective on things to bring the truth, not just all the talking heads and the pundits and everybody's commentary, you know what I mean? That's what we try to do.

And Robin, let me thank you so much for your support of the ACLJ even in, you know, seven times when maybe you can't make a financial contribution, but share our stuff, you know, share the broadcast, sign the petitions. And then, as she said, for people out there who can make the contribution, we are, obviously we do a lot more work than just commentate on what Donald Trump is going through. But when we do need to do that, we have the legal expertise to take you through it and we hope to do it in a way so that when your friends and family are talking about it, maybe adversarial, maybe they just go to you because they know you're really informed, you're able to be that much more informed. They'll probably be like, wow, you really understand what's going on here?

Or, hey, that makes me think differently because they are going to play this tape like it is 100% truth and there's like, you know, this is it. Donald Trump's going to jail. Let's go ahead and take a couple more calls if we can. Let's go to Paige in North Carolina, line three. Paige, thanks for holding.

Thank you for taking my call. It sounds like everything boils down to what was in Trump's hand. There are four witnesses. Has no one contacted these witnesses and said, did he really have those documents in his hand? Did he really put them in front of your face to read them?

Are they going to be called to testify under oath? Yeah. Do we know any information about that, the other people that were in the room? Yeah.

No, we don't. I mean, obviously you could probably identify who this author is by looking at the Mark Meadows book. And that's probably who the leak came from. They could end up on television later today. Yeah, so we'll see. I'm sure they've been interviewed. There's no doubt in my mind that those two people have been interviewed.

We'll get a lot more of that information discovery. All right. I don't know if we have time. We were trying to get Michael. Michael, New Hampshire, you're online.

You're on. Thanks for taking my call. I love your comment about the smoking gun. As an attorney who's worked in a lot of multi-district litigations, we've always found that really the smoking doesn't exist. And it's really cumulative evidence that points to whether or not the complaint holds water or not. And really when people talk about the smoking gun on talking heads on TV, it's really ridiculous because they don't really understand the reality of it. And that in the quote slam dunk, which is another legal fallacy in my opinion.

Oh, listen, I totally agree with you. I think that the smoking gun, if you really do have a smoking gun, you hold onto that as late as you can into the discovery process. Ultimately, you've got to provide that in discovery.

But if you've got it, you certainly don't want it out there, especially how the audio sounds. Because there's one thing to allege, you had this conversation that's in the indictment. But when you hear it, it's totally different than just in the indictment. You know, you had this conversation, you may have shown these documents to somebody. Then you hear it and it allows people to start breaking it down and asking questions and poking holes in it. So to me, I think this is trying to take a political hit at Donald Trump instead of an actual legal hit. Now Logan, we're going to do Secular Brothers podcast today because there are a couple of issues we didn't get to. Putin finally addressed Russia. We're going to get to that on the Secular Brothers podcast.

And New York, pizza places are having to close because they're coal-fired wood pizza ovens. Yeah, we'll get to that and more go to secularbrothers.com to subscribe. Outrageous.

We'll be on today. Check it out.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-27 14:14:37 / 2023-06-27 14:36:42 / 22

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime