BREAKING: Trump Team Files Urgent Motion in Federal Court

Breaking news today on Sekulow is the Trump legal team files an urgent motion in federal court. 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. We do want to take your phone calls, your questions, your comments. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. A federal grand jury in Miami, of course, indicted President Trump last month on 37 felony charges. And the current special counsel, Jack Smith, who is also investigating Donald Trump in Washington, DC, and there may be filing additional charges there, which would be a separate indictment, which would lead to not only a separate indictment, but also a separate arraignment and separate trial. They wanted to, these prosecutors wanted to bring the case starting December 11th of this year. So a couple of weeks before Christmas, but really like two weeks before the campaign season, I mean, you're already going to have debates, but two weeks before the campaign season where people actually start voting, like the Iowa caucuses and places like that. So the Trump team has put forward a motion opposing that move by the prosecutors and by the special counsel in this case, and has asked not for a specific date, but has asked for the trial to be delayed until after the election. And I think it could be after the primary, if Donald Trump was not successful in the primary or after the general election, it looks like he is going to be successful in the primary, Logan. But I think what is interesting here is they're saying, listen, during political season, everyone's choosing sides. So how are we going to get a fair jury pool when he's out there campaigning, saying things that some of that jury pool's not going to like?

Yeah, absolutely. I think that this is a interesting move, not really unexpected that they would do this ask as we move forward here. But yeah, you brought up, do we think they had a primary? We talked about that yesterday, where it almost feels like a foregone conclusion at this point that Donald Trump will take the Republican nominee. I think that that's going to be, if anything was to happen, it would be at this point, a shocker, a landslide. We're a year out from having that decision being made, less than a year out from a lot of the first primaries, going to be what, January, February? So we know that that's not too far away. And the numbers, it's just such a big gap right now to make up that difference is going to be very difficult for anybody. So looking at this saying, hey, not only push it beyond the primaries, but push it beyond the general, I think is understood.

Yeah. I mean, these are going to be long trials with lots of information. I mean, there's the classified documents alone. There's a classified document procedures act, which has got all these different rules about how you, because if you're in the defense, if you're the accused, you get discovery.

So you get the information that they have about you. And sometimes a court allows a summary of a classified document. Other times, the DOJ has to decide whether to declassify it, or if they feel that it's in the, such a national security risk to do that, they have to take away that charge.

So they can't, because they can't bring it in court. So there's a whole host of motions that get filed and issues that get filed. I think this has a lot, a likelihood of being granted.

It's never a hundred percent in any kind of motion, but it's certainly not like this is unlikely. I'd say it's, it's, um, it's better than a 50 50 shot, uh, that, that this gets delayed to some extent because it doesn't seem like there's any way they could be really ready to go by December, regardless. Now, coming up on the show, we've also got a big win in the fifth circuit court of appeals, dismissing an anti BDS lawsuit. We'll talk about that big tech and your data. Now with threads launching, we got Tulsi Gabbard from our team. She's going to be joining us about that.

And also a us attorney handling Hunter Biden's probes tells Lindsey Graham, he hasn't requested special council status, which is exactly the opposite of what we've heard throughout this time period. So that is why we've got to get Congress getting these questions answered by these principles, because the information is all over the place. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org and give us a call. Join us on the show.

1-800-684-3110 Welcome back to Cinco. So we told you the topics we're going to hit today. Uh, the classified documents trial with President Trump delayed.

He would like it delayed until after the 2024 election. We're going to hit that first. We're going to talk about anti BDS lawsuit, uh, that we, uh, victory at the fifth circuit. We're going to have Tulsi Gabbard on, on big tech and some of these, uh, user terms. I mean, threads made it very clear via the Apple app, what you're giving them to utilize the app. And it's pretty shocking when they lay it out.

So simply it's not like in legalese, it's like literally just points. So we'll go through that as well with Tulsi Gabbard as part of our team. And then, uh, finally, uh, why the us attorney handling Hunter Biden's probe is now telling Lindsey Graham, he didn't seek special counsel status when we were, uh, under the impression by reporting is that he did, uh, seek special counsel status and was denied. So there's a lot of things that need to be answered when it comes to this Hunter Biden investigation, as we get closer and closer and closer to that plea deal being entered into court later on this month. But I want to turn to Andy economy, Andy right away on this move by the Trump legal team to say, Hey, there, this is going to be a very complicated case.

There's no way we could start this even in December. And even if we could, which you can't with all the classified documents and all the rules surrounding classified documents, you will have a tainted jury because Donald Trump will be campaigning on the campaign trail, saying things that some people will not like and saying things that other people will like. So it will not be a fair jury.

That's exactly correct, Jordan. I mean, today, uh, July 11th, the trial, according to the prosecutors, they wanted to start December 11th, 2023, which is a hardly sufficient time to prepare a complicated case like this for trial. I've had trials that have gone on, uh, that have been indicted and have been tried for two or three years because they've been certified as complex cases. Here you've got the Presidential records act implicated. You've got search warrants that were executed in Mar-a-Lago that may be subject to motions to suppress.

You've got the question of the President of the United States, who's announced he's going to run again against a former President of the United States. So you've got an entire jury pool in the Southern district of Florida. That's going to be implicated in doing this.

And so judge cannon is going to have to make some very difficult decisions in this case, Jordan. Exactly today, five months from the Iowa caucus, that's the Republican caucus because the Democrats are moving things around. That's on January 15th. We have the first Republican debate. I don't know if Donald Trump will be at it, but that's in August. That's just next month. So we're in the heart of campaign season.

And Andy, I just want, I just think that people want to know, is it unusual to make this kind of move? I mean, this whole case is unusual to some extent, but there are, there's always a back and forth on when to start the trial. Yeah, there is, but it's not unusual for the defense to seek to have more time to try to prepare to try the case. And President Trump's lawyers have, I think correctly filed a motion with judge cannon to make the trial start after the Presidential election because of the complexity of the issues involved in the case and more important because of the publicity that's going to be involved when you're going to have the President of former President of the United States, perhaps engaging in debates with the incumbent President of the United States over issues that are going to be basically involved in the very litigation that's before judge cannon.

That's not the place to debate those issues. Andy, for every one of those classified documents, you have to go to the classified information procedures act and the judge for all 37. So I guess out of the counts, what was it? 31 were the classified documents. So for each one of those documents, you have to go through a process. One, is there a way to do a summary that is still fair to the defense? So when they get the, when they get the evidence through discovery that they can utilize it, that's part one, but if not, and the judge has to determine that. So the judge is comparing it to the classified document. If not, then the government has to decide whether to utilize the classified document by declassifying it to the public as well and then turning it over to the defense.

If they don't do that, they can't bring the charge. I mean, so that's for all 31 documents, they have to go through that procedure. So think about that in terms of the time that it's going to take judge cannon to work that out.

And I think there's going to be some hearing that's going to be held on Friday to determine how they're going to handle or how the court's going to handle the classified information in her courtroom in Fort Pierce, which is part of the Southern district of Florida. So those things are going to take a great deal of time. I have tried simple bank embezzlement cases that have taken longer than this. You're talking about a former President of the United States, who's charged with violation of the secret records act and very other serious crimes that now the special counsel wants to accelerate this and try it within five months. Impossible.

You cannot get a fair trial. This is, this is the prejudice of President Trump. And I agree with him putting it off and wanting to put it off. Let me go to Paul in Florida online. One folks, if you got questions about this, about the Facebook terms of service on this threads and the social media, get your calls in now 1-800-684-3110. I always encourage you to like, we've got Tulsi Gabbard on you can ask questions to Tulsi. So get your calls in at 1-800-684-3110, but Paul you're on the air. Hey, thanks for taking my calls.

Hey, I have a, so what question? And it's really from a legal standpoint, what is going to be the ultimate dream or desire of the, of the prosecution's team against Donald Trump? What do they hope to see out coming from all these allegations, which are just allegations right now, but what is their ultimate desire from a legal standpoint? That's where I'm not clear, put them behind bars. The ultimate standpoint is kill Trump politically and remove him from the American political scene.

Let's face it. The justice department has been weaponized to do that. The internal revenue service has been weaponized to do that. The secret service and so forth have been weaponized to do that. They want to lock him up. They want to kill him out politically. And that is what the special counsel, what Mayor Garland is trying to do, what Biden and his team are trying to do. That's ultimately what they're trying to affect here. You know, it's interesting. There's a lot of good questions coming in.

They're all not ready to take yet, but we will take them at 1-800-684-3110. I think, again, when you look at the complexities here, certainly what the, it seems like Jack Smith, the special prosecutor here, is just trying to rush it through to actually have a political impact. You know, oftentimes if you look at his record, it's about taking down politicians. When he's been successful in court, he gets reversed. And so he tried to take that, but sometimes by the time he got reversed, that politician was so dirtied up by the case that they weren't able to make a comeback. In other cases, I'd say like in the Bob Menendez case, he was. But with Bob McDonnell, who ultimately was vindicated nine to zero by the US Supreme Court, it effectively destroyed him and nearly bankrupt him because of all the legal fees and attorneys he had to have to fight back against these bogus, they were all kind of like made up charges, kind of similar like Alvin Bragg.

You take this one potential charge, you add it to another, and you try to say, well, that makes it this. And so I think, again, that when you look at Jack Smith, Andy, the reason why he wants it in December is he wants the political circus around it. And he wants, he's part of that, the DOJ actors who want to see Trump fail and look like he's too distracted on the campaign trail. I mean, imagine trying to campaign while you're in a criminal trial. Well, that's exactly what their aim is here, is to dirty him politically and to kill him politically by rushing this action. You've indicted it and you want to try it by December and it's now July, and you're talking about complex issues involving Presidential records and search warrants and so forth.

And my question is, what's the hurry? If you were really a prosecutor and you wanted to do a thorough case and do the right thing by the defendant, because that's what you're supposed to do, not get a convection, but see the justice is done, then you would do this thing in a measured fashion over time, outside the arena of a political campaign. That's not what Jack Smith wants to do.

That's not what this government wants to do. You know, Scott on YouTube wrote in, this is why I support the ACLJ, Logan, we got a matching challenge right now. Again, this is just shows our expertise because Andy and I both work for President Trump outside of our responsibilities, the ACLJ, we've been through this process before with special counsels, and we know how it all works. And so we're able to explain to everybody out there, especially a lot of Trump supporters, what this has looked like and kind of like how this goes. Yeah, absolutely.

And that is, you're right, we're in the middle of our matching challenge right in the middle of the month here right now. And as Jordan said, not only have this team here represented a foreign President of the United States, but also the ACLJ will represent you at no cost. So you get the same legal experts that represented the President of the United States that can represent you if you have issues that were within our scope.

And to do that, you should go to ACLJ.org slash help to find out. But right now we encourage everyone to be able to offer those services absolutely free. We'll be able to offer this show, not behind a paywall. We need your support. Go to ACLJ.org, hit that donate button today because all donations for this month are effectively doubled. There's other donors ready to unlock their matching donation.

So again, give $20 that becomes $40, so on and so on and do it today. Help us get those numbers up in the summertime when things are getting sort of crazy, your stuff starts to really heat up. It's really important that you go to ACLJ.org. Look at all the incredible content as well. I always say that go there to support the work.

Of course, there's incredible content from everyone you hear on this show. You know, whether that is Mike Pompeo or from Tulsi Gabbard, whoever it is, you can find that at ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to SEC. We got a lot of phone calls coming in at 1-800-684-3110. I'm about to get to those.

We got a big victory at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. We'll explain that in just a moment, but I do want to get to a phone call. Jerry in Rhode Island online too.

Hey, Jerry. Hey, everything Mr. Conomo and you saying, most of us are watching, we know they're trying to campaign and shackle him during the campaign. But my question is, Mr. Conomo said, if he wins election, can they prosecute him during that citizen presidency, during his presidency, as we learned previously?

No. I mean, Andy, you cannot bring a criminal prosecution against the sitting President. You'd have to wait until after they were no longer in office.

You can investigate them. You can have a special counsel, but the remedy there is impeachment. And that's the sole remedy, impeachment. You can't prosecute a sitting President of the United States. I suspect if President Trump wins, a lot of these actions, if not all of them, are going to evaporate because the Justice Department is simply going to not pursue them.

I don't think there's any question about that. And they should evaporate because these are political prosecutions. These are not meritorious legal prosecutions. The Bragg prosecution is a joke. The prosecution by Jack Smith in the Southern District of Florida is similarly laughable, but these are prosecutions that are intended to have political, not legal consequences. And it would be terrible if they succeed.

Yeah. I mean, this is, again, this is not where we want to go as a country. I think that the importance of this news is that his legal team is not saying, you know, we want to move this for five years. It's not an unusual or unreasonable ask.

It's saying, you know, this is not a normal case. It involves all these documents. It involves a lot of time.

So all this procedural info that we need to do, there's no way we can handle that. Plus have a fair jury when a person is running for office and taking positions that 50% of the country, I think we can fair to say, disagree with. So how would you get a jury pool that won? I mean, I don't even know how it would ever work for Donald Trump. He's a former President of the United States.

So like of his peers is kind of weird because he's the President of the United States. So would the jury need to be, you know, former Presidents? But the second part is that, again, it's such a heightened time in America that you could see jury members.

And again, I'm just, this is just hypothetically saying, oh, I think he's guilty because I don't like him because I support the other candidate. And that's why his team is saying, listen, you want to bring this charges, do it after the election. We might win, we might lose, but so they didn't give a specific date, but they said, bring it after the election. So it could be after the primary though. I think that's unlikely.

It could be after the general election looking more and more like that's about 50-50 right now. So again, I, but I am nervous, Andy, that if the judge does this because she was a Trump nominee at the district court level, she will be under attack. Yeah, that's, there's no doubt about this. Judge Cannon is a Trump nominee.

There's no question about it. She got confirmed by the Senate, but she was appointed by President Trump and whatever she does, she's, she's going to be criticized for it by one side or another. If she grants the continuing, she's going to say, ah, you're doing it to favor Trump who appointed you to this lifetime position. If she denies it, they're going to say that, you know, this is similarly politically motivated for some reason that she's turned on her benefactor in some way. So there's no way that she can win in this case, but she's going to have to do the right thing. And the right thing in my case is to grant a continuance after the general election.

That's what I think ought to be done. Let's go ahead and take a phone call. Let's go to Richard. Who's calling on line one. Richard, you're on the air. Hey guys, how are you doing? Thanks for taking my call. I appreciate you guys and everything you do at the ACLJ. It's awesome.

And God bless you. So my question was first when President Trump spoke, um, at the beginning of July, um, at the, I've been picking South Carolina. He had referred to a time when President Clinton was sneaking tapes or documents out of the oval office or out of the white house in his socks.

He called referred to it as like the sock something. But anyway, there was, um, he said there was case law that a judge said that he could do what he did because he was a sitting President of the United States. So my question is, is how can they hold these indictments? It gets him for taking records that were under the Presidential record act when there's already case law previous that a judge said a federal judge said, bill Clinton could do that because he was a sitting President.

Yeah. I mean, I think you can look at that decision. It's not a totally on point because here, let me just explain to you real quick what happened there very, very quickly. Uh, President Clinton, uh, did a series of recordings for his memoir and he described phone calls. They, he did not record actual phone calls. He described phone calls. He described events, uh, and it described like, you know, things he did during his presidency. He then, it was called the Clinton socks case cause they tapes were in his sock drawer and there was a FOIA made to get those tapes. Uh, and ultimately the judge said, no, these are, uh, President Clinton's personal because these are his, these are his personal, uh, recordings and remembrances of what he did as President, kind of like a diary so that he could remember and then be able to write a, uh, you know, write a book, a memoir about his time as President United States. So for some of these documents, could that apply?

Yes. Now it gets to the other issue is the classification issue, which is a, which is really the bigger issue here, which is not that you can take any documents or whatever. The question is, can the President declassify just by thinking? So now we know there's not a formal process.

The President doesn't have to go through a formal process. Like when Joe Biden said that we're low on ammunition in that interview, Andy, uh, technically that's probably something that's classified. I would imagine like our stockpiles of weapons are definitely classified. When he said that he did not violate any laws because he can decide at any moment to declassify information and release it to the public. Well, that's exactly right. I mean, if the President of the United States, who is the ultimate arbiter of what is classified and what is not makes a statement in public as he did damaging though, I think it is, and probably contrary to the advice of his military, but he made it, did it anyway. Not surprisingly. I mean, it's okay because he's the President and he can do declassify anything he wants to as long and while he is the President of the United States, it seems to me, and of course with President Biden, you never know what's going to come out of his mouth.

In this case, he made a statement that we're low on ammunition, not a good thing for the Chinese and the Russians to be hearing. No, not at all. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. I want you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We didn't get to this big victory. Let me just read it real quick. Add a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Law, Texas, which aimed at curbing discriminatory practices against Israel and safeguarding US companies. The court dismissed the case, the company that was trying to take down the protection and allow boycott, divestment, sanctions, and remove the injunction that had been wrongfully imposed by the lower courts.

That's a big victory for the state of Israel, our number one ally in the Middle East, fighting back against lawfare and the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that is such a key component of the squad like AOC and Antifa. All right, I do want to encourage you. We have another half hour coming up, so if you don't get us on your local station, if you're listening on Terrestrial Radio, you can find us broadcasting on ACLJ.org, Rumble, YouTube, Facebook.

However you get your social media platforms, we are on all of them and we are broadcasting live there on most of them. So find us there or later on. Find us archived on the podcast or search for Sekulow. And do want to encourage you in the middle of the matching challenge, as I said earlier, support the work of the ACLJ. All donations effectively doubled right now, so all you have to do is go to ACLJ.org, make a donation, and anything you make will be matched by another donor ready on the other side.

So that's at ACLJ.org. We'll be back with Tulsi Gabbard. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We talked about this big move by the Trump legal team. They want the classified documents trial.

That's the one out of Florida with the special prosecutor Jack Smith. He wanted to start the trial December 11th, which is a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucus, after Presidential debates have already begun. And the Trump team has come in and said, there's no way we could start a trial then. One, there's so many complicated issues here, because we're talking about 31 classified documents, at least documents or documents, depending on how much a document, how many pages is in one. And there's a law that protects, of course, the defense has the right to all the evidence that will be used against them, but also the exculpatory evidence. And so if you've got these documents, you have to decide, one, are you going to declassify the entire document as the prosecutors and hand that over, which means the public gets to see it. So you have to determine that that document is actually not that important. Now you can imagine why that hurts your case if you're the prosecutor, because you're like, it's like, wow, that document's so little of importance that you were willing to declassify it just to try and prosecute the President. What's more likely is that they try to write a summary of those documents with heavy or heavy redactions, but then they have to get the judge to approve it. So it has to have enough information so it makes sense, not just to President Trump, but to his legal team. They can then challenge that.

You could do that for all 31 documents. So you're not getting to trial. You're still, you know, on the judicial decisions by the judge, setting up the parameters of the trial. And what the Trump legal team has said is we want this to start after the election. They didn't define a specific date because he could potentially lose the primary. Does not look like that right now. Looks like he's on path to easily get the Republican nomination. I think he will. That's my personal opinion.

But I do. And so I think, again, you look towards the general election and you say, okay, sometime after that. There's also the second issue, which is how would you get a jury while he's campaigning across the country that's really going to be fair, that's not going to be impacted by what he is saying on the campaign trail, whether they do like it or not.

And so that's the worst time to try and put together a jury that's supposed to be a fair arbiter and an arbiter that you can, I guess, trust is just going to make the best decision and not just vote to convict or not convict because they do or don't like someone's personal politics. So there we go on that. We'll continue to take your calls to 1-800-684-3110. Let's take Mary Ellen from Illinois online too. Yeah, Mary Ellen, you're on the air. Oh, hello. Thank you.

And I want to tell you first that we always pray for you and your team. So with that, I am thinking about all these cases, actually. I know lawyers have to be strategic in weighing the pluses and the minuses of what they do. So the question is, what possible reason could they have for not filing a motion to dismiss any of these cases? Oh, I mean, listen, they're all different cases, and it's all about timing.

So I think you will see those kind of motions. Sometimes they're on specific charges, counts in the case. So you go to a specific count, like in the Alvin Bragg situation in New York, that's state law. There's many reasons to file a motion to dismiss because he's using two different laws. Now, right now, unless something has changed, but we haven't seen it yet, he hasn't even identified the statutes. So it'd be very difficult to write a motion to dismiss. In fact, the Trump legal team there said that. They don't even know the statutes he's going to be relying on to make it a felony. In Florida, in that situation again, a motion to dismiss that massive of a case brought against you is a big undertaking. So you'd be writing a seriously, a legal document.

I do think they will be coming by the way. I just remember this is a slow process. It is not a, this is not a quick process.

It's a slow process. We'll be right back 1-800-684-3110. Tulsi Gabbard will be with us.

All right. Welcome back to Secchia. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Tulsi Gabbard is about to join us. I have a little tech issue. She joined us.

We have her by phone. So we had a tech issue. Maybe we had that early in the week, but she's joined us by phone and Tulsi, I wanted to go, I saw your post on this and actually I kind of liked that iPhone is doing this now when you download new apps and with the Threads app, you don't have to go through like, obviously they always want you to look at the terms of service and again, it's usually like the small print legal forms, but iPhone, at least on the Apple app, when you download from the store, they're making it very clear the data that is going to be collected on you. It is shocking when it is taken out of LegalEase Tulsi and put into just basic bullet points, what you are giving to, in this case, to Mark Zuckerberg and Threads and Meta just by downloading Threads, not even by utilizing it yet, but just by downloading it. Yeah, it's pretty disturbing. Sometimes when I talk to people about this broader issue of how these big tech and social media companies are collecting so much information on, people are like, oh, I got nothing to hide.

That's not what it's about. When you actually, like you said, when you look at, in simple terms, the information they're collecting, things like your contact info, your browsing history, your usage data, your contact, specific identifiers about you. And then they have this nebulous thing called sensitive info.

What is that exactly? And just these questions should raise alarm bells in people's minds. Not only that they're collecting all this information on us, most of us have our phones with us almost everywhere we go and there's a lot of information, personal information they could collect there, but it's what are they doing with it?

They're monetizing this for their own profits, certainly. But then you take a step back and you look at the increased revealing of collusion that we're seeing between the national security state, federal law enforcement agencies, department of justice, and these big tech companies, and how either they are willingly providing information to the government about those that the government's interested in for whatever reason. But then there's also the case of implied pressure, where if you've got the FBI calling and saying, hey, we need this information about this group or this individual, whether the threat is implied or not, if it's explicit or implicit, the big tech companies are in a position where they have to think, well, if we don't provide this information, what consequences will we face? What extra scrutiny will we be under?

What power will they then use against us in order to get us to submit? So there's a whole range of consequences here that we should be concerned about with this extensive data capture that's coming from companies like META and people like Mark Zuckerberg, who don't have any qualms about doing it. No, I mean, I just want to read through real quick. This is the data link to you. The following data may be collected and linked to your identity if you download, when you download threads. And this, again, it's not that uncommon, by the way, that this info is shared, that apps take this info.

What was different here is Apple is now putting it forward very clearly, so I don't have to read for you A-1, B-2, E in small print. So for instance, health and fitness, your financial info, your contact info, your user content, and on that it has the picture image, so all of your photos, your browsing history, how much you use the phone, the usage data, your diagnostics, your purchases, what you've bought on your phone. Again, everything you've bought on your phone, your location, which again is a normal one that I think people are pretty used to, using maps and things like that. All of your contacts, all of your searching, search history, and they define that differently than browsing history, which is interesting.

Any identifiers, like personal identifiers, then we get to the one that Tulsi said, which is the strangest, and Logan, it is strange, sensitive info and it has an eyeball. Yeah, exactly, without giving out real details on what that means. Sure, I think everyone has to, maybe most people at least have a basic understanding that if you're using one of these free platforms, free social media platforms, they're not giving it to you for free for no reason. They're doing it for data collection and advertising, and something we've always had a conversation about, especially when it comes to, okay, is this just being used so they can target an ad to me? Okay, that's sort of the business we understand, we're getting this free service so they can do this. But it's also one of the reasons we said, now TikTok on the other hand, we said, oh, we're all pushing back against TikTok because of very specific reasons, and that was what is the data being used for? And now when you see a look at this, it does, and Tulsi, I'll throw this back to you question, it does bring up a lot of concerns. There's also concern of this is the method of getting your message out right now. So it's not as easy as just saying, well, don't use the app, don't use threads, don't use Twitter, don't use Instagram or Facebook because right now, especially heading into elections over the next year, if we're not part of that conversation easily, there's a huge group of people who are in that conversation. So how do we balance this or is this about getting more control over the data that's being spread?

Logan, it's exactly that. It's about getting over, it's empowering people to be able to make their own decisions about what information is being collected. And therefore, every one of us can say, yeah, okay, fine.

I'm okay with this because now I want to use this app. This kind of transparency must be there. And there's some legislation in Congress that people are looking at that I believe there's a Data Privacy Protection Act that both Republicans and Democrats were looking at that really should apply to all of these social media companies. Because the reality is that this is our virtual town square, whether it's Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, or any of these others, this is our virtual town square. And for candidates who are running for office or frankly, individuals who care about an issue, nonprofits, organizations, who are trying to help make sure that voters are informed before we make our decisions at the polling place on election day, this is one of the main platforms that we have to be able to reach people, especially at a time where more and more people are not trusting the mainstream news, the propaganda media, because they're seeing that it is propaganda, they're looking for other platforms to be able to find information, make decisions for themselves. And so you're right, it's not a matter of saying, oh, we'll just don't use it. Will everybody move to a flip phone or something and not have access to this?

I don't think that's a realistic proposition for most people. No, and we know the DOJ is fighting back against that court decision. They want to be able to tell social media companies what content they should and shouldn't promote. And we're not talking about going to them and saying, hey, there's a terrorist group using this hashtag or using these accounts to recruit, or there's someone here that they're involved with selling drugs.

This is the hashtag, or this is the image that they're using, the code words that they're using. That would be legitimate because that's not protected speech. That's illegal. But if you add all this information that they're collecting and then add to the fact that the government wants to start targeting specific content, which they already were doing, they're banned right now from doing it because of that court order. I mean, that is a lot of content that even the US government doesn't have that these tech companies have.

And they're putting that pressure saying, hey, if you want to keep your Section 230 status and your immunity, you better share this with us. So again, I think this is one of the biggest issues facing probably our generation and the next generation of people, which is how much the tech companies not just run our lives because they're so important, they're so important to our lives to have all these phones and apps, but how much they know about every single one of us down to the dimes, how much you've got in your bank account. There's another issue I did want to get to quickly, Tulsi, I know it's near and dear to your heart. I think, again, clean oceans, clean water is near and dear to everyone's heart. It's not a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue about humanity and taking care of the earth and Japan. This is pretty shocking, is soon going to be releasing, they call it treated radioactive water into the ocean following approval from the UN, a nuclear watchdog for, and it's a controversial plan that comes 12 years. This is water that was, I guess, infected with radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. This is a really important issue. There's two things that I want people to draw their attention to. Number one is the UN's IAEA regulatory body has just given their okay for Japan to release this radioactive water out into the ocean.

They're trying to tell people, A, everything is going to be fine, but they're using words like probably fine, possibly, likely no concern, likely no impact. But scientists from around the world, the United States and other countries are saying, hold on a second, not so fast. You have not provided the data and the evidence to show that by releasing this water, it's not going to negatively impact and contaminate fish with this radioactive matters, which then could impact people negatively who then eat that fish. The ramifications are huge. They cannot do this. This is a bigger question about the danger of these nuclear power plants and how they continue to negatively impact us around the world.

Yeah, there's got to be a better way to do away with this radioactive water than just, or matter than just releasing it into a place where we get food from. And I get it, it's so important to all of us. Tulsi, we appreciate you being a member of our team, a senior analyst on political and foreign issues of foreign affairs. We'll be right back, folks, on Sekulow. You know, we got this great team because of your financial support of the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We showed you yesterday, CC Howe is at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Of course, our office in Strasbourg, France, the European Center for Law and Justice is very active there.

You've seen me do oral interventions. That's what they're called at the Human Rights Council. CC did one yesterday on our client in Pakistan who was on death row, and we got some pretty good updates. It was interesting.

I don't want to share too much and get that person into any more trouble than they're already in, but I will say that there are representatives from that government who said, hey, you know, if he was to be released, do you have a place where he could go safely because of the mob problem there? So, you know, those are the kind of discussions. This is why it's important, Logan, to be there in person.

It's not just the oral intervention. It's the conversations you can have with... That's why having that status at the ACLJ is so important because you can have these sidebar conversations after you have basically made these countries almost shame them, and you can go and then talk to them and say, how do we figure this out? I think this is an important topic to bring up because we actually kind of touched on it a little bit with Tulsi when it comes to being a part of that public square, being part of that.

It's not dissimilar to this. We actually... I always see whenever we start talking about our involvement in the UN, some pushback because people hear the UN and their initial reaction is sometimes negative. But we are there. We are approved member, NGO status, as I said, for the UN. And what's important, people understand that if no one is there, then this is never going to happen.

These conversations can't happen. And that's why it's important for the ACLJ to be there, whether you like the concept of the UN or not. Right. And remember, the UN can also be utilized because it's a place that every country goes. So while you could be not like what the UN itself is doing as an institution, where else can you go and see every country's top representative in one building?

Right. Nowhere. You can go to the UN in Geneva when they're in session for the Human Rights Council. You can go to New York when they are in session for the Security Council. And then, again, you can try to get embassy meetings and things like that.

That's much more difficult and bureaucratic. When they're standing right there, it's easy to huddle. They've got all these side rooms there where you can just grab somebody and just have a private discussion or maybe even have just a cup of coffee together and kind of deescalate a situation. Well, CC, we didn't know this was going to happen, ended up delivering another oral intervention, just happened.

So I want to play for you. This just happened in Geneva. European Center for Law and Justice.

Thank you, Mr. President. Freedom of religion and speech are foundational human rights. This body is discussing the alarming rise in premeditated and public acts of religious hatred. And although desecrating any religion's holy book is despicable, when the acts take a human life or wrongfully accuse another with the intent to harm them, that cannot be tolerated. This is exactly what's happening when blasphemy laws are used against Christians out of hatred to destroy lives. One such case exemplifies this issue and how these acts have ruined an innocent Christian boy's life who has languished in prison for over five years and has recently been sentenced to death by hanging. Shahzad Masih was falsely accused of blasphemy by a religious leader who gathered a mob to publicly accuse Shahzad and then hand him over to the police. And although the police investigation found that Shahzad had committed no crime and the witnesses confirmed that Shahzad had not committed blasphemy, a judge tried Shahzad, a minor, as an adult and found him guilty. Before the conviction, a religious leader from the same group in yet another act of completely premeditated and public religious hatred posted a video threatening that if Shahzad was not convicted, they would kill him with their own hands. This body is right to condemn premeditated and public acts of religious hatred, but it must make sure that it is condemning the egregious acts that wrongfully take or destroy human lives.

Thank you. Again, this is why you go. And CC was also co-hosting an event we were sponsoring at the UN. You're able to do that too, where we bring in people who have been persecuted to tell their stories so that you can't be ignored. This idea that, oh, I don't know if that really happened or maybe you're making this up or you're making it worse than it actually is. And if he's on death row, it must be for another reason. It can't just be because of a sentence, he said, that was misinterpreted. It wasn't even a blast misstatement under the strict blasphemy laws in places like Pakistan. But they are trying to utilize the situation in Sweden where someone burned a Quran to, and again, I don't support burning holy books of other people's faith, but you know, it's still we live in a free world where people can do things and I don't think we should riot ever because of that, but it has caused riots. So it's always dangerous when the UN starts thinking about implicating or utilizing, I guess the better way to say it, utilizing blasphemy laws. Now, why would the UN do that?

They have a lot of Muslim countries and a lot of Muslim countries with serious wealth who can influence other countries who don't have that kind of wealth to vote their way. So it's a dual battle both in the countries and also at the UN that we keep the UN away from endorsing anti-human rights, anti-freedom of speech, blasphemy laws. You can condemn the act. You could say it's wrong. You don't have to make it illegal or punishable by, well, in some cases punished by death or punished by prison. You could just say, I believe this is wrong. This isn't the right thing to do, but that person still has the freedom to do it. That's where we want to get to in the world where you can be offended and it doesn't mean you're going to criminalize the offense in every matter. But unfortunately, and again, it just underscores what Logan said.

It is why we are there fighting every single day to make sure that isn't the case. All right, let's go ahead and try to take a quick call. Let's go to first to Jon. Jon, you were on for a very long time, but try to keep it quick because we're running out of time.

Thank you for taking my call. My question quickly was if Donald Trump were to win candidacy or win presidency, instead of asking the DOJ to drop the charges, can he replace a new DOJ and find out why there was this two-tier justice going on? Yeah, of course he can. I mean, he'd be the President of the United States. He could remove everybody from DOJ. Now suddenly there'll be people saying we want to impeach, we want to remove him, but he has the power to do that completely. He could have fired Bob Mueller at any moment. Now again, he didn't because he knew it was going to be vindicated. But yes, would he be able to investigate what's been going on with the Bidens? Absolutely.

But remember last time he called for an investigation of that, he did get impeached because when he was on the phone with Zelensky. So again, lots to talk about here. It's complicated. I appreciate it by his phone call. And Logan, we've got a cool update too for tomorrow's broadcast. People definitely want to tune in. A lot of people have been still I've seen in the comments talking about Sound of Freedom, the new movie that has really taken the box office by storm the last few weeks. Well, tomorrow on the broadcast, we're going to have Neil Harmon, who is actually the founder and CEO of Angel Studios, the studios responsible for getting this movie out. And we're going to really deep dive into the whole process of what it took to get this movie out. As you know, it was shot five years ago, shelved by Hollywood.

They were able to get it out. We're going to discuss how all of that happened and discuss obviously the future of Angel Studios and Sound of Freedom. And I'm sure we're going to have people on later on as well to keep talking about this.

It's exciting. If you've seen the film, you'll be interested to hear this. If you haven't seen the film, again, they're not sponsoring nothing. We encourage you to do that because it is a really an important moment for Hollywood in general.

As someone who makes movies as a filmmaker, it's been great to watch the rise of Sound of Freedom. It's such an important topic. But that'll be tomorrow on the broadcast. Make sure you come back tomorrow to watch Neil Harmon, CEO of Angel Studios, who will be on. Also though, we are in the middle of our matching challenge and we encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ. Visit ACLJ.org right now. The show's wrapping up for the day. All you gotta do is go to ACLJ.org. Any donation made is effectively doubled. We will talk to you tomorrow.