This is Jay Sekulow Deal or No Deal.
Hunter Biden's future in limbo. 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, Jay Sekulow. Hi, everybody. Big news day, potentially on a lot of fronts, including the situation with Hunter Biden. We were talking about that yesterday and the plea agreement that the judge did not approve.
Now, we've got information now. That's really what was bothering the judge. There was some thought that it was basically a disagreement, Logan, between the prosecutors and the defense lawyers. But now that we've seen excerpts of the transcript, the judge said, what is the precedent for this kind of basically sweetheart deal? And the U.S. attorney that's in charge of the case said, basically, there is none. Here's the exact question. And you don't have any precedent for that, right?
Mr. Wise, no, your honor. Do you have any authority? The judge then asked. The court has ever accepted that or said that they would do that. This is talking about how they were going to handle this gun charge, which was the felony, remember. No, your honor, this was crafted to suit the facts and circumstances.
And by the way, that raises a big issue. He's supposed to be equal justice under the law, which of course includes facts and circumstances. But you start wondering, do they mean by facts and circumstances because it's the vice President's son?
I don't know if that's what they meant, but that's certainly what was said here, which is very, very interesting as it goes. And now that plea arrangement is, we say in limbo, it's in a situation where they've got to come back probably in the next four to six weeks to work that out. There's also news that the indictment, a potential indictment of Donald Trump could come down as early as today.
The President's current lawyers met with the Justice Department just moments ago. Yeah, and they said that just wrapped up. So we know that that could be coming anytime. So make sure you stay tuned and listen. If you have a question or comment, we'd love to hear from you.
1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. We had so many great calls yesterday, so many we didn't get to. So if you want to get back in line, this is a great time to do it. We'll take as many calls as we can. Again, we'll recap the Hunter Biden situation. We're going to talk about what's going on with the Trump situation, a potential third indictment coming of Rick Grenell joining us later on in the broadcast and ending the show with Senator Marsha Blackburn. So it's going to be stacked. And I'll answer questions related to these issues. So if people have questions about if the President is indicted, a former President is indicted, what does that mean again?
How would that play? I'm happy to address that. What's the situation with Hunter Biden? How does that move forward?
Happy to answer that as well. I will tell you this, that when you look at what has transpired, the judge, this is what you need to focus on. And this shows you the kind of two-tiered system of justice we talk about. At one point, the judge described the plea agreement as, quote, not standard, not what I normally see, possibly unconstitutional, without legal precedent and potentially, quote, not worth the paper it is printed on. The judge eventually said, you are saying just rubber stamp the agreement. I'm not in a position to accept or reject it.
I need to defer. That's what the judge said of what both parties, the government prosecutors, the United States Department of Justice, and Hunter Biden's lawyers received from the judge. So this was very different as it was portrayed coming out of the media yesterday as to what actually transpired here.
Very different situation. Yeah, I mean, we were hearing it in real time yesterday, and now we've had a little bit of time to sort of break it all down and learn a little bit more about what actually went down. So what's the next step in this situation? If you're the lawyer here, what happens? Yeah, the judge said, I'm going to have you come back in, you could rework your plea agreement again, come in with briefs and precedents for these arrangements you're asking me to sign. So what I expect is that the judge will hear another plea probably in two to four weeks, and I think realistically, Logan, there will be some arrangement made. Can I guarantee it?
No, but I think it's more likely than that they will still come to a plea agreement here. We're taking your calls right now. 1-800-684-3110. We are also headed towards the very end of our matching challenge, so this is a great time to support the work of the ACLJ. Just go to ACLJ.org, make your donation today, and another member of the ACLJ family, this donation is unlocked, so we'd love to have you as part of the ACLJ family.
Just go to ACLJ.org, make that donation today. Again, coming up later on the show, we've got Rick Grenell, we've got Senator Marsha Blackburn, Andy Cahnama will be joining us. So again, a really packed show, but we are going to hear from you, because those are some very important voices in our world who can really weigh into this. But your voice equally as important, so give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching on our social media platforms, YouTube, Rumble, wherever it is, I'm going to ask you to like, share, and comment.
Do that now. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow again, taking your phone calls today at 1-800-684-3110. Thanks for joining us. Thanks to all the new people who are joining us on all the platforms yesterday. We had sort of a record-breaking amount of subscribers on YouTube, so I want to appreciate and say welcome to all our new YouTube subscribers who are joining us today as well.
I want to go to Andy. We've had a chance to see some of the excerpts that have come out of the proceedings yesterday on this plea agreement. I think before we get into the particulars there, normally, and you've done hundreds of these, I've been involved in many, many too, the plea deal comes out and it's a proceeding, but it's pretty pro forma. Here, the plea itself was part of the problem because it was so unique and different.
Well, that's right, Jay. Usually, a negotiated plea is a very simple matter. Both sides know exactly what they're wanting out of the deal. The government or the state knows what it's going to give. The defendant knows what he's going to get. You present it to the judge. In federal court, it's different. The federal judges usually don't always accept guilty pleas as much as state court judges do.
They may question them. As George Norica did in this case, the judge asked some serious questions. What about this non-prosecution agreement? Am I getting into the business of being the executive branch of government and giving him a pass on criminal charges for the future? Why am I agreeing to a plea agreement that sentences Hunter Biden on two tax charges but does not have anything to do with but gives him basically non-prosecution status for all the other offenses that he is alleged to have committed in Ukraine, in China, with gun charges and so forth?
Where is the breadth here? What is my authority to do that? Is it constitutional? In other words, what you had was a United States district judge doing her duty and doing her obligation by asking the tough, hard questions about what's this plea deal about and what's really at the bottom of it.
And once that happened, it unraveled, Jay. So Judge Norica also zeroed in on a central component of the deal, and that was a paragraph that was offering Hunter Biden broad immunity from prosecution, basically in perpetuity, for a range of matters scrutinized by the Justice Department during this five-year investigation. The judge, Andy, questioned, this is interesting, why prosecutors had written it in a way that gave her no legal authority to reject it. In other words, there was not a situation where the judge under this agreement could say, you know what, I think that that is incorrect. So she just rejected them. Once that plea, if it was executed like that, the judge would be done and over with the case, no probation, no nothing. She rejected all of that, too.
That's right, Jay. The judge was not going to have any part of any deal like that where she simply rubber stamped what the prosecutor and the defense had agreed upon. She wanted to know what her constitutional authority was. She did not agree to a binding negotiated plea.
That's basically what this is about. And they tried to bind the judge to a negotiated agreement that they had worked out among themselves to give Hunter Biden a pass basically on two misdemeanor charges and immunity and non-prosecution for the rest of his life on everything that the Justice Department has been looking at him for years. And the judge was not having any part in that sort of thing. Yeah, and so Chris Clark, who represented one of Hunter Biden's lawyers, said that the provision of this broad grant of immunity indemnified his clients not only from the tax and gun offenses uncovered during the inquiry, but for other possible offenses stemming from his consulting deals with companies in Ukraine, China, and Romania. The prosecutors, on the other hand, had a narrower definition. They said they saw Mr. Biden's immunities limited to offenses uncovered during their probe of his tax returns dating back to 2014 and his illegal purchase of a firearm in 2018 when he was a heavy drug user. When the judge asked Leah Weiss, that is the prosecutor, if the investigation was still ongoing, he answered yes.
When she asked him hypothetically if the deal would preclude an investigation into possible violations of law regarding foreign lobbying by Mr. Biden connected with his consulting firm and legal work, he replied no. So there was not a meeting of the minds between the prosecutor, Logan, and the defense lawyers, which is unreal that they had all this time to prepare and could not work these details out. It's mind boggling.
Yeah, to walk in and not have that all ready to go is pretty crazy. Let's go ahead and take some phone calls because a lot of you are calling in. I want to hopefully spur some more calls to 1-800-684-3110. Jerry in Rhode Island, you're on the air. Hey, Jerry.
Hello, team. Question. The judge fleshed out from the prosecution there's another investigation. Will that provide a shield to DOJ or any entities from congressional subpoenas or witnesses or documents?
Yeah, I mean, here's why. It does two things. Number one, when Weiss goes on the stand to testify before the House Committee and they said, is this an ongoing investigation? He's going to say, yes, I said that in open court. We're still investigating this matter. Two, yes, it limits what the Department of Justice has to hand over because while Congress can subpoena and they can, you know, get evidence, it's the separation of powers, co-equal branches of government.
They cannot interfere with an ongoing prosecution. So that's why there's more to this than meets the eye of what's going on here. And you kind of have to, you've got to kind of think nine-dimensional chess when you're looking at all of this. And we're taking your calls, by the way, on this. There's also an anticipation that an indictment could be coming down as early as today as to President Trump's culpability in the January 6 events.
And there's an expectation. The lawyers for President Trump met with the prosecutors today, including Jack Smith, but there's also this thought, at least among the media, that there's an indictment coming down. I'm not so sure of that personally, by the way, that it's coming down today, but it's probably imminent. Imminent could mean today, tomorrow, Thursday. They're working on it. They're working on it.
Yes, no question about that. All right, let's go ahead and keep going with the calls. Let's go to Eric who's calling in Colorado. Eric, you're on the air. Hi, Eric.
Hi, guys. I want to know why you feel that maybe the Republicans aren't pushing impeachment on Biden based upon the quid pro quo narrative that they impeached Trump over, where we clearly have evidence of bribery and money from foreign entities. I think that, first of all, the quid pro quo narrative against President Trump, and Andy and I handled that case before the United States Senate and the House of Representatives, it was ridiculous. He made a phone call to another world leader, and of course, as the President, that's what he does every day. Why are they not pressing it with regard to Biden? There is discussions that they may actually seek articles of impeachment against the current President. You cannot prosecute a current President, but you can certainly seek articles of impeachment. The question is going to be, unlike the situation with Donald Trump where they totally violated his due process rights, and I showed you that the other day on air, and I think we probably still have it, the trial brief that we filed and the trial notebook from that case.
Here it is. Eighty pages of that brief, that's the one with the red, white, and blue cover, 80 pages of that brief, by the way, were on the procedural irregularities that took place and the lack of due process, Andy. Republicans should not do the same to this President. They should give the President due process if they go with articles of impeachment. Having said all of that, getting a conviction in the Senate would be, I'd say, near impossible, but Andy?
Well, I agree with you, Jay. I mean, as we said before, we were not, as the attorneys for President Trump, given any kind of due process in the proceedings that culminated in the impeachment articles in the House of Representatives. We were not allowed to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses. The President was not given the right to have counsel presence, so the fundamental protections that you would give to a burglar were not accorded to the President of the United States. Yeah, I think we need to actually go take a listen to, this is Elise Stefanik, obviously another member now, a, we've had now a member of the speaker, and now we've had a House conference chair speak out about this specific instance of whether articles of impeachment could or will be coming.
This is again from Representative Elise Stefanik. I'm in conversations with Speaker McCarthy and all of our members, and the important thing to know about impeachment inquiry is that ensures that the House is at the apex of its power and oversight responsibility. So it means that our subpoenas have the most power possible when it comes to litigating this out in court, because we know getting the facts is not going to be easy. We know that this White House, this Department of Justice, they are trying to cover up for Hunter Biden and ultimately Joe Biden. Yeah, so, you know, the impeachment, I have to say this as someone that's defended an impeachment, Logan, and that is the process itself goes through what's called the inquiry stage, and that's where you're doing the investigation. That's why you're seeing all these whistleblowers testify, which I think have been fairly devastating to Joe Biden, quite frankly.
Yeah, I think so. I think having more and more people, especially those who don't fit in the Republican mold, coming out and saying there was definitely some issues here is really going to hurt President Biden in the long run, but we'll see actually how that turns out. We're going to have an interesting time. When you have a Hunter Biden, you have a President Trump both having legal issues, if you will, right now. We'll see what this looks like in 12 months when really things have heated up, and that's presuming that Trump gets the nomination, Biden gets the nomination, which I think as of right this second is sadly, not sadly that's going to happen, mainly for Biden, I'd say.
It feels like a predetermined, you know, the RFK had his moment, then they're kind of going after him. Trump, though, leading with such a significant number that, we talked about the debates, whether anyone's even going to show up, it feels like a foregone conclusion that it's going to be Trump and Biden. The numbers yesterday, I think it was Trump 51% and the closest was DeSantis at 18%. It doesn't even feel like we're going to have a primary season, but it is what it is.
Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. Speaking of whistleblowers also, I don't know if anyone saw all of the UFO and UAP conversations yesterday, so that was wild as well. There's a lot of stuff going on in our world that we need to make sure that we're all covering all of it. The UFO thing got you a little nervous? I think it woke the world up a little bit.
When they said the biologic was not human? Yeah, so we'll talk about that. They're covering it right now on mainstream news.
That's how wild it's getting. All right, give us a call, 1-800. Rick Grenell's joining us in the next segment.
Thanks to Andy. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll take your calls on all of this, including this pending indictment against President Trump at 1-800-684-3110.
Whatever social media platform you're on, share it with your friends. We've got a lot of people watching. Welcome back to Sekulow. I'm going to ask you to do one thing right now, and that is to go, if you're watching online or if you're listening on radio, whatever it is, go to ACLJ.org slash poll. We discussed this in the last segment. We have a very simple poll that we're running right now, and we're asking you to do it. Just go to ACLJ.org slash poll, P-O-L-L. And the question just is, should President Biden be impeached? So the answers are yes or no. I think maybe an uncertain also, but there's a yes or no.
And here's the thing. We had a ton of callers when we first discussed this who gave us sort of a broad spectrum of thoughts. Some said absolutely yes. Some said no, I don't want a President Harris. Some said even just that they felt that it was unjust to do it to President Trump.
They shouldn't do it to President Biden. But we want your voice heard. So even if you can't call in today, which I encourage you to do, but if you can't call in, this is simple, takes you a couple seconds. Just vote in that poll, ACLJ.org slash poll.
Do it right now. And we got Rick Grenell joining us. Yeah, we sure do. And Rick, before we get into anything else, I want to, you know, there's this anticipation of another indictment coming down on the former President. I think this one's going to involve the January 6 issues, which in my mind raised very serious First Amendment issues. I mean, very, very serious First Amendment issues. And then we'll get into the two-tiered system of justice. But there seems to be little doubt that the Department of Justice, weaponized as it is now, is doing everything they can to make sure, or try to make sure Donald Trump is not the nominee, when it looks like from every conceivable poll that he's going to be the nominee by an overwhelming number.
Yeah, not only that, Jay. What I would say is there seems to be some sort of collusion with big tech and the media. Because let's just take the January 6 issue. Most people do not understand that Donald Trump tweeted multiple times that day to push for a peaceful, you know, people have people peacefully protest. He kept saying the word peaceful. He wanted them to demonstrate and show that they were upset about the process, which they have a right to do. But he went out of his way to say, protect our great police officers.
Don't do anything. Those tweets, by the way, are at the top of Donald Trump's Twitter feed because Donald Trump kicked off Twitter and then reinstated by Elon Musk. And he hasn't tweeted since in years.
And so you can go to the real Donald Trump Twitter feed and see exactly what he said. But most people don't realize that because the media totally doesn't present that side of his tweet. They don't they don't present his side of the story.
And big tech has suppressed him and even canceled him. So I think people are really upset about the one sidedness not only of prosecution, but in the lead up to prosecutions and how the public gets their information to understand the issues. So in that regard, we saw the Hunter Biden indictment and then plea bargain fall apart yesterday. And the judge, I think, wisely saying there was no precedent for any of this, this sweetheart deal. I found it fascinating that in it, in the colloquy going back and forth between the individual, the U.S. attorney and the judge, when they asked about the actual plea, this was you said, do you have any precedent for any of this?
No, Your Honor. That's what Mr. Weiss said. The court said, do you have any authority that any court has ever accepted that?
This is this whole idea that you're like, absolved from everything for always or said they would do that. The lawyer said this again. U.S. attorney, Mr. Weiss said, no, Your Honor, this was crafted to suit the facts and circumstances.
When I see it here, I'm saying facts and circumstances. They cut a special deal because it was the President's son. I mean, they would never do that for Donald Trump, let me assure you. But here they do the facts and circumstances say we do something we've never done before and have no precedent to do it. That's what they said in open court yesterday, Rick. I think every single person in the United States who's been in a courtroom, who's been accused of something should be outraged. And the people of this country who want to see and believe in a fair justice system applied equally should be outraged because it is special treatment. And, you know, I was watching CNN yesterday.
Don't ask me why. And it was so clear that every single person on the panel, which all they all agree there's no dissenting voices at all. But but they were all surprised that this deal fell apart. And I kept thinking to myself, this is what happens when you live in a world where the media only gives you one side and you believe exactly what the government says, because we've got a whole bunch of people just parroting exactly what the government says. And so when the deal falls apart, they're shocked that there was even a controversy or that Hunter was was accused of breaking other laws. And one of the things that the judge said was, wait a minute, he has a gun.
He lied on his form for the APF to get a gun. Now, we know a whole bunch of people who are constantly being harassed by government agencies for a lack of information or miscommunication in an application. We are not treated the same way that the President's son is treated. Rick, I want to go back to something happened the other day, and that was when the FISA court said, hey, look, the FBI was investigating a U.S. senator and did not follow their internal protocols and certainly not following the court's protocols.
You were the director of national intelligence for President Trump, a member of the cabinet. I want to get a sense from you as to how outrageous that fact that that has now been brought to light. You know, I'm very concerned about the intelligence agencies not having a check on them. First of all, we created the system so that there would be some sort of oversight from politicians on committees. But it's completely broken down into partisan protection and partisan accusations. So if you remove the idea that there's no oversight from Congress on the intelligence agencies, or I should say a real weak oversight of politicians who don't have enough time and won't take the time to dig in, the intelligence agencies have taken that free space.
And they've really created whole new processes on their own. And what I found, in my personal experience, that when they were wrong, they just redact information, classify it away, and no one ever sees it and no one really pushes back. As you know, Jay, I went through and declassified and unredacted a whole bunch of information only to find that Steele.CA was known to be a fake internally within the intelligence agencies and at the FBI. And that would have never come to light if we allowed the intelligence agencies to do their process. You know, there's so much information, Rick, when we were defending the President against the Mueller probe and then later the impeachment that was known within the government circles, the falsity of these accusations, and that never came to light even while we were trying the case. I mean, think about that in the United States Senate.
You're trying a case, they know there's a sculpatory evidence, and nobody hands it over. I do want to tell you this, Ronnie on Rumble says, Rick, it's okay if you never watch CNN, you wouldn't know what the extent of their one-sided reporting. I watch it too because for the same reason you do, Rick, and that is you got to know what they're thinking and what they're saying. So it was great having you. Thanks for being part of the team. We'll talk to you again later next week.
Folks, let me tell you this, all right, this is an excellent reason why to take a pause right here and say this is why you support the work of the ACLJ. Who did you just hear from? Rick Grenell, who is he? The former director of national intelligence and member of the Trump cabinet, also ambassador to Germany. Ten years of experience at the United Nations, part of the team at the ACLJ. Who did you hear from yesterday, earlier in the week? Mike Pompeo, former secretary of state, senior member of our legal team. This is what the ACLJ does. And of course this broadcast, we're giving you analysis, you're not going to get anywhere else.
That's right. You can give us a call right now, 1-800-684-3110. We've got a whole second half hour coming up. Senator Marsha Blackburn is going to join us later on.
I'm going to ask you to do one thing in this segment as we wrap up the first half hour. Go to ACLJ.org slash poll. Vote in that poll right now.
Should President Biden be impeached? Let us know what you think. A lot of mixed feelings. Do it now. We'll be back in just one minute. We'll be back in just one minute. We'll be right back. We're going to take your calls about all of this. So you've got a question or a comment, you call us at 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching on any of our social media, and boy a lot of you were yesterday and a lot of people are today, share it with your friends and Logan, you want people to participate in that poll.
Yeah, that's right. We'll beat you to the head with it. You can go to ACLJ.org slash poll if you want to vote today. We'd appreciate it. A lot of comments coming in about this specific question which was about the potential impeachment that Kevin McCarthy kind of floated out there and now at least Stephanie kind of mirrored a little bit. So the conversation is ongoing. Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Cassandra who is calling from North Carolina who has actually a pretty good question.
Yeah, real good question. People who maybe are a little confused here. Hey Cassandra. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my call gentlemen and for all that you do for us.
Thanks. Quick question. I'd like to know what the difference is between two terms that we've heard thrown around in the last couple days. What is the difference between impeachment inquiry and articles of impeachment?
Great question. So you don't – first thing you do if you're going to impanel an impeachment committee, so to speak, appoint managers or whatever it might be, is you investigate and that is the impeachment inquiry, gathering data to see if it rises to the level of an impeachable offense under the Constitution. So the very first thing that's done, which is what they're talking about now, is this investigatory stage. Now some of that's already happening in the sense that you've heard from these whistleblowers.
Let me tell you, there's a lot more whistleblowers and these whistleblowers, by the way Logan, are under unbelievable pressure. Articles of impeachment are what comes out of the inquiry if in fact they find evidence to support articles of impeachments. That is like the indictment in a criminal process.
That's the charge. That's a different process. The trial of the whole thing actually takes place.
If they vote out articles of impeachment out of the House of Representatives, the trial takes place as we did in the United States Senate. And again, I'm going to show you this U.S. Senate notebook. This was our trial notebook and our brief if you're watching it online. And if you're listening on radio, these are two of the documents that I have. One is a red, white, and blue bound copy of a brief that we filed with the Senate. The second document was a black trial notebook with the seal of the United States Senate on it. And it says proceedings before the United States Senate and representing the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. And at the bottom it has my name and our law firm's name. That was my trial notebook from that proceeding where the President was acquitted on the two charges that were brought by the House of Representative managers.
The managers are the people that run or operate. They're like the prosecutors. Hey, we just actually got word that Senator Marsha Blackburn is going to be moved up to our next segment of the broadcast, so she's going to be coming up next. This is actually the perfect time if you want to call, because what that means is now our last segment is open. So in that segment, we're going to take as many calls as we can. So if you have questions or comments, we're going to get to you in just one segment.
So next segment you're going to have Marsha Blackburn. Follow that. We're taking your calls and comments. Mainly your calls is what we appreciate. We have to hear your voice. I like your comments. I read all of them on social media, as many as I can at least, that go by pretty quickly with thousands of you.
But I want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ as we wrap up this July's Matching Challenge.
This is the time to do it. Just go to ACLJ.org and effectively all donations are doubled. A match is essentially unlocked by an ACLJ member who's already pledged. So if you give $10, that becomes $20.
$20 becomes $40. So on and so on. Phone lines are open. We've got a couple still open. 1-800-684-3110. Call in right now. We'll be right back with Senator Marsha Blackburn.
Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. We're joined by a good friend of ours, Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee who does a great job representing those in Tennessee, but also your interests from around the country if you have conservative values. Senator, the first thing I wanted, we've been talking a lot about the Hunter Bynes situation, the weaponization of the federal government, these federal agencies, and the two-tiered system of justice. I wanted to get your sense on the two-tiered system of justice first.
What's your perspective on this? You're on Capitol Hill. You're in the United States Senate.
You serve on important committees. I mean, the judge yesterday in the hearing on the acceptance of the plea, which are normally fairly routine, said there's no precedent for this kind of plea agreement. We've never had this before. She asked the U.S. attorney, is there any precedent you have for this?
And he said, no, we've never done it. We've shaped this to the facts and circumstances of this unique case. What's your sense of this? First of all, I'm grateful that we had a judge who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law and asked that question, what is the precedent, and then when found out there was none, said what is this immunity and what is the shielding, and saw the broadness of this and moved through a series of conversations and recesses and then decided that the plea deal would not be accepted and that Hunter Biden ended up then entering his plea and we're going to see where it takes us from here. You know, what's interesting about that as a lawyer that's done a lot of these cases, I've done a lot of these kind of high profile cases and you've got plea agreements are part of it, was that this judge said, you know, you're asking me to do something I think may actually be unconstitutional, that I don't have the constitutional authority to do what you're asking me to do here by this broad grant of immunity. And then the question becomes, you've got the US Attorney Weiss, Leo Weiss, that's going to be called before some House committees and he's going to say, look, I got an ongoing investigation here, I'll come up and testify, but there's going to be very little I can say about this, but it is a unique situation. And then on top of that, you've got, Senator, the weaponization of these agencies. The FISA court just last week, late on Friday, comes out and says, hey, look, and this goes right to where you sit, you were gathering information about a sitting US Senator, you violated all the internal review and rules to do that kind of investigation. Foreign intelligence is supposed to be against foreign agents and you were doing this against a US Senator, sitting US Senator, a state court judge and a state legislator.
So, you know, we don't know who that state Senator is yet and, you know, but Senator, that's got to get awful close to home since you are one. And what people want to know is how is it that we've gotten so far down this road on two tiers of justice that you have main justice, DOJ, you have FBI, you have different agencies that are involved that think this is okay. Now, how did we get this far into this and when are we going to return to equal treatment, equal access, equal justice under the law and people are just astounded. And, you know, Jay, I think it really started during the Obama presidency when the IRS was weaponized to go after conservative groups or to go after conservatives who people that contributed to conservative campaigns and they would get an audit. And then the next thing you knew, they were having to go defend themselves and most of those cases ended up with no wrongdoing. But the point was people were saying, I feel like I'm being harassed.
So what to believe. We had, we were, I was the chief lawyer on those cases and we ended up getting an injunction against the IRS where they had to change their internal policies on how they did the audits, including this no targeting and be on the lookout list. We got a monetary judgment in the millions of dollars from the court in Ohio on the same cases. What was fascinating about this was as soon as the Biden administration was in though, they went right back to the old practice and we had a friend of ours filed a lawsuit, we filed a Freedom of Information Act request and the matter was resolved.
But I will tell you that they went right back to their old habits quickly. I do want to say this, and the next day I'm in the broadcast for taking your calls at 800-684-3110, but Senator, you have been concerned for a long time about online safety, especially for kids. And you are working with Senator Blumenthal to try to come up with a solution. It's called the Kids Online Safety Act. What will that involve and what will it do? Well Jay, we got that out of committee today and what it does is put the responsibility on big tech and on the social media platforms to build themselves for safety and security by design. And that needs to be item number one on their list. It will force them to stop using our children as their product from data mining and selling that data.
It will cause them to have to scrub their sites and take off videos and information about self-harm, suicide, or putting kids in touch with drug dealers or pedophiles. So this will begin to put those guardrails in place. It is the first bipartisan bill, there are 41 cosponsors, but it's the first one to rein in big tech. You know, I did a case for the state of Georgia as a special district attorney for the state of Georgia on a grooming case involving a situation where an online groomer was grooming children, young girls primarily. And they brought in a very well-known and experienced First Amendment lawyer out of Texas and the state of Georgia brought me in. We won the case unanimously before the Supreme Court, but this is a serious fight.
So we applaud you on your efforts here on this. Last question, we're expecting an indictment, and I know you've got to run another indictment against President Trump. What's your sense of what's going on here? Boy, it sure looks like to me, as the lawyer that represented this guy for five years, that they are just targeting him nonstop because he is the leading Republican for the next Presidential cycle. Well, what they did was to pick out their man and now they've spent all these many years trying to find something that he did that they can turn into a crime. How can they reposition a misdemeanor to be a felony?
How can they find some little tidbit of a word or a phrase or something that they can use to say this was something that led to a crime? Well, I think you're right. We appreciate it, Senator. Thanks for being with us.
I know you've got a busy day. Thanks for representing all of us as well. All right, we're going to be taking phone calls now at 800-684-3110. As Logan said, we opened up the lines. Senator Blackburn had to come on a little bit early, so that gives us some room to take some more calls, which we wanted to. We're going to take one now, but we'll take more in the next segment, too.
Ask questions on any of this. 1-800-684-3110. Yeah, we have three lines open, so it's the perfect time to call.
1-800-684-3110. Bill is calling in California on Line 3. Bill, welcome. Hi, Bill. Hi.
Yes, thanks for taking my call. I'm wondering, you mentioned the other day this corruption of Biden occurred when he was vice President. So is it still an issue today, but isn't it still controlling his policy decisions in a way that's bad for America? And in spite of any political calculations of not wanting Kamala to become President, isn't it morally imperative, I mean morally and ethically imperative, to hold him accountable for this?
Doesn't it diminish America to not do so? Well, here's the, you know, you raised this, Bill, you really framed it well, because these decisions have so many repercussions, not just legally, but politically. The legal one is if, let's say you did impeach Joe Biden and somehow you got a conviction, which I don't think you'd get, but let's say you did. Well, then Kamala Harris is the President of the United States, and then she will appoint and nominate and appoint a vice President.
I mean, think about this for a moment. I mean, so you end up with that as your scenario. On the other hand, you better have evidence that really shows that this is not just hyperbole, that you're actually going to do due process, because they didn't give that to President Trump. And I would know because I was the lawyer handling it. We won the case ultimately in the Senate, but you're talking about high stakes litigation? That's about as high stakes as it can get. All right, we will be taking your phone calls coming up.
Just give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. We've got about two minutes here in this segment. We're going to come back, take all the calls. In the meantime, go to ACLJ.org, support the work, not only support during this matching challenge, look at all the incredible free content we have available. We're getting also some comments coming in from YouTube and on Rumble as well.
Let's go ahead, Logan, and take one of those. All right, we have a lot of comments again, as you said, coming in from Rumble. Let's go to, we have one from Marie who said she believes the impeachment investigation should be started. She doesn't think there will be any consequences, though, for the administration, but maybe more for the public to see the corruption.
I think that there is a combination, because we saw what happened last time, President Trump. You can't say he didn't get convicted, but didn't necessarily come out completely unscathed. No, I think it has political repercussions, even if you're not convicted, because the American people see at least the allegations and half the country kind of believes whatever they hear, so there you go.
So I think Marie's right. Now, again, I think you do the impeachment inquiry to see if you have the evidence that would then proceed to articles of impeachment. You have to have, and you've got to give the President, the sitting President, due process. Don't do what they did to us. Don't not allow the President's lawyers to do depositions. Don't allow the President's lawyers not to come in to the hearings and to the witness interviews. Allow due process. They're not going to, you know, I think the Republicans would do that if it got to that stage. It's also getting late in the game. You're basically a year and a couple of months out from the election, so you've got to weigh all of that.
And there's both legal decisions and political decisions. We come back from the break. We are going to go through and take your calls. So if you want to get in while there's a line or two open, 1-800-684-30110. That's 1-800-684-3110.
Lines are jammed right now, but there may be one or two that open up. Again, 800-684-3110. And support the work of the ACLJ in this matching challenge campaign. Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for from another donor.
So go to ACLJ.org. If you donate $50, we get another $50. It's $100. And we've got a lot more ahead coming up in the next segment. That's right.
A lot more coming up in all of your comments. So 1-800-684-3110, as you said. And support the work of the ACLJ.
ACLJ.org. We'll be right back with you. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to start right off the top and go into your calls. Let's go to Elizabeth who's calling on Line 1, watching on YouTube. You're on the air. Hey, Elizabeth. Can I see you taking my question?
Sure. So I'm curious to know what's going to happen with Hunter now. I mean, are they going to work on another plea deal or are they just going to investigate for another five years? They're going to be working on another plea deal. So the judge said, listen, come back.
I want you to brief these issues because she wants to make sure she has authority to do any of this. And they will – my prediction is there will be a plea reached in the next two to six weeks. And there will still be a plea. And I do not think this case is going to trial. He entered a not guilty plea. And I don't believe there's going to be other investigations on this.
Maybe there will be. But I just don't see it. They always say that. They say that because then the U.S. attorney can get up and say, oh, we have an ongoing investigation in Congress. I can't talk to you about it. That's exactly what this is, Logan.
Yeah. So he says that and, you know, there's so many confusing and conflicting statements out there about what Weiss says this is the U.S. attorney's authority was or wasn't. Could he – was it unlimited? Could he bring it in other jurisdictions? He said – you got FBI and IRS agents saying he said no, he could not.
He said yes, he could in a letter to the – to Jim Jordan. They're going to put him on the stand and try to get some answers to that. You won't get answers on specifics because the specifics are going to be as it relates to a particular case. All right.
Well, hopefully that answers your question. Let's keep going. Again, last chance for calls probably right now, 1-800-684-3110. Get your voice on the air. Let's go ahead and go to Michelle, who's calling in California.
Listen on the radio. Michelle, welcome. Hi, Michelle. Thank you. Yep. Hi.
Okay. So my question involves Trump. So in the end, won't it actually hurt the Democrats or backfire on them if Trump goes to trial because then he'll actually be able to give evidence to defend himself? And couldn't it expose or put light on what the – like people like Nancy Pelosi were actually doing on January 6th? You know, I mean all of that could become, you know, part of a defense – I think would be part of a defense strategy.
There's also the defense strategy that on the – as it relates to the January 6th issue. Now, I haven't seen the indictment, so, you know, you're – I'm doing this kind of guessing, but it's my best guess. I would also think there's a very serious First Amendment issue here. I mean if they try to say there was an incitement issue to an insurrection or something like this, my goodness, the First Amendment protects robust speech.
It doesn't protect calls for imminent lawless conduct like violence right that minute, but it sure does protect robust speech and political speeches at the core of the First Amendment. So, yeah, look, I think you'd rather not be indicted. Who wants to be tried? Because with the trial in Washington, D.C., let me tell you what the chances are that the President is going to have an uphill battle. I guarantee you he has an uphill battle. It's Washington, D.C.
I think he got 6 percent of the vote. South Florida, maybe a different story, but, you know, there was a lot of rumors this morning that it was coming out today. I still think it's a week or two away. I could be proved wrong in 10 minutes on that, but, yeah, look, a trial is going to bring out all the evidence, but some of it may not be great also. So it's very hard to predict how a trial goes when you're in there, whether it's a trial in a U.S. district court or it was a trial in the United States Senate.
You just don't know how they're going to go. All right, let's continue on. Let's go to Dimitro, who's calling on Line 4 in Washington. Dimitro, you're on the air. Hello, gentlemen. Thanks very much for taking your call. I appreciate all the contact you do and all the news I get pretty much from you.
Thank you. Great. So I want your opinion on your best judgment regarding Biden and possible impeachment. So what I noticed over the course of last Presidential cycle and this is that Democrats seems like they don't have solid facts that they pursue with a bunch of charges and lawsuits. We take into consideration Trump's impeachment and then all the lawsuits and that we had within the last two years coming from Biden administration. And also we take into consideration Russian, nothing Russian, nothing for the Russian collusion as well.
Right. Those facts, they all fell apart and we didn't get nowhere with them. But at the same time, it kind of seems like Republicans are slow walking regarding Biden and his impeachment. I understand that they're trying to make sure that they have facts before they pursue. That is my judgment. What is your judgment?
What do you think is going to happen? Well, I think right now they're trying to gather facts. So these whistleblowers are very interesting on what they're going to say.
And they're going to be the committees are going to hear from Devin Archer. This is a partner of Hunter Biden's. And that's going to be very interesting what he says about what the then vice President was doing with regard to these business deals. Now, the other question is, can you impeach? Can you bring articles of impeachment based on prior conduct before the individual was the President of the United States is being impeached as the President?
There's legal issues on that. I remember researching that when we were doing the Trump impeachment. I wouldn't caution the Republicans to make sure they provide, number one, due process to the current President, which they did not give. The Democrats did not give to President Trump.
We should give it to President Biden, make sure there's due process. Lawyers can participate. They can ask questions. Number two, make sure you have the facts lined up. Not just a bunch of statements on the news shows and the talking shows, but facts that support a legal conclusion that there's either been bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
That to me is the key. If you could establish that, then you can bring after the inquiry phase, you can bring articles of impeachment. That is the indictment phase, so to speak.
The trial phase then goes to the United States Senate, but you've got to get 67 senators to say the President of the United States should be impeached. And I think that's going to be tough, Logan. I've done it.
So I've been the defense lawyer on that. It's a pretty comforting thought that you have to get to 67. Now, with Richard Nixon, the reason he resigned was they thought they were going to get to 67. With President Trump, I felt confident that that wasn't going to happen. It's kind of not where we are in society right now. The country's divided. The Senate is 52-48. That's how this vote's going to go.
Maybe one or two switches. Either way. The Romney's kind of guys.
Or the Manchin kind of guys. You never know. But hey, we appreciate all of you who called in and all of you commented today. We did have a comment come in on Rumble about our poll. He said, also on YouTube, Samuel said, I voted in your poll not to impeach Biden because that would make a Harris President. And then she would be the Democratic nominee, potentially, obviously, in a 2028, I guess, would that be? Would she be harder to beat in 2024? I would love to impeach both.
And the question would be, that's not really how this would work, though. You can't impeach one for the acts of another. There's been no real allegations against the vice President. So she's not being impeached. She would become President if the President was convicted.
And it happens immediately as soon as the sergeant at arms and the clerk of the Senate sign the document. That's it. And I want you to vote in that poll as well.
Go to ACLJ.org. Tell everybody about the poll. I mean, what are we trying to really get? Yeah, we're just trying to get a general feeling from you guys.
We want to know. We always want to hear from you. I think what's important about this with the ACLJ is we are run by you.
You give a donation. That's how we support this show. If we're not doing something you like, you can pretty much let us know. And we will hopefully represent you and your voice, whether that is in the media, whether that's in Washington, D.C., Capitol Hill, or whether that is in the courtroom. We can do that only with your support.
So go. Yeah, if you want to vote ACLJ.org slash poll, we'd appreciate it, especially if you're brand new. That's a great way to just start your engagement with what we do here. And if you're you're not new, if you voted already, just go to ACLJ.org.
Make that donation today and also look at the incredible content that they always say that we got great stuff coming out each and every day, multiple things a day, whether that's amazing articles and blogs, whether that's videos and YouTube videos or rumble videos. We have so much happening that we have an incredible team, the best in the business who are who are putting out just amazing stuff. And we have so much coming very soon. So you want to make sure you're engaged with us, whether that is on social media or whether that is directly at ACLJ.org. And there is talk today that there would be an indictment of the 45th President coming out of the January 6th issues as we're on the air live.
And some of you may be hearing us taped late. We have not gotten word on that. If something does happen, we'll get information to you right now.
That hasn't happened yet, but there is a lot of speculation that it could be today. So we'll keep you posted on that. Again, I want to encourage you to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. You do that by going to ACLJ.org.
And during this month of July, any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for, which means if you donate one hundred dollars, we get another hundred, which is two hundred from another donor. So we encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org, ACLJ.org. And follow us on all our social media, at Jay Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at ACLJ. A great way for you to stay engaged with all of our content. We're on Instagram as well. I'm sure I'm leaving things out through social also. So we encourage you to do that as well. Wherever you are, we're there. Pretty much. That's the way it is. Alright folks, have a great day. We've got another day in the week coming tomorrow. We'll see what surprises are in store.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-07-27 14:23:53 / 2023-07-27 14:45:38 / 22