BREAKING: Hunter Biden to Appear Before Congressional Committees Amid Impeachment

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... Welcome to Sekulow.

This is Jordan Sekulow, my dad Jay Sekulow also joining us. We're having to do the show again remote today. It's actually, if I could turn my camera around, snowing again where we're located.

So on top of the nine inches we already received and the ice under that, making sure our team is safe at our office down here. But still coming to you with all the latest news. And big news last night, dad, with Hunter Biden that they've, as of now, come to an agreement that on February 28th, he'll do a behind closed doors deposition with the Judiciary Committee staff. This linked more now to the fact that there is a actual inquiry that's been voted on for impeachment. So a little bit more subpoena power there. And so he's agreed to that and agreed after that to at some point have a public hearing at the committee as well.

It's a big reversal for Hunter Biden and his team. Yeah, I mean, you know, as I said before, Hunter Biden is represented by a very competent lawyer, one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the country, a very good friend of mine, Abby Lowell. He represents Jared and Ivanka Trump during the Bob Mueller proceedings.

So he was a really well respected lawyer. What's interesting in this is whether he will actually testify or not. And he will not be held in contempt of Congress. So this and the same thing could happen at a public hearing. He could assert his constitutional privileges, as Lois Lerner did when she was called before Congress on the IRS targeting scandal. So the fact that he's appearing in and of itself, while it's being hailed as this great breakthrough in reality, it may just be that he's appearing and exercising his privileges or or maybe he's going to talk.

I have no idea. But I think I would not read too much into it at this point until we know how he is cooperating. I mean, that that is the key. And what kind of planning on answering questions or just asserting the fifth? And then they have that strategic decision to say, do we want to bring him before the committee and make him assert the fifth? You know, one hundred times, like Lois Lerner had to do, I think it was something like that to basically show that they are stonewalling the appearance of stonewalling and investigation. Of course, they're utilizing its silly constitutional right in the Fifth Amendment. But I think, again, a strategy of looking like, hey, at least it makes them for the next month look like they're cooperating and they're working with. So it kind of takes it off the table until we know what happens, at least a little summary of what happened behind closed doors and if they move forward the public hearing. It's interesting here. And, you know, there's there's not too many lawyers that can speak to this like you and I can, because we represented a President of the United States, only been four impeachments in the history of our country of Presidents, two of them against Donald Trump.

And we did the first one, which was the big one. And let's be realistic here. I think this lowering the bar on impeachment. We said it then.

I'll say it again. Unless Congress does. Jim Jordan's committee really comes up with evidence. He has not said he's ready to move to an impeachment proceeding yet that if, you know, be very careful because this is setting the bar so low that it becomes nothing but a political weapon instead of an accountability tool. And that's what I'm concerned about in all of this. Now, there are a lot of allegations out there.

We'll see what those what happened to those. But I do think that we have to be cognizant of the fact that don't lower the bar too much. But I think unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are actually approaching it the right way. Cautiously getting witnesses, getting facts, getting evidence. Folks at the ACLU, we have to move with the speed of relevancy to tackle the historic issues we see unfolding before us.

Every single day we find ourselves in one of those moments right now. The Colorado Supreme Court banned a Presidential candidate from the ballot and states are rushing to use this to take away your right to vote. Votes are already being cast for the Presidential election and your right to vote for the candidate of your choice is at stake. We're taking on the biggest election case in U.S. history at the U.S. Supreme Court, and we've had to mobilize everyone at the ACLJ to do so. A case of this magnitude at the Supreme Court requires immense resources.

Go to ACLJ.org and please donate now. We will be right back after this break. I think, look, we're in the middle of a political season now that is in full tilt. I watched yesterday on CNN Nikki Haley's town hall. She's up to a do or die, I think. Jordan, I'll let you speak to this a bit more, your expertise and mine, but I think she's at a do or die primary in New Hampshire. She doesn't win New Hampshire.

I don't know how she goes on. I think Ron DeSantis also, by the way, pulled out of New Hampshire. He's kind of going radio silent right now. I think he's probably out of money. Yeah, I mean, he's putting all his resources in South Carolina.

We'll see if that's actually the case. Like I said yesterday, people on the ground in South Carolina will learn that real quick and we'll know real quick that, you know, is the news showing him there? Are we seeing a hundred DeSantis events over the next couple of weeks where he's actually there in person that costs money?

Are the ads up? Everybody will be looking for that in the next coming days when it comes to South Carolina. When it comes to New Hampshire, I think there's only two ways Nikki Haley gets a ticket out of there. A win over Donald Trump, even if it's just by a small percentage or basic tie.

Maybe she's a two or three points behind, but did very well. That might give her enough energy to say, you know what, I'm worth take. I'm willing to take this to South Carolina. My home state, the state I served as governor for two terms, I'm willing to go there and risk potentially losing my home state.

So you had the ways out for her. And again, I think that the real the real way out is an actual win. So if she were to win, let's say just hypothetically, if she were and she's 14 points, the latest polls where it was showing two weeks ago, it was like a four point spread. It's now the polls are showing, I think it's the Suffolk poll, the Boston Globe poll and the St. Anselm poll.

The noise you're hearing are tractors going down the trying to clear some of the ice. Anyways, when you look at it, those polls, it's now like a 14 point spread. Now, assume she could close that spread and she actually wins. Let's take that scenario first. That gives her impetus to at least fight in South Carolina, her home state.

Right. Then she has not going to quit. Not going to leave after we were to win South New Hampshire. No, even if it was by the smallest of margins, she has to then go to South Carolina. She's even if the polls there are looking bad for. And you would imagine that there would be a bump for her there in her former home state, because people who are very familiar with her, who thought in these early polls she probably wouldn't make it. It didn't look like she would early earlier in just a few months ago. It didn't look like she'd necessarily make it to South Carolina as a viable final three candidate. Do enough of those people who right now say they're signifying support for DeSantis or especially Donald Trump, who's got a major lead there, decide, you know what, I'll go with our home state former governor. Just didn't think at the time I was asked on that poll if she would even be a real contender.

So that's what you have to look at. And does the money flow in? Does she get the hundreds of millions of dollars to try and really, again, extend this to Super Tuesday and kind of anything goes at that point? I think you could potentially even see Donald Trump doing a debate with Nikki Haley.

I don't think that's out of the question either. But that's, again, a big hypothetical that she could actually win New Hampshire. And the numbers that have come out lately after the big win for Trump in Iowa are the reverse for Nikki Haley. No, that's right.

And let's talk about that one for a moment. If she were to not be successful in New Hampshire, what does she do? I think if she loses by 5, 10, 15 points or more, you don't want to risk your home state of South Carolina.

I think you've got to drop out. And that's what Ron DeSantis is hoping for. Because they're all viable in 2028.

Yes. And again, these are younger candidates, especially DeSantis, to an extent, but Nikki Haley as well. But I think what you could see is the focus being if she gets beat badly in New Hampshire, 5 points or more, I don't think she goes to South Carolina and puts that risk in. Now, I could be wrong, but most of the campaigns I've worked on in the past, that's where they made the decision. You know, what's interesting also today is the March for Life.

And we had some real experience with that last year. We've been, of course, supporting March for Life for 40 years. And that was two pieces of litigation.

One at the Smithsonian Museum and then at the museum over at the National Archives. We are in federal court on one of those now. One we got resolved totally and our client's case has been closed. But let me tell you what our offices are doing up in Washington. We're on full alert. We have an article up at ACLJ.org empowering those who march for life in Washington. And we have been there. We're not going to tolerate, again, preventing pro-life speech from being silenced in federal buildings where people have the right to be.

The resources there. If you or a family member have trouble, we can tell you exactly how to contact us at ACLJ.org while that's going on today. And we're excited that we got one of the cases resolved. They both have injunctions right now. So the students are free and their chaperones are free to go into those museums, wear a pro-life T-shirt or pro-life beanie as they were last year.

It's very cold. And we'll see what happens. We're monitoring it very, very closely. But I just want everybody to know, I know we're going to talk about a lot of other things, that we are moving forward in our defensive life there in Washington, D.C. At the same time, talking about Washington, D.C., count them, 52 amicus briefs filed in the case involving Donald Trump and Colorado. We represent the Colorado Republican Party as a party to the Supreme Court case.

It's our case as well. We filed our brief two days ago. Our brief on the merits, that's what it's called. Respondent's brief on the merits. That has been filed. The other side will not file until the end of the month.

Donald Trump's lawyers filed yesterday, too. I think both of our briefs, theirs and ours, were very, very good. Fifty-two briefs came in, Jordan, yesterday.

I have done a lot of Supreme Court cases and some really contentious ones. I don't recall ever 52 briefs. And that's just on phase one here. There's going to be another round of this when the respondents reply.

I would expect it could be another 52. Yeah, I mean, and again, from big names weighing in. Three former attorney generals, Republican attorney generals weighing in, big organizations weighing in, individual professors, law professors that are well-known, weighing in. I think the big difference is we're on the merits. They're filing amicus briefs. That's so important we do that work, too, at the ACLJ. But I think, again, it shows you that there are, and again, there will be people on the other side as well, but there are so many different unique arguments about why what they are trying to do in these states with the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of that, are so wrong and unconstitutional. And I think that's what's great about all these briefs. The amicus briefs plus our merits brief, the Trump merits brief, is that there's so many ways.

A multitude, as we call it. This is not right. This is unconstitutional. And you could say it's because all the ways or you could just pick one of them is enough. Well, what we said in our brief was there's a multitude of ways that the Colorado Supreme Court is wrong and should be reversed.

We're going to focus on four. The four that we focused on was number one, the President is not an officer under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Officers are lower officers. Those are heads of departments and agencies and assistants, but not the President of the United States, who uniquely is a branch of government himself.

It's the only branch of government where there's one person that's the branch of government, and that is the President of the United States and the executive branch. So he's not an officer of the United States. That's kind of argument number one. Argument number two is the fact that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment by itself doesn't create a right to be enforced.

Congress, the fifth section of that same 14th Amendment says, Congress shall pass enabling legislation to enforce this. Now, there because the restriction under Section 3 is removal in the event of engaging, key word there, engaging in insurrection. What's important is, of course, and the Trump brief does a great job of laying out what the President's activities did not constitute insurrection.

And they focused a lot on that, which was smart. We focused in on, hey, wait a minute, self-executing, the President's not an officer and the enabling legislation is insurrection. Well, the President's been facing 91 charges, although I think that Georgia case is crumbling as we speak.

We'll talk about that in a minute. And the fact is that none of those charges involved the issue of insurrection. There is a statute, 18 USC, 18, Title 18 is the criminal code, 2383 is the insurrection, crime of insurrection. He has not been charged with that anywhere. The only place that found him or charged an insurrection was actually at the proceedings before the United States Senate, upon which the Senate acquitted him of that charge. He's never been charged with it in a federal court.

He was charged with it in a legislative impeachment proceeding and he prevailed. So that's nonsense. What Colorado did is nonsense.

And as we said in our brief, it wrecks havoc. Plus, it's interesting, the statute, the amendment itself says that it prohibits holding office if you've committed the act of insurrection, found guilty of insurrection. And here's what's happening. This isn't holding office. This is running for office. And that you're allowed to run for office because the same Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that Congress, by two thirds vote, can lift a disqualification. So the law is clearly in our favor.

And then finally, we say it violates the First Amendment rights of our client, the Colorado GOP, the Republican Party of Colorado. Our brief has been filed, at least brief one. Now the other side has until the end of the month to file theirs. So in about 10 days or so, they'll file theirs. Then we'll have five days, really over a weekend, to get our brief filed. So we'll have more to say there. And as I said, the lawyers for President Trump filed yesterday.

Their briefs have been filed. So that's been done. We will be right back after this break.

Your support of the ACLJ during that three-day match was fantastic. I want to thank you for that because we were able to raise almost, I think, pretty close to $300,000, $400,000, which is matched. So that will at least help us with what we've occurred so far. We'll have a little bit more to say about that in February when we do the other brief that's going to be due at the beginning of February, February 5th.

But a huge thank you. And for those of you that want to still support the work of the ACLJ, let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. And we are at almost 19,050 of our ACLJ champions.

Boy, it'd be great to end this weekend and into early next week at 19,100. So if you could support the work of the ACLJ monthly with any amount, you become an ACLJ champion. And you all as champions really helped us out during this matching challenge, which we appreciate it because your gifts that you gave were matched and they were part of the match. So we approved kind of a double blessing for the ACLJ there. We really appreciate it very, very, very much.

And again, I encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. A sobering story to remind you about the ongoing conflict in Israel between those atrocious attacks on October 7th by Hamas is the unfortunate birthday of what we believe is the youngest hostage who was taken hostage, Kefir Bibas, who spent his first birthday as a hostage in the Gaza Strip. He was taken, along with his other family members, his I think another child, his mother, and the father was taken. The father was separated from the group. We still believe, Dad, that the baby is the one-year-old now today, is still with the mother. But again, just a tragic situation to return home.

It really is. I will tell you this, Jordan, late last night, early in the morning, Israel time is on the phone with our colleagues in Israel. Of course, the ACLJ has an office in Jerusalem. That office, as well as our office in Washington and especially our office in Strasbourg, has been coordinating political meetings, meetings with members of parliament and leaders in various countries.

That team is deployed next week to London and Madrid. I got to say this, too, but Greg Orr and Kristof and our entire team there have done a great job. Kalev Myers, who we are as a colleague of ours in Jerusalem as well, has done a magnificent job, as has his team. And we're all working together in unity to keep the hostage issue front and center as this war goes on now to its 105th day.

But that was a sobering reminder yesterday that baby's one-year birthday, acknowledged by his family yesterday, but of course, in a very tragic way. And we're hoping and praying that they're alive. There is a move right now to try to confirm that more hostages are alive. And the situation is dire. The Houthi rebel situation continues to unfold.

The Biden administration relabeling them a little late, like three years, as a terrorist organization. And look, I mean, this is a this conflict is quickly spreading. And you've got Lebanon in the north with Hezbollah being much more aggressive. So you've got a two-stage front right now. And Benjamin Netanyahu said, stop this two-stage solution talk. There is no talk of a two-stage solution. When we had that talk, we ended up having a massacre in our southern border with Gaza.

We're not doing that again. And I believe he's absolutely right. I think the talks of a two-stage solution right now are preposterous. Who's going to govern this? Right now, the governing entity really for most of these areas have been Hamas. And by the way, with all of the success the Israeli military has had, the Israel Defense Forces, they are still launching rockets out of Gaza. So they're still getting their munitions in. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, we there's so many conflicts ongoing. I think that this is going to be a key part of the campaign, too, as well, not just to politicize it. But the U.S., especially with the conflict with the Houthis, is right on the edge of something happening and really escalating that conflict, whether it's a U.S. vessel that they were actually successful in firing upon. Loss of U.S. life, military men and women's life defending that shipping lane. And of course, pointing back to the fact that all of these groups that are going to continue to have those missiles to fire, as long as they have someone to fire, because they're going to continue to be resupplied by Iran.

So you can't really ever beat Hamas 100 percent or Hezbollah 100 percent or the Houthis 100 percent unless you take Iran's ability to fund them off the table. And, you know, Jordan, this is kind of a sad way to end this portion of the segment. We've got other news to talk about, and that is the Bibas family said this is the saddest birthday in the world. And our hearts and prayers and thoughts are with them.

Our team, I need to tell you, folks, our team in France has done a magnificent job. They have established meetings at the highest level. We're working with a friend of ours, Colin Bloom, who runs a very good organization in London.

It's a Christian organization, but dealing with mostly with the conservative members of the parliament in Great Britain, but also works with the members of the Labour Party as well. He's very well respected. We've worked with him before he volunteered his organization to this has really been a collaborative effort.

You know, it's it's an interesting thing. I look at the relationships that we've been able to build by God's grace over the last 40 years. And, you know, we work with Colin on and off over years. Probably the last time was, you know, five or six, seven, eight years ago, maybe 10. And what we've kept in contact and here, lo and behold, what happens?

Something like this comes and it's like you were working with them yesterday. And Caleb, we've known for Caleb. We've known for, again, oh, probably 25 years. And as we're and we've worked with this firm on and off over the years.

But these relationships are important. And I need to thank our teams, which also means thank you, our ACLJ members, for making all of this possible, because without you, none of this happens. And again, if you're interested in becoming an ACLJ champion, we encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org. That means you'll donate monthly to the American Center for Law and Justice.

So we encourage you to do that as well. The. I'll tell you what, the next thing we probably need to talk about is I think this is going to be dramatic news in the next two weeks. In the next week. Well, 15th of February when the hearing is. This is a huge thing.

Yes. So the Georgia the district attorney for Fulton County, who hired that outside counsel to that she had a previous relationship or current relationship with, we're not sure, paid him close to seven hundred thousand dollars to take over the prosecution of all those individuals, not just President Trump in the Fulton County challenge to the election interference that she's alleging. And now we found out that that once he was receiving that money, there were vacations potentially taken.

There were meetings with the Biden White House. And so the judge in the case in Georgia, this is why this is one that's been a slow starter, has now ordered a special hearing into the potential misconduct of District Attorney Willis. As she began assembling her team to go to the grand jury, get the evidence together to try and bring again, more of these charges against Donald Trump and the other individuals that she brought charges against. What's interesting, the Washington Post, not friendly to Donald Trump, generally wrote this, a state judge overseeing the election. I'm reading this, obviously, overseeing the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and others in Georgia, has scheduled a hearing for February 15th to hear evidence regarding accusations that the Fulton County District Attorney, Fannie Willis and her lead prosecutor engaged in an improper relationship and mishandled public money. This can end up turning into a criminal investigation of her. I think that in that case, if this happens, what the lawyers have already started to do is file motions to dismiss the entire prosecution. When I say the entire prosecution, I mean the entire prosecution, which means the four or five people that were able to negotiate pleas would come back into court if he dismisses the whole thing and have their pleas rescinded, which they would do in light of this misconduct. So we'll see what the judge does on the 15th. If you can become one of our ACLJ champions, it means you choose the amount that you're comfortable with donating each month. It will automatically happen.

And you can do that at ACLJ.org. Become a champion and stand with us. We'll be back with more in just a minute. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. So as you saw in the news alerts over the weekend, the Supreme Court, not surprisingly, by the way, has decided to take up the case involving the 14th Amendment and President Trump. We filed a first, actually, to the Supreme Court in the Colorado case. That was the case that actually made its way through all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The other situation made was just getting started, and then other courts were being dismissed at lower levels. But what you're now going to see is a—again, we have the briefing scheduled, Ed. We actually will be able to tell people—and so they will start getting to publicly see the arguments being made. Now, some of these will be the same that they've already seen.

Some. But now you'll have the opposition, those who want to use this to bar Donald Trump, having to respond to the Trump brief, to our brief on behalf of the Colorado State Party. And then we will be—when they respond, we will be able to reply.

So here is how it works. This is January 8th. On January 18th, we have to have filed lodged with the court the printed version of our brief. I'm holding in my hands what we filed at the cert petition stage.

As you can see, it's bound, about two inches thick. We will be filing our brief on the 18th of January. We're working on that brief now. We'll be deploying a team—it's in our Washington office, it's the primary office responsible.

But team—lawyers from other offices, including this office, will all be going up there to get this thing done. That's on the 18th. The other side then comes back, and they file their brief at the end of the month.

I think it's on the 30th or 31st, so about two weeks later, a little less than two weeks, actually. Then we go back to D.C. because on February 5th, our reply brief is due. And that's our reply to whatever is filed by CREW, the lawyers representing the electors that have filed the lawsuit.

But we also will file—respond to whatever the secretary of state files. So there you have it. That is all taking place now. Let's go ahead and take Denise's call from Arizona on Line 1. Denise, welcome to the broadcast.

You're on the air. If you want to talk to us, it's 1-800-684-3110. Dennis, I'm sorry. 1-800-684-3110. Hi, Dennis. Hi, Jay.

I have a two-part question. Would these lawsuits be a violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution? And secondly, would it be the basis for a recall petition against the secretary of state?

Yeah. So they have argued that they would—that this would be a violation of their office if they didn't remove the candidate. That is not true because under the Constitution, they don't have that authority. You could even put a disqualified candidate on a ballot because that's the difference of running for an office and being seated. That's up to Congress, and Congress has the ability to remove a disqualification if, in fact, there is one.

We don't think there is one here, obviously, but that will be one of many arguments that are made. So the secretary of states are way off on this. Yeah, and remember, just to show you, Ted, two different similar secretaries of state. In Colorado, the secretary of state was technically sued by the laws that was brought against them by these individuals who were backed by the liberal organization crew. And they said, basically, we'll follow along with whatever the courts decide in Colorado. And then when the Supreme Court in Colorado said, take Trump off the ballot, but big asterisks, if the Supreme Court stays this, then he will be put on the ballot.

So he will be put on the ballot in Colorado as of now. Remember, the secretary of state there was the one being sued to be told to do this. In Maine, they just had a different judicial process where you could go to the secretary of state first, and they would have this non-legal adjudication where she would hear arguments, then get to make a decision, and then you could appeal that decision. There's only two stages of courts there.

So a little bit different. Neither one of them had ever claimed, I do want to make it clear, that they're the final say. No, and it's clear now the Supreme Court's decision will affect all the states. So all of the state litigation right now should come to a halt.

Because the Supreme Court's disposition of this is going to be very, very quick. But that's why we need you supporting the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We want you to become an ACLJ champion. And an ACLJ champion is you pick an amount, and it's great that this January, the first month of the year, you pick an amount that you're comfortable with donating each month. It'll happen automatically so that we know, we have an idea of how much is coming in through our champion's amount. It gets us ready for these wild times.

All right, welcome back to Secchio. There are other topics, obviously, to discuss as well. As the Supreme Court, you know, as the filings get closer, we'll talk more about that. And I think, again, now we kind of have the… We know the timeframe. We've got to file our brief for the GOP, for the party. And on the 18th of January, they have to file on the 31st. We have to file again on the 5th. So we know the dates now. It's going to move really very… That sounds like, oh, you got three weeks.

Trust me, the Supreme Court brief, that's like three minutes. But we've got to… Our team's working on it in great shape. We've got Rick Grenell joining us. Rick, you know, you're a cabinet member. And another cabinet member of the Biden administration is the Secretary of Defense, who evidently had a… And I'm sympathetic to somebody that's had a heart procedure. Had a heart procedure, was in the hospital for five days, did not notify the President of the United States or his staff as to the situation. How unusual and how dangerous is that for our country?

Well, it's extremely dangerous. I'm concerned that Jake Sullivan, who's the national security adviser, didn't find it odd that he wasn't seeing or speaking with the secretary of defense for five days. While two wars were raging on and while Americans are being held hostage. I don't understand how the national security adviser doesn't speak to the secretary of defense for five days.

That is so unacceptable. And let me just add one other thing, Jay. There are a whole bunch of Pentagon reporters who clearly missed this. They don't have enough sources.

They don't have the right sources. I'm sorry, but there are plenty of people who knew that the secretary of defense was in the hospital. His detail knew. The secretaries who were making the schedule knew. His assistant knew. The chief of staff knew. All of these people should be held to account. Why did they lie to the American people during wartime? You know who did know that the secretary of defense was in the hospital? China.

Guaranteed. Rick, when I read this, I think people get upset because they find out that, again, maybe laws were broken. We're looking into that now. It might have been by the deputy taking over, but clearly it doesn't appear that the White House even knew about this. I mean, so when you're talking about active conflicts where decisions are having to be made, we've got it in, of course, Ukraine with Russia and U.S. weaponry and U.S. armaments going there all of the time. We've got, of course, what's going on in the Middle East and in Israel with Hamas, but also what's happening in the Red Sea. And as you said, the issue with China is that we're at a point now where the secretary of defense's team thought it would be a good idea to keep this from the commander in chief. But let's also be very clear about one thing.

America is less safe under Joe Biden. We've seen it with the Houthis. We've seen it with two wars.

We've seen it with the open border. And now this. This is a very serious situation.

I still go back to this. We say this a lot, but the media in D.C. are allowing things to get worse because there's no pushback. Take, for instance, this morning in Politico, White House officials and Pentagon officials are spinning to Politico and Politico took it hook, line and sinker that the secretary of defense is a private man with a stiff upper lip. And he just wanted to suck it up and go into the hospital. And and all is fine because he's a strong guy that didn't want to bother people. That's his personality.

He just didn't want to bother people. Well, that would be fine if Lloyd Austin was a private citizen, but he's the secretary of defense in charge of protecting us. That is not fine.

It is unacceptable. And for Politico to give aid and comfort to this situation just goes to show the regime media and how they won't push back. And therefore, things will get worse because there are no consequences for Jake Sullivan or Lloyd Austin. You know, there's there people are calling for consequences, but as you said, Rick, it doesn't seem like in this administration we see these we see times where there should be consequences. And Joe Biden fails to act. I mean, so you see Mayorkas failure at the border and it's Congress forced to act. And I think, you know, rightfully so, as they've opened up an impeachment inquiry, because we see the numbers have doubled, we see the numbers of deaths from Fentanyl double, we see the number of illegal immigrants double. We've heard from Democrat mayors and governors about how tough this is getting on that issue. So if they're unwilling to move Mayorkas, it seems like they're going to be totally unwilling unless there's some massive pressure from Democrats in the U.S. Senate on the national security side.

They're going to be unwilling to punish anyone like Lloyd Austin would like stepping down. The Democrats have been largely silent on this. The media has been largely silent. I mean, The New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, she couldn't have been more dismissive of, oh, this is no big deal.

She she feigned outrage for about six hours. But but, you know, I don't believe that she didn't know. I actually think reporters at the Pentagon covered for him that they knew and they didn't want to make it a scandal because this is the regime media. This is consequences for Republicans, never for Democrats.

You know, I got something. So here's my concern with all of this. The lack of transparency. Could you imagine if this happened under your administration and the secretary of defense was absent and nobody knew about it?

I mean, the media would be going ballistic. But you said something that's very important. There's one group of people that knew, and that was the Chinese government, because they tend to know everything. And that shows the instability of this administration to formalize lines of communication when you listen, people get sick. And I'm sympathetic to the secretary of defense. You know, situation looks like to get a heart stent. I'm familiar with all of that. I mean, those are serious things and I'm glad he's well and recovered. But my goodness, our enemies knew it.

You know that. And we have a process when you're sick, you hand it over. But, you know, the deputy didn't she didn't even know that Austin was sick. She was in Puerto Rico on vacation, was told, hey, you might want to stay near your phone because because we might need you. That was that was the extent of what she was told.

But this is this is really a scary moment. And again, there are no consequences. Jake Sullivan, why isn't anyone at the White House asking him, do you routinely go five days without speaking to the secretary of defense? Remember, this happened with Pete Buttigieg, too. He was gone. He was on on leave and nobody really knew. And he he he didn't tell anybody, didn't hand over a transparent document to say, you know, this is what's happening. He tried to hide it and got caught later. This is a pattern with this administration and it's a pattern with the regime media that covers that.

But Rick, here's the thing that is so troubling to me. Nobody if the if the press office for the secretary of defense would have said Secretary Austin is having a heart procedure to correct a blood flow in his heart and we'll have a series of heart stents and a catheterization. You know what everybody would have been doing?

Praying for success. And they would have handed it over to the assistant secretary and nothing would happen. Instead, they create the hullabaloo. Yeah, we would have absolutely been praying for our secretary of defense during this wartime.

He would have received massive amounts of prayers from from Americans. But the fact is, is now the day with Politico and others, they're scrambling to just dismiss the story. They don't think they did anything wrong, Jay.

The problem. Well, Rick, we appreciate your insight on this as always. Thanks for being part of the team here at the ACLJ. Folks, you're getting it from Rick was a cabinet member.

He was director of national intelligence ambassador to Germany. This is the caliber of people we have associated with us. We've got a major Supreme Court case. We let me tell you what my morning was like just for a moment. At nine o'clock, I was on a Zoom call, secured Zoom call with our colleagues in Israel because they're trying to get another family group to go to London to meet with the prime minister and others in leadership, as well as some church leaders in London, which is very important because the church in England has not been so supportive of Israel.

They need to hear from these families. So we were working on that from nine to nine thirty central time where we were at nine forty. We got on the phone. I got on a phone call with our Supreme Court team to get that ready. All of this is happening simultaneously. We are booked the entire month of January through February 5th already jammed, slammed. And that's where you come in.

Yeah, it is. And this is where you can make such a difference by becoming an ACLJ champion with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the biggest election case in U.S. history. And we are representing the Colorado GOP in this case. We've got to file twice both again, we file initially the beginning of this case, the U.S. Supreme Court, the initial brief. We also then will file the reply to our through the brief that will be filed by the organization crew and the people they represent who want Trump off the ballot. So we'll be filing two briefs within a matter of this time period is the first briefs due in 10 days, about 18th. Yeah, eight days.

Yeah. That's fine because you've got to get it to the print of the day before. So nine days for a merits brief that will cover more than just the topics we covered in our initial brief representing the Colorado Republican Party. And of course we're ready to do that.

Teams aren't even working on it. And then we'll have until February 5th to reply to their briefs. So we'll have, again, that chance to reply because we are a party in this case. This is not amicus. This is being a party to the case, dad. And it's why these ACLJ champions from that day we spoke with David, the Colorado Republican Party have been so important to this case. And we knew this was the one. I mean, we knew this was the case that was going to the Supreme Court. But you are ACLJ champions have reported for duty.

We want to encourage you to do that. We didn't have to worry about resources. We did not have to worry about resources. We had to bring in new resources to get it done. And we did have to bring in people like Jane Raskin and others to get it done. And now we've got the situation going on for the Israelis.

We've got to get an event and situation in London. ACLJ.org forward slash champions. Become a champion for life, liberty and freedom. ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment.

I still did. I think I'm going to go through this timeline one more time because I want to make sure people understand how quick our team at ACLJ, with everything else going on that we're about to talk about, too, and the issues we're talking about with Rick. And I know ACLJ actions taking action today on Mayorkas.

So, I mean, you know, we have a team, obviously. We're not just, you know, one tracked here, but on our Supreme Court team that's been on this 14th Amendment case since Friday evening, trying to figure out because such a different kind of setup and the wording that was used was different. We just really figured out over the weekend exactly our timeline. I want you to just underscore to people how quick the timeline moves before oral argument here. Well, I mean, there's only a month between or less between now and oral argument. It's about a month exactly between now and oral argument.

But the briefing, which is where the bulk of this is, folks, you win or lose these cases on the briefing. Our first brief is due the 18th, which means we have to have it to the printer on the 17th. So that is less than 10 days from now. So we are already working on it. We'll probably get a draft this weekend.

It will probably have a team dispatched to D.C. to get it finished up. Then the respondents, the other side, will have till the 31st. So they get about a little less than two weeks. Then we have to turn around a brief on the 5th, which really means we need to get it to the printer on the 4th in order to get it in on time.

So it's a very condensed schedule. And then the arguments on the 8th, I expect we get a decision, you know, the middle towards the end of, I think before the Super Tuesday, I think we have a decision in the case. So that's what's going on there. We also had, before that call, CC and I were on a secured call with our call, a Zoom call with our colleagues in Israel. And we're also getting ready to file a brief that is addressing the International Court, the International Court of Justice.

Let's talk about that one first. Then I'll talk about the delegation to London. The IJC, because South Africa filed a charge against Israel claiming genocide, immediately impaneled the IJC, the International Court of Justice. And Israel has dispatched Justice Barak to be the Israel judicial representative. And then a colleague that we worked with previously, a British barrister, Malcolm Shaw, to make the arguments, which, by the way, are the 11th. So that's happening right away. We are drafting a brief right now that technically you're not allowed to file the brief with the court. But you know what you can do? You file it with every country that's got a judge up there and you file it with the judges and you file it with the other officials and notify all the countries involved in what's happening here.

Yeah. So we are working on that brief at the ICJ right now in response to what you said. South Africa has filed basically an application against Israel for genocide, which on its face fails. I mean, clearly this is an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel filing once again at an international tribunal, and South Africa is leading the cause to falsely abuse them. They are very pro-Hamas, South Africa. And Israel didn't have to respond, but Israel felt compelled to respond, Jordan, because of what happened on that day of October 7th.

Yeah, that's right. You know, this is, again, this was not Israel deciding, okay, this is a moment we think Hamas is weak, we're going to go launch a war because we think this is the right move. In fact, if you look back over the last few years, Israel was hoping that things were settling down inside the Gaza Strip, that people were, even Hamas was concerned more about infrastructure, building, finances, and economics.

And now we know that was all just a ruse. To lull the Israel's into a false sense of security. Right.

I mean, so they had the exact opposite mindset of building up to go into a massive war. Exactly. So let's talk about the IJC. So what are we doing? So, again, we cannot file officially in the case, but we are preparing a brief, absolutely.

That would be published everywhere. Yes. Showing why this application for genocide fails and the ICJ cannot even address it. So our brief will be sending it out again, like, to all of the interested countries, the judges for those, you know, that are representing those countries. They will, every party that is indicated or implicated in this brief will get a copy. Yeah. Now, at the same time, we were on a call this morning with our colleagues in London, and these are the colleagues that represent the voice for the, it's called the Voice of Freedom Coalition, and it's the group that represents the families. We had the delegation in the United States that we all hosted back in mid-November. Then our colleagues in Europe, our European Center for Law and Justice in December hosted a group, and that group was in France and Brussels, and now it looks like London is about to happen.

Yeah. So now we'll do another delegation in the UK and Spain. Again, targeting leaders, explaining the situation with the hostages, having hostages, hostage families there for them to speak with. Including, by the way, church leaders. So one of the things I suggested, actually, was that because the church has been so silent in Europe about this atrocity that took place against the Jews, when never again happened, okay?

Never again happened, and there's still more silence. I said there needs to be, in this structure of events, where we invite with other leaders an event focusing in on the churches and the Christian leadership in the country. That this is not a moral equivalency situation, and the coalition that we're part of said we think that's a great idea. And we're working with people that we've worked with for decades over in England, and then they're going to also go possibly to Madrid for public relations and media.

But the England one is really going to be focused on governmental. Folks, all of this is happening simultaneously with a huge Supreme Court breach. So if you looked at our schedule of the lawyers working on this, understand this. On the 18th, we have to have our brief in at the Supreme Court of the United States. On the 20th or so, 21st, a delegation will be going to the UK, and that is for meetings starting on the 22nd. You get in a day or two before. That delegation will go through probably the 26th to 27th, maybe even the 28th.

There will then be a brief due to the Supreme Court on February 5th in the election case, and then arguments on the 8th, and we get a decision. So we're booked. And this is where you come in. And Jordan, it is critical for our ACLJ members, first of all, if you can donate, if you can only donate one time, that's great to ACLJ.org. But if you can become an ACLJ champion, that will make a huge difference for us. Yeah, and some people you're going to be more comfortable making a larger donation one time or a couple times a year, that's great. But if you're somebody who says you like to budget monthly and say, you know what, I donate this much to my church, I can donate this much to the ACLJ. This is what we've created, ACLJ champions. And we say that it's not just about a recurring donor, this is really acknowledging that these recurring donors are making that plan so that they know that the ACLJ is unable to plan, to know that if something new arises, which Lord knows it does all the time for us in the ACLJ.

When times feel at all like they're slow, it doesn't last very long. And I'll tell you, from Israel to these Trump cases, again, to the 14th Amendment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, having recurring donors, now ACLJ champions ready to go is so important. So whether you're somebody who says, you know, I like to give once or twice a year, bigger amounts, that's me, that's very important to the ACLJ. And if you're someone, again, who likes to, again, budget it out over the year and give it each month an amount that's really comfortable, it's not going to hurt you at all economically, that, again, is our ACLJ champions program. And then we can count on knowing that that amount will be there so that if something like this case pops up- Or the situation in Europe. Yeah, or the situation in Europe, and we need to shift a few thousand dollars here, $10,000 here, that the resources will be there and it won't take away from anything else the ACLJ.

I keep trying to say that. This is not taking away from anything else the ACLJ is doing on all we're doing in Washington, D.C. and around the world. So here's what we want you to do. Become an ACLJ champion for life, liberty, and freedom. Go to ACLJ.org forward slash champion. And report for duty if you're able.

ACLJ.org forward slash champion. A lot more information coming out in the days ahead. You're going to want to stay tuned. Make sure you're following us on all our social media. We'll talk to you tomorrow.