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

BREAKING: Big Win for Pres. Trump in Iowa Caucus

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
January 19, 2024 3:21 pm

BREAKING: Big Win for Pres. Trump in Iowa Caucus

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1017 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

January 19, 2024 3:21 pm

President Donald Trump commandingly won the Iowa primary – Governor Ron DeSantis edged former Governor Nikki Haley for second place. The Sekulow team discusses the Iowa caucus results, the ACLJ’s brief due at the U.S. Supreme Court in two days defending your right to vote for the candidate of your choice – and much more. We must not allow the radical Left to keep President Trump off the 2024 election ballot, thereby denying Americans the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.


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 is also joining us as you can see. It was a busy night last night though. It wasn't a late night dad as President Trump was declared a winner of the Iowa caucuses the moment most of the caucus early numbers came in. And it was a resounding victory.

We're still waiting for all those specific little numbers to come in. But it appears to be the largest margin of victory in the Iowa caucuses since they began first in the nation in 1972. I don't think there's any question that the percentage of votes that the former President received is the largest in history.

It's north of 50%. He beat his opponents by about 30%. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley were battling it out for second, but they were down in the in the 19s and 20s.

Low 20s like 2021 while President Trump was at 51 52. So they leave Iowa they both left I mean, both Nikki Haley and Rhonda Santa said they feel like their ticket has been punched as the phrases used there to go out of Iowa into now New Hampshire, where President Trump has a lead. It's not the commanding lead he had in Iowa, but it's still a significant lead. There are some polls Jordan and you've been following this closely that show that Nikki Haley actually is is within single digits of the former President.

That's right. And the question will be is, does she continue to remain in single digits of the former President after a poor showing last night in Iowa, and I mean poor by I was setting the stages, one of them needed to get to 30%. So I think it's important to show that there was a legitimate number two in the race at the votes still existed.

And right now, if it stands, President Trump would be beat them combined in that state, he would have beat them combined. So I think it's important to show that there was a legitimate number two in the race at the votes still existed. So I think it's important to show that there was a legitimate number two in the race at the votes still existed. Which means Democrats can decide to vote in the Republican primary on the day of the election or request a Republican absentee ballot.

So because that's just how it works there. So there is that strategy that Nikki Haley's talked about. We've also heard it from the former vice President's daughter who has flipped on President Trump, Liz Cheney, trying to, and the ads are running there, get Democrats to cross over and vote for Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis just to try and stop President Trump from getting a second win. Yeah, but there's another interesting fact and that is Vivek Ramaswamy had about seven and a half, almost 8% of the vote. He has now bowed out of the race.

He has what they call technically suspended his campaign and he endorsed last night President Trump. That represented about 8% of the electorate. So if you would have added that 8% which that Vivek Ramaswamy's number would have really gone to President Trump. I think probably 90%, maybe more. You're looking at a win there in Iowa that could have been in the almost 60 percentile.

So this is a huge number. Folks at the ACLJ, 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 US history at the US 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 and a group of our donors have stepped up to match donations for the next three days to fund this effort. Our brief at the Supreme Court is due in just a few days. Every gift will be doubled dollar for dollar through our matching moment.

Go to and please donate now. We will be right back after this break. We need to say a couple of things. New Hampshire, as you said, is a very different state and these are starting to move in rapid succession. So you've got New Hampshire, you've got Nevada and South Carolina. Nikki Haley is trying to posture this, even though she came in third as a two person race. The reason she's able to do that, I think Jordan, is because if you look at how it's shaping up in New Hampshire, Rhonda Santas doesn't have much of a play there. At least it doesn't look like that on the books and the numbers certainly have him well behind Nikki Haley in a distant third place.

Right. And so that makes it difficult for DeSantis to say I'm going to spend significant campaign funds in New Hampshire between now and the 23rd of January to try and what, come in second place to Nikki Haley? And where does that go when you then go to her home state of South Carolina just next on February 3rd, the boom, boom, boom, these top three. This is not looking good for Rhonda Santas. I mean, again, that we were talking about last night, there's different politics that could go on behind the scenes about why he could be staying in or why he drops out and who that could potentially benefit. I don't want to get too much into that because that's speculation and we don't know yet, but there are scenarios where you could actually see him staying in to hurt another candidate or even going so far as dropping out and endorsing another candidate. And we don't know if that would be Donald Trump or Nikki Haley. He was certainly someone who tried to take the banner of the America First movement.

It didn't work because the originator of that movement won the caucus and is on the ballot and very important that we keep him on the ballot as you can see after last night. We'll talk about that in just a second. But then you get to South Carolina, then how does Rhonda Santas say, OK, I'm running at three of these low percentiles in New Hampshire. How I'm going to go then spend money. Donald Trump is still beating the former governor of that state.

So where am I left in that? Well, if you do, you've then got to put all the money together to actually compete on March 5th, Super Tuesday. And I don't think that money is there for Rhonda Santas in that campaign.

Yeah, I'm not sure that it is either. I think they're you know, look, this we know this is an expensive week coming up in New Hampshire for the candidates. So I mean, the way I see it right now developing is President Trump has certainly the wind at his back.

It's in his sails. He's the first candidate that has ever gotten over 50 percent in Iowa in the history of the Iowa caucus. That's huge. I think the largest wind margin before was Bob Dole against Pat Robertson, and that was twelve point eight percent. But here you're talking about a 30 percent, a 30 percent margin, which is just in political numbers.

That is huge. And Donald Trump is the first since we've been tracking, you know, 1972 to go above 50 percent. So where there have been other margins of errors by victory, he's the only candidate since tracking. So that began in 1972 because the Iowa caucuses, the tracking starts in 1972 because that's when they became the first in the nation vote for their 40 delegates. And so since that tracking, the only person who got even close and it wasn't this close, I mean, not even, you know, still decent ways away was President George W. Bush against McCain in the 2000 primary. He got W got the 41 percent.

So think about here, President Trump, it looks like wherever it falls, did nine or 10 percent better than President Bush did, who was the last person to hold the record for biggest win in Iowa. What's interesting with all of this, and by the way, we're coming to you remote, as you can tell, and that's because we've had storms where our studios are and we cannot get into our offices, but we're able to, through technology, come to you via remote studio setups that we Jordan and I have. So we're able to do that. I need to say this also, and we're going to get more into the of course, into the coming up primaries.

We are putting the finishing touches. I mean, literally working through the weekend and yesterday all day on our brief to the Supreme Court of the United States on the Colorado disqualification case. This was the Colorado Supreme Court that ordered President Trump's name removed from the ballot, saying that the Section three of the 14th Amendment would so called the so-called disqualification clause allows them to remove the President because of insurrection, even though the only adjudication of insurrection was, in fact, by the United States Senate where he was acquitted of insurrection, plus the fact that constitutionally, the President of the United States is not an officer under the United States, and therefore is not even subject to the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment.

And on top of that, the 14th Amendment just says you cannot hold office does not mean you cannot run for office because disqualifications under that same constitutional amendment can be lifted by the United States Congress. So I'm giving you the legal arguments on our case. Now we're doing this is the opening brief, what's called the brief on the merits.

We're filing that on either Wednesday or Thursday will certainly have to be filed by Thursday, then we will wait about a week or so and then the other side is going to file their brief, we will then file our final brief our reply brief. We have a matching moment established here at the ACLJ for just a few days, the three days as we get this brief ready, which means donors of the ACLJ have agreed to match your donations for this fight at the Supreme Court of the United States dollar for dollar so they're going to double the donation so if you donate $50 it's $110 is 20, we encourage you to do that. This was an unexpected move we didn't expect to be at the Supreme Court in this case, but nevertheless, there we are we represent the Colorado Republican Party we represent Republican parties throughout the country on this, but the one at the Supreme Court is the Colorado Republican Party. So your support of the ACLJ here is really critical I encourage you to go to

That's and donate today if you're able in any amount you donate will be matched in our matching moments we encourage you to do that I'll mention that again a little bit later in the program. We just got word also that Asia Hutchinson who was campaigning interestingly in Iowa, and New Hampshire did not get, I don't think he got 500 votes has now suspended his campaign. Yeah, I think the biggest news in the campaign on suspensions is of the back and him going forward right away and endorsing Trump, because in New Hampshire, just getting those few more points. If Nikki Haley who feels like she had the wind at her sails and the wind certainly died died down last night but to Hampshire voters, they say hey we're a lot different than voters in Iowa so they're going to look at it differently. But you can see now as people start dropping and the big question will be is does Rhonda Sanchez drop and would he endorse a President Trump or does he stay in and cipher votes away from Nikki Haley potentially in New Hampshire. So I still think the question for Nikki Haley trying to have a big next moment. It has to be like this kind of win in New Hampshire. New Hampshire primary that Trump just experienced last night one that was that no one could truly predict until you actually saw the votes from the caucuses come in. Yeah, I think she, I think for Nikki Haley to be viable.

A week from today. Tonight, a week from tonight, she would have to have one. Significantly, it doesn't have to be by 30 points but have a clear win in New Hampshire, that then sets up South Carolina. And here's the issue that she's facing in South Carolina.

And this is a tough one for her. The polling is showing that in South Carolina, President Trump would beat her significantly. Interestingly, Rhonda Santos has gone to South Carolina this morning, I don't even know if he's scoring down there so I don't know how effective that's gonna maybe it may be more of a political atmospheric, but she would have to win in her home state if she doesn't I think she's out at that point, I mean, to go on to now she has money, so they can run until they're out of money that is true. And she does have a lot of money Rhonda Santos right now is my understanding is their campaigns operating on fumes.

Jordan that's kind of what I'm hearing. I think again you had to spit here to spin big to come back from what was a very tough launch of his campaign we talked about that on this broadcast he didn't have a great start it was a little bit messy he got rid of half of this team. A few months ago and tried to bring in new people that cost money. And we also know that the people who are holding back to see who who are Republicans and conservatives but really were opposed to Donald Trump. Where were they going to put the big money, for instance, the Koch brothers, and they ultimately decided to give the big money to Nikki Haley, to make that run and that really hurt Rhonda Santos, maybe the biggest pain that that campaign felt losing that huge influx into both your campaign, and these other, you know packs and entities supporting your, your election. Yeah, well I mean campaigns, at this point in this stage are all about money and about two things, ballot access and money, folks at the ACLJ 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 band and 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 US history at the US Supreme Court, and we've had to mobilize everyone at the ACLJ to do so. The price of this magnitude at the Supreme Court requires immense resources, and a group of our donors have stepped up to match donations for the next three days to fund this effort, our brief the Supreme Court is due in just a few days, every gift will be sent dollar for dollar through our matching moment, go to, and please donate now, we will be right back after this break. There are 15 cases pending against the former President trying to keep him off the ballot, arguing the section three of the 14th amendment which believe me in the last month I am now the one of the leading experts in the United States on the section three the 14th amendment because we have a case at the Supreme Court of the United States. The President's lawyers are up at the Supreme Court, we represent the Colorado Republican Party, they are up at the Supreme Court, and the cases are going to be heard. Simultaneously here's the issue.

And it's twofold. One is this whether you can disqualify whether a state can disqualify a President and if that's the case, here's the problem. Number one, that's not what the Constitution allows number two, any state could then start disqualifying any candidate, they don't like Texas, Texas could say, you know, we think President Biden's done a horrible job on the border. He's, he's derelict his duty, we're going to disqualify him because he's creating his own version of an insurrection.

There was no federal standards, when this trial court put in place this insurrection charge. And then the whole process of having state courts in 50 states plus the District of Columbia make these decisions to us is absurd so we've taken the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. We're doing our brief, it'll look something like this blue, and then we will file a reply brief. Later in the month, President Trump's lawyers will file their brief as well, arguing, very similar points.

The other argument, representing Colorado and that is that the First Amendment issue issue of having the electors be able to decide who they want to vote for is strictly protected by the First Amendment, the idea that a state could come in and disqualify any candidate from office on its own policy with no basis, takes the vote away from the citizens of that state in this particular case, it's the state of Colorado that violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of association both of the voter us as the ones of the Presidents, but also of the parties, the Republican Party, in this case could be a Democrat if it was a similar case, their rights of association are denied it is the parties that put up the candidates. So the cases at the Supreme Court on a very, very expedited basis when I say very expedited. I'm talking about the cases up there. We had, it was granted on January 5, it is our brief is due. January 18, the reply brief is their brief is due the 31st of January, our reply brief is due Monday the fifth arguments going to take place February 8, I think we have a decision before March 5, which is super Tuesday date. So we are under a crunch to get this done as you can imagine we've got a lot of lawyers working on this.

I want to encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ. We're having a matching moment a group of our donors have gotten together and say look, we know this is an emergency it's January, you don't usually have emergencies in court in January. What we do, it's the biggest election case in US history.

It's the ability of you to be able to vote for the candidate of your choice and not allowing state governments to remove candidates that they don't like. So it is a huge case, what a matching moment means is any amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift for you just go to that's or respond to the email you're getting today and support that important case we're only able to do that for this portion of the brief for two or three days here. So we encourage you to do that again at And I think that when people think about that timeline, I think it's so important to point out, not that the just the brief that is due Thursday, but that the respondents who want to remove President Trump from the ballot crew along with the plaintiffs who want to remove him from the ballot crew along with the petitioners they represent here. They have until the 31st to file. But then the reply you only have 5 days to get it in really for so we have another one of those moments where we've got to get the document done, as we always do at the ACLJ to the very best high standards that we always do, whether it's representing you at a local, you know, school board meeting or at the US Supreme Court but that is just a handful of days to reply to whatever happens at the wall and try and keep President Trump off the ballot.

That's right. So the, when you're talking about the first of all we've had a team of about eight lawyers, working on this, literally folks, day and night, through the weekends, through the, through the holidays, now into the work weeks. We are close to our final stage of this opening brief, it'll be filed Thursday.

We're going into that. We reassembled, some of the team that has represented the former President before Jordan I of course have Andy economy, Jane Raskin. These are lawyers that we've worked with for a number of years that are now reassembled for this case because the magnitude of this case is so dramatic. The idea that a state government, or, or a lone Secretary of State could remove a candidate for President. The only national offices be elected United States are the President and Vice President, and put investing that kind of authority in a state bureaucrat, or a court for that matter is outrageous especially since disqualification is exclusively the parameters of Congress.

So Jordan. We're really asking people to step up, because the timeframe is so short and as you said that the reply brief is going to have everybody in Washington because we only have four days to get that in, and it falls on a Monday which means we got to get it to a printer Monday morning at nine o'clock in the morning to get it filed that day so we're in a very tight timeframe here to get all the briefing done. That's why we've got this matching moment, folks, we really want you to again engage with us be part of the tip of the spear, defending President Trump, go to, be part of this again critical matching moment we did what we needed to do as you can tell we're not in our studio we had a snow, a big snowstorm here offices aren't yet open, but our team was able to get this together for you so you could understand one do the analysis of what happened last night but also to explain to you what's next. We need your support folks, go to, double the impact of your donation today in this emergency matching moment these deadlines are coming up quick Thursday and then you got to wait till we get the reply, the 31st with their brief, and then you just went through that I mean, literally you have, you know, four days to reply to that. And again, that's part of what we do at the ACLJ we have the team to do it, but it's because of you that we want to always put our best foot forward. We always do do with excellence, and we do it because of our supporters who donate to the ACLJ and with their donation this month.

During this matching moment, their donation will be double. Yeah, and we appreciate anybody that's able to do that again that's at I want to just say reiterate one thing Jordan said. So, when you're doing a reply brief that's a brief in response to what they file they don't file the other side until the 31st. So, you can, it's hard to anticipate exactly what they're going to go after because they're going to be replying to our brief. We file a brief urging reversal they're filing a brief urging affirmance.

So, what we have to do in a case like this is while I'm anticipating and kind of outlining where they might go, and there's some, there's some portions of the brief we took out of this one and said you know what that's gonna work better in a reply brief. We have to understand what's at stake and by the way, our team did a great job of Nathan Christie, they Olivia have worked very very hard at putting this together with Jamie you and a host of others I mean, I've done a great, great job here. And we're not done.

I mean, we've got two more days of getting this thing. Every time you read it you tweak it a little bit more tighten it up that's the idea. We'll be back with more in just a minute. Keeping you informed and engage.

Now, more than ever. This is secular. The court will review those briefs in chambers. Now, I'm going to reverse order sometimes I'll start with the reply brief. That's what Justice Stevens used to do he would read the last brief first so I always write the reply brief realizing that for justice, some justices they may start there. And then, and they go backwards but I will tell you by the time it's done there will be hundreds of pages of briefs filed in this case plus a joint appendix that is already in excess of 400 pages. A lot of written printed material, going into this be an argument on February 8, I anticipate after the argument that within a couple of weeks, we get the opinion and Jordan the Super Tuesday's one is that March 5, this year.

That's right. So I mean, again, you know, it goes boom boom boom with Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and then you've got this, that's another tough thing for these other two candidates. It's a survival period where, yes, you have time to campaign, but not if you don't have the money to campaign. What I mean by that is not just doing events which costs a lot of money, especially on Super Tuesday states because you got to be traveling all over the country and be spending ad money in all of those states. That's the most expensive day or event inside the Republican primary. So the question for DeSantis and Haley after these next two is do they have the resources to actually compete or and be almost laughed at, you know, again, if you just waste hundreds of millions of dollars, it can hurt your career in the future as well. Right now, I think both of them have the ability. Nikki Haley has the ability to go in New Hampshire. Makes sense on the polls right now to bow out without destroying their careers. You go too far and you start looking like you're just a bad act like you just got a chip on your shoulder and won't realize it's not.

It's not going to happen for you. You've done multiple Presidential campaigns and in those Presidential campaigns, you've had some that have gone all the way through George W. Bush and then when you did Jeb Bush, he pulled out pulled out and I believe it was at South Carolina. What's the rest?

We're going to quickly wrap up here. What's the rationale on that? He announced he was done in South Carolina and that was a pretty much known plan inside the campaign because he wasn't going to Super Tuesday, includes Florida. He wasn't going to lose his home state where he served as a two term governor. It was very popular because of the damage it would do, not to him politically, but to whatever he wanted to do next in life.

You know, business, work with his family. So with Nikki Haley, she has to make that calculation for South Carolina a little bit earlier than DeSantis. I just don't know how DeSantis right now, with a big loss last night for him in a state he put the most in and that probably doesn't do well in New Hampshire because he hasn't been there.

It hasn't spent money there. And then you're going to go into the home state of the only other person who you could think of potentially taking on Donald Trump in is because she was the former governor, Haley. That only happens, by the way, if she had a great performance in New Hampshire, which is not a given when we now saw big question always from Trump. You that we know it is through the people at the rallies show up to vote. They braved the crazy winter storms and weather in Iowa like no other candidates have gotten support before last night. Folks at the ACLJ, 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 and a group of our donors have stepped up to match donations for the next three days to fund this effort. Our brief at the Supreme Court is due in just a few days. Every gift will be doubled dollar for dollar through our matching moment. Go to and please donate now. We will be right back after this break. Welcome back to Secular. We've also got calls incoming about the situation in Israel.

If you have more of those political calls, you can get them at 1-800-684-3110. Of course there's going to be a lot of coverage of that even more tomorrow and then of course Monday and Tuesday analyzing what happened in Iowa with those zero degrees. Who turns out?

How long did it take? How close to the margins? And then we move on to New Hampshire and we kind of see how that moves. But Neil is calling in from Florida on Line 1 with a question about the ICJ and I think it's important for us to answer.

A lot of people because it's rarely used when it comes to the United States. So Neil, welcome to the show. You're on the air. Hey, how's it going, buddy? Great.

Excellent. Well, you know, there's a national criminal court. I mean, the International Law Justice Court, basically, it's a UN charter and Israel is a signer to this charter. So I was wondering if they really did find Israel guilty, what would be the legal aspect of that? How would Israel should respond or how would they respond? The enemies of Israel will use it as propaganda of Israel engaged in illegal activities.

But I'll go to Andy first and then to Ceci. But from a legal enforcement perspective, it has zero enforcement. It has zero enforcement capability whatsoever. It's not an enforceable judgment. So they can't stop Israel from engaging in war. No, they cannot engage, stop Israel from defending itself and engaging in anything that Israel deems necessary to protect itself.

That's right. And if they did make that kind of opinion, not only it's supposedly binding, but not enforceable. Not only, though, is it not enforceable, they don't even have jurisdiction over this because this case is a case of Israel defending themselves. It is under the international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict, not of genocide.

So that is not before this court. And Malcolm Shaw is a very well respected British barrister who is representing Israel in this. Let's go to our offices in Jerusalem and speak with Jeff Balaban and get, Jeff, your sense of this. A lot of news coverage on it in the United States today.

I'm sure Israeli television's had it and news has had it too. What's the sense over there? Well, the sense over here is that obviously it's not going to be a fair fight. I mean, I'd like to put this in a little bit of real historical context. You know, the notion of using the law against the Jewish people literally starts in the Bible, starts with Pharaoh, goes through Haman, goes through, you know, century after century, famously Nuremberg Laws. And so people use the law as though the law is somehow moral or decent.

But when the law applies to the Jewish people, it's used in the most pernicious ways. And people are sensitive. They know our history.

They know Jewish history. And so they understand that this is happening yet again. Yet they're trying. I'm not sure why they think it's going to be successful. And a lot of people are skeptical, but they feel like the case is so obvious. This is a genocide against the Jewish people.

It's so obvious that maybe some people will listen. Well, I think, Jeff, they did it. And you and I talked about this. I questioned whether they should have even responded. But I think the reason they did it was the nature of the atrocities were so gross that never again happened again. And they had to respond. And what's so interesting about this is when you look at what South Africa, and we pointed this out in our brief, they only spent two paragraphs out of 844 pages, two paragraphs on Hamas's action.

And even then, the reference simply is passing. It's a reference in passing, calling Hamas's acts being investigated by the ICC. They don't call them war crimes. They don't call it genocide.

So the bias is obvious. But I think what we have to focus on here is the nature of what's taken place. This is, after all, an international tribunal. And even though it's uncomfortable, and it's uncomfortable to write these briefs, you've got to write these briefs. You're working in Israel getting this to government leaders there. We're sending this literally around the world.

Jeff? Well, they're very appreciative of that, meaning even though, as you pointed out, technically we are not state actors, so we can't do it, the fact that we made the effort to articulate these arguments, which are important arguments, the fact that they know that we at ACLJ represent a large constituency of Americans who care about this profoundly, it gives them both moral support. It gives them substantive arguments to make. And yes, to the degree that they decided to engage in this and make themselves subject to this in order to get public support, in order to show their case and take their case, the fact that we have joined in to show what the case is to the public is very important. Because again, this is not a serious tribunal that's looking for justice. This is a show trial. It's just a show trial.

And so getting the substantive arguments out there for the truth becomes even more important. Do we have a bite we could play? Will, is that the one you want us to play?

Play number 20. Israel's response to the 7th of October, 2023 attack has crossed this line and give rise to the breaches of the convention. Faced with such evidence and our duty to do what we can do to prevent genocide, as contained in Article 1 of the convention, the South African government initiated this case.

Your reaction to that? Well, of course, there is not a crossing of a line and there is no evidence to support a claim of genocide. We use the word frivolous in our brief, and that's exactly what it is. It's frivolous.

It's baseless. There is no basis whatsoever to say this, and Israel has not crossed the line. We crossed the line – excuse me – Israel crossed the line into Gaza, but it did so in defense of its nation.

Yeah, crossed the line being the border, not the legal line there. Right. And, C.C., we've also distributed this so widely, so hopefully the countries that are – the foreign embassies, Jeff, this is what we're trying to do – are now getting our materials so they know that before their judges rule what the real law is here, because no one else is pointing that out.

That's right. We've sent it to the foreign ministers of very key and crucial countries, and we've sent it to the U.N. secretary-general. We've sent it to the commission of inquiry. Anybody who is going to make comments and have any kind of input into this, we want to make sure that they have the correct factual and legal information before them, and so we have sent it, like you said, literally around the world. And, Jeff, I think what's going to be important is tomorrow when Israel is able to present its case uninterrupted to this court, that the government in Israel, the media in Israel, supporters of Israel, organizations like ours, are able to take that and really distribute it to the world so that people see and hear the facts about what Israel has faced. If you want to go back, as South Africans have, to 1948, I'm sure those attorneys can do that as well and talk about all the wars Israel has had to face, wars trying to destroy the Jewish state of Israel, and also, of course, then focusing on what happened on October 7th. So tomorrow, also a very important moment for the world and for Israel to get its message out.

That's right. And, Jordan, it's an important moment for the world in another way. In truth, this is not a trial of the state of Israel. This is not a trial of the Jewish people. This is a trial of the world. In terms of morality, decency, the notion that the rule of law is supposed to protect people and humanity as opposed to attack people and humanity, that's really what's happening. This is a trial of the world. And so, yes, we are on the right side.

I'm glad that we took the effort to make the clearest possible case and distribute it around the world so that they understand that millions and millions of people are watching them and judging them for their behavior now towards the Jewish people in the state of Israel. I'm looking at our website. Do we have this posted? Do we have the brief posted?

Not yet? Okay, we're getting it posted. Let's make sure we get that up.

That's very important. Let's go ahead and take the phone call, Jordan. Is Harry ready in West Virginia?

Yes. Yeah, hey, Harry. Yep, we'll go to Harry in West Virginia, online one.

Hey, Harry. Okay, I was thinking that what needs to be done is to explain how Israel developed and that they're not occupiers. That seems to be what South Africa is trying to say and what the Palestinians often say, that they're being occupied or controlled, you know, colonized. And we need to let people know how the state began.

Exactly. So I wrote a book, actually, Harry, called Jerusalem, and it tracks us in great detail, and it's available on Amazon or wherever you get your books. And it talks about Jewish presence in Israel since the founding of Israel.

Not the current founding, I'm talking about during biblical times, that there's always been a Jewish presence in Jerusalem. But the truth of the matter is that what we're facing, Jeff, what's being faced down right now is a call for annihilation. When he started the argument by saying the Nakba, which is the great catastrophe, that tells you where they're going.

Absolutely. He's saying 75 years. That is another way of saying from the river to the sea. It's another way of saying that Israel has no right to exist, that the Jewish people have no right to exist at all in their sovereign homeland, in their indigenous homeland.

As you point out in your book, we've been here forever. And, you know, it is an entire structural narrative that's geared towards one thing. Promote the propaganda that Jews are interlopers in Judea, that Jews don't belong in the land of Israel, and that others who actually are not from here, I mean, Arabs are from Arabia, Jews are from Judea.

It's pretty simple. That those who are not from here, who have come here in violence and to colonize and take our land, and who Israel nonetheless was willing to share the land with for the purposes of peace, that no, we cannot tolerate the existence of Jews. And it was spoken about earlier on the program, Jews haven't been hounded out of other places in the world where they were forced into exile, finally, finally miraculously are gathering back in this land, and of course the world cannot stand it.

And so they're fighting against it. Folks, we want you to stand with us as ACLJ champions. I mean, when we talk about all these situations, some short-term, some where you've got to get things out in two days, some where you've got, again, months-long conflicts. We want to be ready to go with the ACLJ at every moment. And whether we can plan for it, for the biggest cases and issues, usually you can't plan for it at all.

But to be ready to go, you have to have the resources to be ready to go. And that's what ACLJ champions are so good at providing. They're the tip of the spear because you're making that recurring donation so we know we can do what we need to do and what we think is best in each situation without having to worry about do we have the resources. Those ACLJ champions make it possible.

Become one today at slash champions. Welcome back to Secular. We are joined by our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. There's a lot to talk about going on in the world consistently, of course, with the issues involving Israel, issues involving, of course, the United States, terror attacks on the shipping. And today, Secretary Pompeo at the ICJ, it was South Africa's day to put Israel on trial for genocide. Israel will have their day to respond at the ICJ tomorrow. Important to point out that, unlike other international courts, this is one that all member states of the UN are members of. So the United States does have a permanent justice on this court. Israel gets one for this case.

South Africa gets one for this case. But they have, again, said that Israel has been committing genocide since its founding. They use terms like Nakba so that it was a great catastrophe that Israel was even founded. It's probably going to not be a very positive ruling from this court, but what impact do you think this actually has on Israel's mission to eliminate Hamas? Well, Jordan, two thoughts.

First, this is silly. The legal arguments that are being presented at the ICJ don't withstand scrutiny. Israel is not committing genocide.

I know deeply the definition of that term in the international law. What they have done is try to right the ship and protect themselves after one of the most barbaric incidents in the last 50 years. As for how it impacts Israel, I hope the answer is not at all. It will certainly, if the decision comes down and it is a decision that castigates Israel, as one might expect, it makes it harder politically for Israel, friends and allies of Israel, to stand by them. That makes it all more important for the United States, for organizations like the ACLJ and for people who understand the importance of Israel and its place in the world to ensure that they have the capacity, the bullets, the munitions, and the political support that they need to continue to eliminate this terror threat, Hamas. Mike, you can't file directly with the International Court of Justice.

It's only state to state. But we filed with all of the governments that have judges on the panels, so there's 17 of those. We also filed with a number of other governments, including Ministries of Foreign Affairs, letting out the legal arguments. One of the things I pointed out in the broadcast earlier, in the 84 pages that have been submitted by South Africa against Israel, the application dedicates a total of approximately two paragraphs out of 84 pages to Hamas actions. And even then in mentioning the two paragraphs, it simply says, in passing, without calling Hamas acts heinous acts of genocide, as war crimes, they don't use any of that language, they just say South Africa states that the ICC prosecutor has warned Hamas about taking hostages could constitute a breach of the Geneva Convention. That's all they were willing to say in South Africa's brief. This is morally bankrupt.

Jay, you've been around these courts for a while, you know that this is frankly not that new. Nope. The United Nations does the same thing, right? Hundreds of resolutions against Israel, two resolutions against folks like Chairman Kim and North Korea, right?

They're deeply imbalanced, they are often anti-Semitic, and what you're seeing here play out is more of this history. It is absolutely, this is one of the reasons it is so imperative that the United States gets this right to watch Secretary Blinken travel around the country and be on the same side as this argument, essentially constraining Israel's capacity to defend itself is so troubling, so deeply difficult. I think for America, the American state is saying, why the United States would be in that place?

Supporting sort of the same set of arguments about Israel as the problem instead of as someone just simply defending its own homeland is something that is just so inconsistent with the American tradition. You know, we saw Congressman Rashida Tlaib, she said this on X, the United States, UK, and Israel were among the last countries to end their support for the apartheid regime in South Africa. The legacy of a liberated South Africa lives on as a country that defeated apartheid, takes the Israeli apartheid regime to the Hague for genocide. So she uses an opportunity to slam both her country that she represents in Congress, the United States, the UK, and of course tie Israel to that as well. And as you look through a lot of the argument that started today, I mean, they're going back to the beginning of Israel, 1948. From that moment forward, the Israelis have been responsible for the genocide of Palestinians. It's not just, it didn't start with October 7th, it didn't start with a war two years ago, it started with the founding of Israel and using the word Nakba, which is the same Secretary Pompeo is saying from the river to the sea. They don't believe, in South Africa's case, those presenting this argument, that a Jewish state of Israel should exist in the world. That's right. This is an argument in support of the elimination of the Jewish homeland, the rightful Jewish homeland, the state of Israel.

We should call it no less than that. That's the serious allegations they're making. You know, I remember at the UN hearing these arguments about apartheid in Israel and any of us who lived through and watched apartheid in South Africa, the country that's pressing this claim, know that these two could not stand in a firmer opposition. Right.

There's no there's no parallel. Indeed, the exact opposite. If you're the minority party in Israel, you have all kinds of rights and freedoms. The very people that they claim are there's a genocidal acts against since 1948 are people who hold seats in the legislature, in the Knesset, inside of Israel, in South Africa. For those who are young and listening and don't remember the history that was that was an apartheid imposed by a white minority against blacks.

They denied those blacks all of their freedoms. Israel is precisely the opposite of that and the way that they treat the citizens of their country. And indeed, those who live in Gaza or those who live in the West Bank actually know that the freedoms that they would like to have for themselves and their families could only be found in Israel, not in the country that they are not in the place that they live. I want to turn our attention to another in the Middle East, and that is Iran has seized an oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman. What do you think this means for the already fragile tensions within the region?

I've seen that reporting. This is another in a series of actions taken by Iran or by their proxies, the Houthis or Hezbollah, to continue to make life difficult for the people of Israel and make the political situation even more complicated. This will have an impact on America, right? If you start causing ships to have to go around the Red Sea, not be able to travel through, you'll see slower products in the supply chain, you'll see higher costs. But importantly, until the United States takes seriously the threat from Iran, until we impose costs on the Iranian regime itself, you're going to see not only ships, commercial vessels in this case, but what is it now? A hundred plus attacks on American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the region?

We're going to get folks killed for goodness sake. And to placate the Iranians and just simply put out a statement saying, now you all better stop this, is not going to have any effect on deterring what Iran is up to. You're going to need to be at some point direct action with Iran, do you believe?

A hundred percent. You should know Iran is already taking direct action, right? To say that this isn't direct action against the United States when a Houthi warrior in Yemen fires a high-end technical piece of artillery at an American naval vessel, that's an Iranian act on America. We ought to make sure we're defending it. With the ACLJ, 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 and a group of our donors have stepped up to match donations for the next three days to fund this effort. Our brief at the Supreme Court is due in just a few days. Every gift will be doubled, dollar for dollar, through our matching moment. Go to and please donate now.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-01-19 19:25:25 / 2024-01-19 19:44:35 / 19

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