LIVE NOW: Trump Prosecutor Fani Willis Disqualification Hearing

Today on Sekulow, live right now, analysis of Trump prosecutor Fannie Willis, disqualification hearing in Georgia. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, there is a lot to talk about in the legal world facing President Trump, the cases moving all over the country. The one right now, you might have seen it on your television, is out of Georgia. And this comes to whether or not the DA there, Fannie Willis, should be disqualified from further action in this case.

That would include her entire DA team. And the question we want to answer for you is, what would happen if that does occur? There's two days of testimony. There's testimony ongoing now between the, now we found out this boyfriend who received the nearly $700,000 to kind of lead this. He's testifying, he's mentioned even cash payments being made.

That's always kind of sets some alarms off. And then they have more hearings on Friday. But on Friday, Dad, we're not just maybe going to get this decision.

I was just writing it through. And we could get multiple decisions that affect where President Trump is legally in all these matters. Yeah, so the civil fraud trial that has already been concluded, the verdict on damages, which is decided by the judge, is due Friday. And there could be an award of damages up to $350 million. And the possibility that President Trump's company will be barred from doing business in New York, which would then also possibly mandate the appointment of what's called a receiver for the business. Andy, you've been a receiver.

I have. A court appointed receiver. That would hamper Donald Trump's ability to run his business significantly. That's right. A receiver is an officer of the court appointed in a state court proceeding analogous to a trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding. But this is in the state court.

And the receiver would really be the person who operates the business and makes the decisions with respect to who is paid, who is not paid, and the daily operations of the business. So you've got that. At the same time, it is possible that we receive the opinion in the 14th Amendment case. That'll be a week and a day that that's been argued.

So it could well come out in Bush versus Gore. It took about four days. So that opinion could be due any day. And then the issue of absolute immunity that was filed by President Trump's lawyer, the special counsel, was given until next week to respond. He responded yesterday, which means we could get a decision on whether they're going to hear that case as early as Friday. And I think there's some obstacles, honestly, in that case, and that the shooting for absolute immunity was a big gamble, I think, legally. And the other aspect of it is I think there was an easier appeal approach, which would have delayed the proceedings and would have been final conclusion. But it would have been this idea that the court ruled that the issue of Presidential immunity expired at 1201 on January 20th, the moment that the President becomes a former President.

And Andy and I both said at this desk in this studio, that is fundamentally incorrect. And that could have been a basis that was not the basis they decided to take it up on, but that I think would have been a basis where you could have won unanimously. It would have been a smarter basis upon which to proceed because it would have answered the narrow question, does immunity survive the term of the President?

And you don't have to get into these questions of absolute and so forth. Yeah. The problem was with that is, and I don't think it's a problem, I think it's just a strategy call, is that doesn't decide whether he is immune in that case because it would send it back to the trial, but it would have delayed the proceeding. And if that's what the goal of some of these lawyers are, is to delay the proceedings, that would make sense. They may get a reply, they may not.

Normally you don't get a reply. So that case is fully submitted as of right now. So the legal activity against the former President coming in right now is at the highest pitch it's been, including since the four years since we were representing him.

There's never been this many. That's right. I mean, the only case that's really been slow is the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, because that takes so many loops to go through before people can even start reviewing the matters. So that one's in the kind of back burner right now. But Alvin Bragg has also set a date for March 25th for that case and the business issue there, or the campaign finance issue there.

Right. We're gonna get into that one too. We're gonna go through all of these. All of these say we're gonna explain it for you piece by piece. Best option, worst option for President Trump. And we'll take calls.

It's kind of a middle of the wind. If you got questions about any of these cases or all of them, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. So no question is wrong. These are confusing. They're complicated. There's a lot going on. Welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. So we've got this ongoing talk about Fannie Willis being potentially disqualified from this case involving President Trump and 15 other defendants in Georgia.

That again, we'll go into tomorrow. We've also got the reply from Jack Smith's office on the immunity issue at the U.S. Supreme Court to stay there. Before we get to just listing a bunch of cases, I think we'll start with the first one that's on TV right now, Fannie Willis.

And I think the best way for our audience to kind of take this down is what's best case for President Trump, worst case for President Trump, and kind of is there a middle ground like where you didn't get all you wanted, but it's the quasi-win. Well, here's what the... And if President Trump has joined in this motion, the motion that was made in this case by Mike Roman, one of the defendants, is both a motion to disqualify Fannie Willis and Mr. Wade, and then Andy will get into that, actually means the disqualification of the entire office, and a motion to dismiss. So they have made a motion to dismiss with their request for the prosecutor to be taken off the case.

That's correct. This is a motion that has two prongs to it that has been made by Roman and signed onto by President Trump, and that is to disqualify the district attorney's office in Fulton County, Fannie Willis, and all her assistants out of it, and a motion to dismiss the indictment in the case. And Judge McAfee has got to decide both of those issues. He can decide, for instance, to disqualify the district attorney's office in Fulton County, which is Fannie Willis and all her assistants, in which case a new prosecutor from Georgia would be appointed with the complete power to make a decision as to what's going to happen in the case. He could pursue, or she could pursue the case criminally. He or she could dismiss the case, move to what we call in Georgia, nol pros the case, which is a fancy Latin term that means to dismiss the case, or pursue some defendants, dismiss other defendants, allow pleas that have been tendered to be withdrawn with their consent. In other words, wouldn't oppose that if the judge decided to do that. Judge McAfee would also have the right under Georgia law pursuant to a case that was decided in 1916 to dismiss the indictment in the case. There is authority that he could dismiss the indictment as well.

So that would be the best case scenario. The second thing that can happen is he disqualifies the office. The governor then appoints another district attorney. That district attorney evaluates the case and then will make a decision whether to proceed or not. I would, my indication inclination would be not because this RICO, and Andy's shaking his head, the RICO thing is so untested. And the third thing is, and this was the worst case scenario for the defendants is he says they haven't made a sufficient case to show that the case is tainted.

And he, and she allows Fannie Willis to stay on the case. I, I kind of think that's hard pressed. You want to play that bite? This kind of sets it up. Let's go ahead and listen.

Without going into all the painstaking details. There is no doubt in your mind that from 2019 until 2022 Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were in a romantic relationship. What's the question?

You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her. No doubt. Okay. So that, let me tell you what that does. That's not a crime.

Okay. The consenting adult's not a crime. It's the crime issue here or the impropriety issue is the money utilization.

That money that was given to this law firm of Wade's was then used to take Fannie on these trips and pay for expenses and whatnot. And that's what's going on in court literally as we speak right now. And that puts this whole issue of when you're looking at the pursuit of justice and a criminal justice system, you want, don't even want the taint of any kind of either bad faith or a taint of irresponsible judgment or impunity. I mean, you just want to stay away from that.

And that's the problem. That is now overtaken this case. I think McAfee the judge is doing a good job of controlling it, but it certainly takes away from it. Very impressed with Judge McAfee's judicial temperament. I must say, I think he's doing a very good job of handling the witnesses and the objections that are being made and keeping the thing on track. But as Jay said, the important thing here is, and Professor Dershowitz also mentioned this, is the appearance of impropriety. It's not, some things may not be criminal, but the office of the district attorney is there to do justice. Not to get a guilty verdict, but to do the right thing. And if there is an appearance of impropriety and it seems like the evidence is adding up to that, it's up to Judge McAfee to decide there's no jury in this hearing.

It's just the judge alone making the decision. So Ashley Merchant, who's the attorney for Mike Roman, has subpoenaed both Willis and Wade. And then my friend, and Andy's as well, Steve Sadao made a series of objections and clarified. And I will tell you, Steve is a very good lawyer and he did an excellent job. Some of these lawyers need to be a little bit more organized in their presentation.

Steve was not one of them. He did a really great job, first class. So, I mean, let's go to Dee's call from California line too, because I want to answer people's questions. Like we said, the worst case scenario, best case scenario.

Dee, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air. Yes. My question is, I understand that the situation in Georgia with Fannie Willis and Wade, Nathan Wade, that they could be dismissed from the case. However, could they possibly both be disbarred?

I mean, participate in something that they know this is wrong? Yeah. I mean, there is, I think, is the state bar open in an investigation yet?

I know there's been complaints. No, but there could be a state bar investigation open as to whether the prosecutor engaged in conduct that made the office subject to public ridicule or embarrassment. And they could face disciplinary sanctions, whether it goes to as far as being disbarred.

I don't know. That would be ultimately to the Georgia Supreme Court, in fact, because anything that the state bar of Georgia does in terms of discipline is appealable to the Supreme Court of Georgia. If she's kicked off the case, that doesn't mean she's disbarred. She actually keeps her position as DA. Oh, she'd still be the Fulton County DA. She just will not be the DA on this case. And her office is disqualified as well.

It's not just her, it's her entire office is disqualified. And the new DA gets appointed by? Governor Kemp and would be able to evaluate the case from the beginning, which I think they would. And I think in a matter of months, I think the case would be dismissed. They could actually dismiss the entire case. I believe that's what the outcome would be.

You don't know, but I think that's what it would be. Yeah. So again, that one is moving as well. Continue to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Jack Smith has filed his immunity reply to SCOTUS. So we know that we are looking potentially at the end of this tomorrow, a decision maybe on the 14th Amendment case. That looks pretty good for President Trump. We've talked through that extensively, but we may also get some more decisions on- The stay. The stay and the financial penalty slash receiver. So let's talk about what could happen Friday.

So Friday could be a really, is going to be a big day. I mean, number one, we know that the, at least the plan is that in the civil fraud case, the amount of judgment is coming. And that will be how much did Donald Trump's damages are. And they're talking numbers in excess of $350 million. There's also the possibility that he could be barred from engaging in the real estate business in New York and the possibility of the appointment of a receiver to run the business. And Andy, you have been, and we said this earlier in the broadcast, you have been a receiver.

That would be a very significant move and would affect the operations of the Trump Organization. Well, yes, indeed. I've been a receiver in many cases. A receiver, first of all, is an officer of the court. The receiver is appointed by the judge and the receiver's job is to take over and run and operate the businesses as he sees fit.

Let me ask you this, Andy. If he could pay the fine, if the $350 million and the President can pay it, does that alleviate the receiver? Might.

Might very well. The judge would say, what's the purpose of a receiver in that case? Unless they're barred from doing business in New York. If they're barred from doing business in New York, then somebody has to run the operation, right?

Until something is decided, that would be a receiver. Of course, President Trump owns more than one building in New York. We talked about this earlier. I'm sure people would want to know too. For $350 million, instead of him just writing a check out of a bank account, could he, if he did have a receiver, he could still go through a process and say, hey, I've got this building. I'm willing to sell off a third of it, you know, for $350 million.

It's a tower in New York, probably billions. So I'll sell off a third of it. That'll take care of the court fee. And even if he had a receiver, he could handle that debt potentially that way. Right, Andy, but you have to, there's a process you have to go through.

What would happen? I think it's important for our audience to understand. I think you have to understand, if the receiver may take a business decision, whatever that may be, it might be objected to by Trump, okay? Or by the state. In that case, the receiver always seeks direction from the court who appointed him. It's called a petition for direction.

The receiver would go to the court and say, this is what I recommend being done. This is what one side wants. This is what the other side wants.

Judge, direct me as to what I am to do. Right, so I mean, there we kind of go there. So there's, again, different ways. They don't have to let him do it, but certainly that would be a very large financial, you know, penalty, obviously. But it could be- That would be a huge one. That's appealable. Is the receivership appealable? Not, well, it stays in place while it's appealed. Right. The receivership- It could be appealed, but it would not be dissipated while, because they're controlling, they're worried about the control of assets. That will depend, Jordan, on whether the judge in that case decides that he can no longer do business in New York. That would be a big step. I'm not sure where they can quite go there, but we'll see. Yeah.

All right. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us. The air will continue to take your questions, your calls. And again, kind of tie this all together as to the impact this could have, of course, on the primary voting, but then also as you get into the general election, the mindset of the voter, depending on, you know, where they want to place their vote.

We know where President Trump needs to win that he did not win in 2020, which was suburban women, kind of voters who don't vote regularly, who kind of were interested in this new movement. So we'll take your calls on it. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We've got all these experts for you so we can get you up to speed on all of these matters.

So you can talk to your friends. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take your calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. And we're just going to keep taking your calls, working through. There's so many of these cases.

I did a short reel for, you know, Instagram and Facebook just to kind of walk you through, and we'll continue to update those for you as we get more decisions on like kind of where these are going, because there's so many to track, and we're trying to help you track them and also understand their ultimate outcomes and how they can affect this Presidential election, whether you're voting for President Trump or not in the general, in the primary. I want to go to the phones. Warren in Idaho on Line 1. And Warren, before I go right to you, the reason we can do this, folks, is because we've got teams of experts at the ACLJ who understand all of these different types of law, whether you're talking about replacing in a criminal case or replacing a DA, a receiver.

People have actually done it before. We can bring all of those folks in. It's like talking to Rick yesterday about the Intel thing and that issue now we know more about with Russia. We have those folks because you support the ACLJ, and we're able to then educate you with the best information possible so that when you're talking to your friends and family, this is that time of year when friends and family start calling on their friends who they know follow politics closely.

We want you to have as much information as possible, and we're able to do that because of the donors to the American Center for Law Justice so we can continue to add experts like this to our team at ACLJ.org. Warren, we'll go back to you in Idaho on Line 1. Thanks for being with us. Hi, Warren. Hey, thanks for taking my call, guys. And just to encourage everybody, my wife and I are champions, too, and we appreciate all you guys do for us in Israel. Thanks. Thank you. I think you answered my question, Jay, but on the trials in New York, like where the valuation of moral law goes, they see that, is that appealable?

Yes. So, yes, there's a two-tiered system of appeals in New York. There's the intermediate court, which is called the Appellate Division, and that is their intermediate appellate court, and this would apply. And then there's a discretionary review, and that is the highest court in New York, which is actually called the New York Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of New York is actually the trial court.

They do it a little bit differently there. But, yes, there's two levels of appeals that are optioned. The question will be, if there is a receiver appointed, does that receivership abate while the appeals are going forward?

I don't think so. No, I think the receivership would stay in place while the appeals were going. I think the trial judge could order that the appeal can proceed, but the receiver stays in place because somebody has to run the business.

I also think that the only way in which a receiver can come into place, Jordan, is if the court rules that he cannot do business in New York, because short of that, and he can pay the $350 million fine or post a bond pending appeal, you don't need a receiver. Right. We'll know tomorrow. Yes, we will know tomorrow that on the financial penalty and the receiver. He could definitely appeal the financial penalty. Correct.

The receiver, he cannot. Well, I think you could appeal it, but I think they stay in place while they appeal. So it's like a stay. Okay. Yeah.

We'll keep going to the phones to answer your questions, 1-800-6431-10. Before you go to Fannie Willis, you actually expect that we could get that 14th Amendment? Yeah. I mean, that'd be about as quick as possible. Yeah. Well, Bush versus Gore was four days after the argument. Here you're going on right now, we're on five days right now, actually a week.

They had super pressure at that case. Yes. Well, that was outcome determinative for an election, but this is outcome determinative for primary. But he's on the primary ballot. So I think starting tomorrow, we should look for it as a possibility that, as I say, it could go live. It could take another two weeks, who knows? But I think you're going to have that one. And I think you're going to get quick action on this. And we haven't gotten into it in detail yet on this immunity defense issue. That one could be decided as early as tomorrow too.

It is the issues are joined, the briefs for both sides are in. Yeah, really. I wanted to spend the second half hour, get into immunity because that one is lots of different ways to go. So you want to stay with us because that, again, is I think right now, probably the most dangerous case for President Trump. Yeah, the January 6th trial, no doubt about it. Because if you lose immunity, that criminal's case is going to start as quickly as Jack Smith can try to do it before. And a DC jury, very difficult.

Pretty easy to get a conviction out of that DC jury. And then the question is, what impact does that have on the election? I mean, you get to appeal, but yeah, the impact of the election. What do you think it would be?

You know, we could get into it further. I think for the most part, every time he's been charged with something, he's added votes. If he gets convicted of a crime, people are not going to necessarily say, I don't think he's being persecuted, but they may start thinking... Too much chaos. Is he going to be able to run the country? Well, we've got the Russia issue, we've got this dude. Not that they want Joe Biden, and they still may love President Trump, but is it possible?

Is it possible? So I think he'll have a job if I really had his team of explaining that. We'll get into that more in the second half hour, because I think that has now jumped up to the most perilous case.

The Georgia one used to be pretty kind of dangerous, but that's kind of falling apart. All right. Let's take Steve. Yeah, let's take Steve in New Jersey online too. Hey, Steve.

Hi, guys. My question is about the Georgia case. Do the other attorneys in particular, the ones assigned to the Roman and Trump case, do they have a cause of action against Fannie Willis for her impropriety with one of their peers? I don't think so, Andy.

No, not at all. I mean, you work for the DA, you get the DA that you work for, but you don't have a cause of action or a claim against her because she made an improper action in the office or disqualified the office. You're just an employee. The only people that might have a claim, well, would have a claim of action would be anybody that entered a negotiated guilty plea. Yes. Should be able to go back in and file a motion to vacate that plea or rescind the plea based on an extraordinary circumstance. I can't imagine that Judge McAfee would deny it if, in fact, she's disqualified and the new DA comes in and says this case should not have been brought in the first place. That's the end of it. I think all those people, pleas are taken away.

You know, we've got a comment coming from Rumble. As a resident of Metro Atlanta, we need to get rid of every corrupt official in the city. I hope they get rid of Fannie, but they tend to protect corruption in Atlanta. This doesn't get rid of her as a DA.

No, I think that's important to understand. This only takes her off the Trump case and a new DA will be appointed. They could decide, listen, they could decide to continue to bring the case. You think it's less... Less likely.

Because they were brought in... Because the RICO theory is so bizarre. Would they have to start from zero? Because this is now tainted? Well, maybe. I mean, I don't think they'd have to start from zero, but I think there could be all kinds of... Do they get all their files and research? Do they have to go through and back and do all that?

I don't know. I mean, are the witness interviews that Wade did valid? I mean, it raises a whole host of issues. I mean, first of all, this is going to cost the county millions.

It already has. I have worked for DAs who have become pro-tem DAs. That's what this is. You come in and you take the case as you find it, but then you can make the prosecutorial decisions from that point going forward. And you can decide to null process or dismiss the case if you want to, if that's what's appropriate.

Yeah. Let's take Lynn's call very quickly. And then we're opening the phone lines 1-800-684-3110. We'll talk about the immunity case coming up.

800-684-3110. Lynn, go ahead. Hey, I just want to know if with this Georgia DA... Yes. I want to know if Donald Trump, with all the money that he had to spend to defend himself and this Georgia DA not being straight up and this case appearing to be, you know, if dismissed or moved to somebody else, can he sue her and can he sue the other people that, you know, the district attorney's office also?

I want to know if he can... I don't think so. You know, there is a form of immunity for these prosecutors.

Yes. It's called Embler versus Pacman. It's a case that was decided by the Supreme Court years ago. They have prosecutorial immunity for these cases.

If every defendant who was acquitted had the right to sue the DA's offices because the prosecution ended badly for the state, that would be disastrous. They have immunity. The question will be does President Trump have immunity? What is it ultimately, though, if... I know this is not a criminal issue, but if ultimately this led to her being criminally charged, does that change that? I don't think so. I don't think it changes it, but boy, it changes the whole way that system is going to function.

Next up, immunity for the President, which really sets the case, the most dangerous case for him obviously, the case out of Washington, D.C. with Jack Smith, who we know is good at getting a guilty verdict, not always great on appeal. But again, we'll take your calls. 1-800-684-3110. Don't miss our second half. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Today, explaining kind of the Trump legal world that's going on right now. First off the bat, we could be getting news very soon, even as early as tomorrow, Dad, on our case, the 14th Amendment case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I want to start there. Yeah. So, yeah. So that case has been argued a week ago. The briefs have been submitted now for a week and a half.

So all the briefing and arguments are done. Traditionally, in cases that are expedited, the decisions come back in a quick fashion, and Bush v. Gore, it was four days. We're now at a week and a day, I think, realistically here. I think, starting tomorrow, you start looking for a possibility of an opinion.

I would think it's live tomorrow possibilities. Doesn't mean it'll happen, but I think you'll get the decision on the 14th Amendment. I'm still very optimistic on that.

I think we carried the day. We'll see which direction the court goes in. At the same time, the immunity case, this absolute immunity that President Trump is claiming now at the Supreme Court, he lost at the D.C. Court of Appeals, is now up at the Supreme Court, both briefs have been filed. I know that they're trying maybe to get another brief in.

I'm not sure that'll happen. You could get an order on that motion to stay, which is what Trump's lawyers have filed, as early as tomorrow as well. So you could get an opinion in the 14th Amendment case, a decision in the civil fraud case, and a decision on the motion to stay in the case involving the immunity defense, the absolute immunity defense that President Trump's put forward. I would have gone for a more limited view on appeal on that one. I would have said that the court applied the wrong standard by saying that the immunity evaporated on 1201 on January 20th. Send it back down then for a proceeding to determine if in fact the activities were within the zone of official acts or the periphery of official acts.

If they are, they should be immune. Whether the court will take it, Andy's pretty negative overall on that, that he thinks they're going to wait for a trial. I tend to agree right now. I think they took maybe too aggressive of a stand. But Professor Hutchinson's here with us. You've reviewed it. What's your sense of it, Harry?

Well, I agree. I think President Trump's lawyers have filed an ambitious case when they should have filed a more limited case. But the fundamental question is whether immunity survives the presidency. Jack Smith in this particular case asked the Supreme Court to let Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case proceed without further delay despite Trump's claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken while President. Now, Jack Smith's position I think is somewhat curious because he argues against further delay even though he has delayed bringing charges against Donald Trump for almost three years. He argues that democracy is at risk with a further delay.

I think this is nonsensical. I also think that Jack Smith typically files cases that are too ambitious with respect to the ultimate outcome. And certainly in the case involving the Virginia governor, he lost on appeal I believe 9-0.

And so I think it's important to keep in mind that Jack Smith at the end of the day is not necessarily someone you want to depend on for good legal judgment. So the question I guess, Andy, the immediate question is if the court denies the motion for stay tomorrow, which could happen, does Judge Chudkin put the case on a trial calendar? Because she said for every day delay she's going to hold it off a day.

It's been delayed. The trial date was set middle of December. We're now in the middle of February. So we're two months from the original trial date, which was March 4th. So now we're in April 4th, May 4th. It's still outside the 90 days.

I mean, what do you think? Well, I mean, you've asked the $64,000 question, and it's not really up to Judge Chudkin. She may have said a day for a day or whatever she said, but she may then change her mind and say, I'm not going to put this case on a trial calendar because it may be election determinative, and I'm not going to do it.

Or I'm going to put it on, you know, in June. It's up to her. And this is why it's important who you get as judges. District judges, very important. Yep, no question. All right, folks, take your calls, take your calls, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And questions too on this immunity case, which then, again, what does that set up? I think we want to get deep into that. Of course, support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to Second Hill. We are taking your calls and questions. If you've got questions on Rumble, YouTube, you're watching online, we monitor those. I want to go to one on Rumble that we were just discussing here during the break, which is, can the Supreme Court issue a ruling on that 14th and Bibbit Section 3 case as early as Friday with an unnamed author of the opinion? I mean, we see them time and time again, actually.

Team? Yes, the answer is yes. It's called a per curiam opinion, which is Latin, which means through the court. In other words, the justices all agree.

No one particularly signs off. I mean, nobody appears as having rendered the opinion or delivered the opinion of the court. It just says on the top per curiam through the court. And it would be a very narrow, in my view, opinion in which every justice would sign off on it.

And it would probably be on the question of the President is not an officer. And that's what I think every justice could agree on. Yeah, per curiam opinion would be showing unanimity, which I think is important in these kinds of cases, but it would be, Harry, on the most narrow of grounds, I would think. And that's fine.

I think that is correct. And certainly for those of us that have listened to the disqualification hearing, it's possible to argue that the Supreme Court's analysis, questions, and the like reformulated Jonathan Mitchell's argument to the court, because Jonathan Mitchell was arguing on behalf of Donald Trump, but the Supreme Court was providing several bases for a decision favoring Donald Trump, meaning that he would not be disqualified from pursuing his candidacy as President. However, Jonathan Mitchell, as many people have noted, refused to accept the Supreme Court's invitation to take yes for an answer. So I think a per curiam opinion would suit the Supreme Court very, very well. And no justice would need to be named with respect to the decision. And then you don't have the politicization of an issue like this at the court.

But let me tell you what else could happen here on that. That's on the 14th Amendment. On the immunity issue, they could just deny the stay with one sentence. Motion for stay directed to the court is denied.

Absolutely. And I would say right now that may indeed be the most likely outcome in part because President Trump's lawyers refuse to offer a middle ground to the Supreme Court. And a middle ground would simply ask the Supreme Court to formulate the correct test for Presidential immunity going forward. Because the test offered by the prosecution and accepted by the Second Court of Appeals basically exposes each and every President at the termination of his or her presidency.

They are then exposed to liability. You know, it's like a basketball game. You're down to the buzzer.

You're down by one. Your main point guard is ready to make the shot, you know, a layup. And instead of going for the layup, you say, I'm gonna go for the three-point play. And you go for the three-point. You didn't need the three points.

You just need the case to go back to the district court for determination whether it's official acts or not. And I just think the strategy there was lacking. These are smart lawyers. I'm not questioning they're smart. John Laura, who's running that legal team, is a very good lawyer. And Sauer, who's the Supreme Court lawyer, on that one was the Supreme Court lawyer for Missouri. So, was their Solicitor General. They're smart. I just would have gone a more calculate...

I think the word I would use is a little more calculated approach, not make the court reach so far to come out with a conclusion that's beneficial to you. Right. Right. I mean, I think, again, we got a good call on a question around rule two. Could you explain why the 14th Amendment case is not a state sovereignty issue?

That's a great question. It didn't come up a lot in the case. Colorado tried to issue it a little bit, but... It's not because the federal elections are uniquely federal responsibilities. And the qualification clause is a clause of the U.S. Constitution. And a state cannot change the qualifications for President because they want to, because that would create election chaos. And when you look at the 14th Amendment, the disqualification for insurrection actually can be lifted by Congress on a two-thirds vote. So, it's a uniquely congressional responsibility. You know, it says states get to set up the elections, the Supreme Court's interpretation...

Procedures, like, do you need signatures? How much to be on the ballot? Not, again, not... Not substantive changes that would affect who qualifies as, quote, qualification as qualification. So, they all are a little different. So, every state is different on how you qualify. Yes.

Both in the primary and the general, but all procedural. It's not substantive. And that's where the distinction is as well. Let me say something else. There are a lot of people watching on Rumble right now and on YouTube. I mean, thousands. Share it with your friends, like it. We encourage you to do that. It makes a big difference.

There are a lot of you watching it and that's great. So, I want to go to this. If the Supreme Court does not grant any kind of stay in the immunity case, how soon could that trial begin in D.C.? I think June. So, they'd have to go through a jury... Jury selection could start in June. I mean, if Judge Chunkin states with her original rule, which was for every day of delay since March, whatever the date was, I'm adding a day to it, and you're two and a half months out, I think you go from, you know, middle of February to the middle of March, middle of March to the middle of April. So, I think, you know, sometime in May, the case could start. So, there you go. I mean, then the question is, at that point, what is the political ramifications of that?

And that we are in totally, I think we're in unchartered territory. What do you think the court's going to do on this immunity claim in the way it's been phrased right now, Harry? Well, I think the Supreme Court will deny the claim made by Trump's lawyers, in part because they were too ambitious, and they may simply issue a per curiam denial. Yeah, that mean they could do a per curiam denial for a couple pages, they could issue a one sentence order that says the application per se referred to the court by just the Chief Justice is denied. Right. So, I mean... And it could be tomorrow too, because the issue is joined now.

Right. I mean, so that I think, again, puts President... I know there can be, you know, other procedural matters that go along with that, but that's when you got to get into the voters' mind, because so far... That's your ball game here. I mean, what do you think? They say it affects 4% or 5%, that's enough this way in an election.

It is. And I think right now, the persecution feeling of President Trump is the reason why he's gone up in the polls and why he's kind of run away so far with the Republican nomination and is doing pretty good against these matchups with President Biden in the swing states. He's actually made big improvements there if you look at where he started. But that was when the cases were just getting filed. And a lot of people thought, well, will they ever actually make it to trial?

And there were some questions about that. The classified one, you know, that's way behind. That was the first one that came through. It seems like that one's way behind. Doesn't seem like that one's coming in time. But the Alvin Bragg case, we're going to talk about that with C.C. Howe coming up, that one may well come up. Right.

So there's Alvin Bragg and then there is, of course, the one around January 6th. I think the question would be is, it probably won't affect the primary voter because you won't have any convictions or not guilty. Not only by Super Tuesday. But you might have convictions by November.

Yes. And that might freak people out because, especially the criminal matters... You're saying because they think at that point, can the President actually govern? Can you govern as a convicted criminal? And where are you if you're a convicted criminal? Are you governing from a special prison or at the White House but a house arrest? Can you travel to other countries? I mean, it just brings up a whole host of issues. We never had to deal with our country and neither have the courts.

No. So we, I mean, these are, if he got found guilty of three of the four counts that Jack Smith's bringing, I mean, that would put most people in prison for 20 plus years. Oh, yes, 94 counts.

So, but if he wins as President, what happens then? I mean, I think part of judge territory... I mean, the longer this goes, though, you can start getting closer, Andy, to that 90-day rule. Now in the state court proceeding, by the way, doesn't have that 90-day rule. That is strictly a Department of Justice policy. That's right. That's a policy that was enacted by the Justice Department, I think, in 2005 or 2008, that you don't do anything within 90 days of an election. That may have election, that may be an outcome determinative or consequential on an election.

That's right. So again, I think when it comes down to it, we will quickly get into the voter mindset in some of these primaries coming up on Super Tuesday. We only have a segment left, but I would like to ask our audience this. If there was a conviction of the former President, how does that affect or not affect your voting? If the President was actually convicted on January 6th trial, how does that affect how you would vote in the general election? We're going to open the lines up at 1-800-684-3110. That's 800-684-3110 just on that question. And that is, if convicted, how does that affect your voting? Would you still vote for the former President? Would you not?

1-800-684-3110. I'd love to hear what our audience has to say about that. You could do that by those that are listening on radio and also those that are listening on watching on our social media.

It's like people have a lot to say because every line is lit up. I have a feeling I know what tomorrow's broadcast might be, if that opinion comes out. And Linda on Robles said, I'd vote for Trump even if he is behind bars. I don't think that would be the case because if you won the election, for America, if you're the President, that's not a bar. You'd dismiss it against yourself. Yeah.

You'd instruct your attorney general to dismiss the case. Can you do that after conviction? Yes. Because you can pardon yourself. Would they impeach you? Maybe. So you'd have to be ready to go for a fight right off the bat. Yeah.

But you're not going to get convicted. I don't think. Two-thirds. No, no.

If President Trump won, it'd be unlikely the Senate got to two-thirds. Yeah. So we're going to take your calls when we come back. We'll take a look at this New York case as well.

1-800-684-3110. Back with your comments and questions and positions in a moment. Support the work of the ACLJ.

You can become an ACLJ champion too at ACLJ.org by supporting the work monthly. All right. Welcome back to... We are taking your calls and we will get to those in a minute, but there's another case. Yep. So add this to the list.

This New York... This one is scheduled to start on... Jury selection is starting March 25th. It's a case involving hush money payments.

Campaign finance violation involves situation with Stormy Daniels. And that is scheduled for March 25th. Cece's been looking at that one. What do we have?

Yeah. So March 25th, the jury selection will start. And of course... And this is a criminal trial. This is a criminal trial. This is for the payment to silence some unfounded, unsavory claims against Trump before the 2016 election that his then attorney Cohen paid.

And then it's basically paying him back. That's what they're getting him on, his business records. They're saying that's an election law violation?

That's right. And because he did it to conceal information from voters. That's what they're alleging. Of course, you have legal scholars saying it's gonna be hard to prove that he had intent and knowledge of wrongdoing.

And that is gonna be hard to prove. But here's the thing with the election. The judge said, we're gonna have a verdict in this well in advance of the July Republican National Convention. But his attorneys did point out from March 1st, because they're gonna have to start preparing for this jury trial right at March 1st, 25th, they're picking jurors. That from March 1st to the end of the trial, there will be 42 primaries and caucuses held. So of course it is going to affect his ability to campaign and the primary election for sure. So I mean, when you think about that, again, the Alvin Bragg situation, is it the timing?

Is it the monetary pill? I mean, what do you think is... What's so impactful on that? Was it being there? Well, let's go to our... You know what? We got a lot of people calling about it. Let's take their calls. Yeah, let's... We're just gonna go in order of the calls.

They're very close together. But let's start with Scott in Nevada on line one. Hey, Scott. Hi, how are you guys doing today? Thanks for all the work you do.

Sure. I just wanted to point out that in my mind, I see this as an attempt to just get him off the ballot and not have him be able to win the election. But it seems like it's almost like a last stand gambit for the liberal left, because if he wins every one of the cases, it would seem to me that many of the moderate liberals and independents would see this as what it is. So it's interesting you say that because I think... And this goes back to Cece's point, part of the damage here is not whether he's convicted or not. It's the fact that you've got these primaries going on while these cases are gonna be tried in New York.

That's right. And he has to prepare for them. And it's 42 primaries and caucuses from March 1st to the time in this one case, just this one case that in New York, 42 primaries and caucuses will take place. So all of this starts looking like anti-election interference in here. I mean, it starts looking like election interference.

I mean, even if it's unintentional, it's just the timing of this is horrific. They should postpone these until after the election. Absolutely right. That's really what... That's what ought to be done. Everything that is pending should be postponed...

Put it on hold. ... till after the election. And that's right. I agree with that.

What do you think, Harry? Well, I think Andy is correct. Also keep in mind that these cases were not brought in a timely manner. Right. So many of these cases could have been brought much earlier, but President Trump's opponents waited until we were in primary season or caucus season. And then they said, well, now let's bring a charge in order to essentially decapitate his presidency or at least his ability to run for office. And this is clearly the case with respect to Jack Smith. I think it's clearly the case with respect to the charges brought by Fannie Willis in Georgia. These prosecutors, I think, deliberately and intentionally waited. Why? Because they wanted to produce basically a spectacle for voters and therefore influence voter decision making.

And you can then therefore argue that what we have is a clear and unmistakable case of election interference. All right. All right. Back to the phones we go. Let's go to Lorraine in Florida on Line 3.

Watch on YouTube. Hey, Lorraine. Hi.

How are you? Great. I'm watching. I'm listening.

I'm loving everything. And I got to tell you, do you all know this man, Trump? 42 caucuses and elections. He's a machine. He's done more than any sitting President. And I have every faith in the world that this man will triumph, but I'm going to vote for him even if he doesn't. I'm about to edit for the ballot.

That man is going somewhere. You know what's interesting, Lorraine? Andy has a theory. I'm not going to, you can give a little bit of it. That's not that different from that, that maybe they don't, some of these judges says, yeah, we want to try this case.

Maybe they don't want to try it so much. I, you know, I got to tell you, I got to just expand on that. I mean, it's a good theory because let's look at Judge Chutkin. She's an Obama appointee in Washington, DC. Okay. Why would she want to put Trump on trial when all that's going to do is get him votes? She would probably say, I'm not going to put him on a trial calendar before an election while 42 primaries and caucuses are going on or other things are happening. I'm going to let him go because he will become a martyr and no one loves more than voting for martyrs. Let's take another call.

Yep. Let's go to Laura in Kentucky on line four. Hey Laura.

Hi. Um, I would probably vote for somebody that was laying in the bed with a coma before I would vote for the Biden administration just because they're awful. But what I wanted to say is, you know, in my opinion, like, and I know this makes people uncomfortable, spiritual warfare is all over this. So I mean, God uses people. I don't understand Trump's personality, but I know God's using him. Like he used bad Kings back in the Old Testament. He's going to use him as well.

And I think he will continue to do so. I'm just not sure whether or not we're going to win this one. You know, here's the thing. I'm confident that the country survives. I really am.

I want to get Pope here. I think the country survives this. I think the smart thing for these judges to do now that it's almost March.

Okay. And we're getting ready for Super Tuesday. When's South Carolina next week or the week after week is a week after, right? It's like two weeks, whatever it is, it's soon. 24th. Oh, so you're talking 10 days.

Less than 10 days, nine days. And then you go into Super Tuesday. If I'm a judge and I'm trying to stay out of this election interference, you know what I do?

I say, you know what folks, it's just too darn close. We're in the middle of primaries. We're about to start the election season. The conventions are in July and August.

You know what? It's too late in the year. We'll reevaluate this after the election. If Trump is President, none of these cases go forward.

If he's not President, then they'll have to argue their immunity and put on defenses. And if I was a judge, I take the Andy economy theory. And not even just because I don't want to get votes. It's just, it doesn't look right. And it does look like a pile on at this point.

I wish the lawyers would narrowly craft the arguments. Everything doesn't have to be a three-point basket at the buzzer when you could do a two-point layup and win the game by a point. Because at the end of the day, it's like golf.

They don't pay you. You don't win the hole for how good it looked. You win the hole because you got it in less strokes. It could be all on the ground.

If you get it into three and the other guy or gal hit four great shots, but got it in five, guess who wins? They look prettier. It's the same thing here. I think overshooting some of this stuff is a tactical error, but that's just me. And the lawyers are smart. I'm sure they've got their theories.

That is going to do it for the broadcast. We broke this down for you because you need it. Look, it's complicated. Fortunately at the ACLJ, we have the expertise. And you saw that on today's program. And your support of the ACLJ allows this to happen.

We encourage you to support the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Now tomorrow could be a really big day. Day two of the Fulton County hearing, the financial award in the civil fraud trial. And I think you've got to start being on the lookout for the immunity case decision and a possible decision on the application for stay, excuse me, on the immunity. It'll be an application for stay decision. And then the 14th amendment decision on the merits of the opinion could come out as early as tomorrow too. So a lot ahead. Again, support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org and buckle up for Friday's program. We're going to be covering a lot of material.