Day 2: Fani Willis Missing from Court After SHOCKING Testimony

Today on Sekulow, well, it's day two in Atlanta and Fannie Willis is missing from court after her shocking testimony. We'll talk about that and answer your questions today on Sekulow. 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. Alright, welcome back to Sekulow.

We're taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. I say back because we're on day two of the trial that you can watch that's going on in Atlanta, Georgia. Will she or won't she remain the district attorney prosecuting President Trump in the trial over the, you've got the electors, you've got the phone calls, etc. And it's a RICO case. Remember, all the other people have been charged, some who've even pled out already. And now this relationship and the amount of money, that was what was put on really in court yesterday was both the special counsel who was brought in, who got paid the nearly $700,000 we learned about, had the previous relationship with, the romantic relationship with, as they were going through divorces, I believe. And then was that money used appropriately? A lot of cash was being discussed. And that was kind of the impetus of this hearing. Let's see what, you know, the fact that they had a relationship is not a basis upon which disqualification can take place, okay?

Because, first of all, they're consenting adults. That's number one. Number two is money used by one party to benefit the other, the DA. That would be a basis. I'm not, I'm very curious to see what our listeners think.

We'll take your calls on this at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. I thought her presentation to the court was outrageous. I thought it was over the top.

Having said that, I think it was calculated. I think she planned on testifying because her, Wade, her senior DA or assistant DA, that's the one she had the relationship with, did a pretty significantly decent job on his testimony. They've got a show. They're attorneys. Would the, right, does the prosecutor's actions undermine the integrity of the judicial system?

That is the legal standard for this to go forward. There's a consensus right now that people inside Georgia think he, that she's probably not getting disqualified and there are people outside of Georgia thinking she will get disqualified, although Andy will be joining us later. He's an outlier. He thinks she will be disqualified.

I'm not so sure. Yeah, it is different too when you're inside the bubble versus outside because we're seeing courtroom and then, of course, we get reports from people who are there, but they've got their own opinions about it and their views. It's, you know, I would think, again, most people just don't have the time to watch hours and hours of, these court cases are over before they get home. So what they saw last night was Fawnee Willis screaming, and bursting into the court, which we're going to talk about how that could even be an issue for her when she showed up in the courtroom because. Yeah, she wasn't supposed to be there at that time. There was an issue that she said she knew, she knew the testimony was done. They asked, how'd you know it was done? You weren't supposed to be watching it. Well, I saw people in my office moving around and then she said, she saw some of the proceedings.

They're not supposed to do that. And then there's this question, which has not been answered yet, whether information has been leaked to the press. That's a violation of the state 6E rule, which would mean dismissal of the indictment.

We want to know what you think about this process at all, if you've been watching it. 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. And we also still want to take your calls on President Trump.

And if there is a trial in January 6th, a conviction with a conviction and a sentence, which could include jail, how does that impact your vote decision? 1-800-684-3110. We've opened the phones, phone lines are open at 800-684-3110. Yeah, I was going to ask you two about that leaking to the press. So they've thrown that in here as well.

Yeah, that's a big deal. What did they, did they have a lot of specific details? They didn't give specific details. There were some statements made that indicated that yes, information from our office was leaked to the press. If that's the case, they throw out the whole indictment. It's a 6E federal law, 6E.

There's a state 6E counterpart, and it is a felony. That's bigger than just her being removed. That's the end of the case.

Right. All right, folks, we'll take your calls and questions. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We want you to, to support us. 2, to support the work of the ACLJ. That's at ACLJ.org. Again, we've got a prayer guide at ACLJ.org slash prayer. 80,000 people have downloaded it.

80,000 people downloaded it. We've had a team here have really focused on this intention of deliberate prayer for our nation, for our country. So go to ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back. Just take your phone calls.

1-800-684-3110. You can play some from the hearing too as we're kind of discussing this as well. But we've got Secretary Pompeo joining us. So we'll jump to that and then we'll move on back a little bit to Georgia. And Secretary Pompeo, you just returned from Israel literally yesterday. I saw on your social media accounts some unbelievable footage of where you were going. And I think you're with the former ambassador, Danny Danota, good friend of ours. Kind of give us just like the latest, the feel on the ground from Israel. We have an office there, of course, ACLJ Jerusalem. But what was it like being there with those soldiers, with those families, and with the government leaders this far into the conflict?

Yeah, Jordan. It was great to be there. It's the first trip that I've had the chance to take since the massacre that took place on October 7.

You know, three thoughts. First of all, Israeli people are remarkably, broadly speaking, people who are in business, people who are taking care of families, people who are volunteering to provide support for the soldiers. These people understand the threat that is upon them and they are determined.

Second, I did get to spend some time with some Israeli fighters, some folks from the IDF. They know their mission. They're executing in a way that is deeply consistent with how we would expect an advanced military like theirs to behave, contrary to what some of the Biden administration said, where they are dehumanizing the Gazans.

Frankly, they are taking enormous risk for their own soldiers in order to do what they need to do to deliver sovereignty and security for their own people. The last thought is I didn't meet a single Israeli who wasn't thinking about the hostages and the fact that we need to get them back to their families as quickly as we can now is the time to do that. But they were also ever more mindful, even now, goodness, four months on, that they are at war and that Hamas and that risk has to be eliminated, eradicated, describe it how you will. But this is not a time to be thinking about what it might look like to make a deal with Hamas or a deal with the people of Gaza.

They've got to take out every bit of that infrastructure and they're going to do it. Mike, I know you spent time with some of the military leaders as well. There is right now more resistance, I think, than ever worldwide to Israel's current engagement with Hamas.

You visited the IDF. How motivated are the soldiers themselves to keep this fight going and now taking it to, again, to Rafah and some of these other locations? And how united are they in their view? Completely united, Jay. That's a great question.

I'm down to a person. And, you know, I walked around and saw a whole bunch of soldiers that had just come out of Gaza themselves within the last handful of hours. They talked about their experience there and the fact of they understand the mission that they need to complete on behalf of their country.

And then Susan and I had a chance to go visit some folks who were in medical care facilities at the hospital there. Even those battalion commander who'd been injured, a couple of more junior soldiers, they understood that their fellow soldiers have a fight on their hands, that Hamas isn't going away. They still want to commit more October 7th. And so they were 100% united and prepared to go finish that important mission. I wanted to ask you about, you've talked a lot about the hostages that still remain, and we can get to that in a moment, but you also were able to meet with some of those survivors as well that were released. And what was that like, the people who survived, the people, where are they at now? I mean, I'm sure it's still a very difficult time, probably reliving that day in their head as some of our clients have said to us. They've never really gotten past October 7th.

It's like they're replaying it every single day that they live right now. Yeah, Jordan, that's absolutely true. And I had a couple of them who I had actually met alongside you all here in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ had brought some family members back. I saw some of them again, their family member status in a couple of cases had changed for the worse.

Look, this is very difficult. They want their family home. They want all the hostages home, but they understand the imperative too. And so they're very hopeful that there would be a negotiated solution to get a huge number of these hostages back home at the same time that they understand who it is the Israeli government is dealing with. The pressure on the Israeli government though is becoming immense now, especially with the Rafah attacks, although as they've gone in, they've found more and more of these terrorist strongholds. How do we deal with world opinion on this?

That's what I'm concerned with too. World opinion is starting to change. Where do you, what's the, the Israelis call it Hasbara, which is their media advocacy.

How do you get this thing moved back to the direction for people to remember what actually took place on October 7th? Well, first of all, I think conversations like we're having, the work that the ACLJ is doing, not just here in the United States, but all across the world, making clear this is, this is that the victim here is Israel and that there will be more victims, not just Israeli victims. There'll be victims in throughout the middle East. There'll be victims like our soldiers who we lost in Jordan. There'll be, this is an Iranian broader effort and the Israelis are doing the Lord's work at ensuring that this particular part of the Iranian proxy regime is taken down. I think that's all we can do.

I think we have to tell the story in a candid way. We have to share with the world that this isn't over. Even the fact that it's not in the front and center of 24 seven news coverage today, that this is still a nation that is war and that this threat from Iran is deep and real, and it's not something far away. It's something that Americans are going to have to find a way to begin to restore deterrence. That if we don't, if we talk about the fact that we're going to, we're going to put together a two state solution with a terrorist organization, or we talk about the fact that we're going to have a revitalized Palestinian authority, but it's still paying for terror activity. Um, I think we embolden the enemy in ways that only makes this problem set more difficult.

Jay. You know, I want to ask you to, we had this kind of bizarre moment in the United States yesterday, while we were gone, maybe when you're traveling, uh, where the house Intel committee chairman, Mike Turner, a Republican, he raised this alarm after, uh, the members of Congress were looking at, uh, some intelligence protected skiff that he believed the nation needed to learn about. Uh, and reportedly this is about Russia's ability to put nuclear weapons in space.

It doesn't from now say that they actually have nuclear weapons in space, but it was a unique moment. Uh, secretary Pompeo, we usually don't see members of Congress going public with that first and that kind of, this is how serious this is. Uh, and there was some pushback there, uh, kind of your interpretation of these events and what happens next. You bet.

I'm sorry. I chuckle because I thought when you said a bizarre moment, it was the testimony of district attorney Willis that you were going to ask me about. That was the subject of the last segment. That was a bizarre moment. So there were two, but there were two other odd moments yesterday.

Uh, you're, you're right. Um, the comments from chairman Turner were unusual. Um, chairman of has intelligence committee don't do this often.

I know Mike, I am confident. He believes that he did the right thing that is important that whatever this. Particular threat is. Um, and I don't know the nature, but any more than what's been reported, whatever this particular threat is, was a sufficient scale and size and the information necessary at this time that he did this deeply unusual step by, uh, I hope that the, um, the administration will share with us those things that are appropriate and they'll do so absolutely immediately. It's there's, it sounds like there's no time like the present for us to become aware of the threat from Vladimir Putin.

Perhaps it's a threat in space and the American people deserve to understand that risk, which is I'm glad your administration, we developed the space forces and other branch of our military last question, changing, uh, countries here, speaking of national security, and we've been talking about that. We've learned that at least 20,000 Chinese nationals have crossed the Southern border since October 1st. That's just since October 1st.

That's a 4,000% increase. How worried should we be about this? I saw some video, Jay, almost all single men fighting age males. Uh, I can't, I can't tell you because I haven't seen the intelligence, but to have that many Chinese come across didn't happen by accident. It didn't happen through the permission, uh, through the, um, running through a stop sign of Xi Jinping. There is no doubt there is something bigger taking place. I don't know the nature of it, but this is one more reason. One more reason, Jay, you've got to get that Southern border closed. The fact that we now have tens of thousands of folks coming from China, right? These are probably people without much money, without means, and yet they found their way to the American Southern border that, that tells us we've got a challenge and we've got to confront it. And by the way, the Biden administration should share with me, share with us how the heck they all got there, who, who shepherded them across and what's behind this massive increase in Chinese illegal immigration. The number is, is staggering because it's a 4,000 percentage increase.

That's a gigantic number. It's I can't imagine it's with good intent. Uh, there's, there's no chance that this is either random or well-intentioned, Jay. Yeah. So that's the concern that I have with all of this, Mike, thanks for your work over in Israel with our ally there and appreciate you being part of the team here at the ACLJ. Thank you. Bless you all. Have a good day. You know, I thought it was interesting to, again, for secretary Pompeo to give that insight. Obviously we have teams that have been back in Israel for a long time, but for him as former CIA director and secretary of state, uh, to, to, uh, take that visit, kind of take it in of course. And then seeing that picture kind of gave me some chills of those families who represented, who unfortunately, uh, their loved ones did not have said their status. Unfortunately it's changed. Yeah.

And the family did not come home. And, uh, again, we're looking at other matters of how to assist those families as well. Yeah. We've got a team at the ACLJ. In fact, CC Hollanell will be in our office in Norfolk next week with a number of other staff, especially international staff, looking at maybe legal challenges to UNRRA and because they were harboring terrorists and, and also directly dealing with hostages. So we're looking at whether we could pierce their immunity veil that they have in some of these cases. So we're looking at that. We're looking at other, uh, universal jurisdiction issues and other actions at the international criminal court in the Hague. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. We come back from the break.

We're getting into this issue of does a conviction of Donald Trump in a trial like a January 6th or like this one in New York impact how you would vote? And we're not saying there's a right or wrong answer. We just want to know what, how it impacts you. So when phone lines are open 1-800-684-3110, let me encourage you to download our ACLJ prayer guide. You go to ACLJ.org slash prayer and, or is it pray? I'm sorry.

Let me get it right. Pray ACLJ.org slash pray. Over 80,000 of you have downloaded that prayer guide, which is amazing. So we'd love to see that get to a hundred thousand back with more in a moment.

All right, welcome back to Sekio, changing gears. We want to get with secretary Pompeo because he just returned from Israel and that footage to see some of our clients, but also to get his view of where that situation stands right now. Of course, the US policy has been all over the place on that, but they announced they wanted a new Palestinian state by the end of this conflict and the funding to unreal, all these things we've uncovered. So we wanted to make sure we got to it, but we do want to focus in on what you saw yesterday, at least probably in the evening news, if you weren't able to watch all of the trial there on day two right now, and Fannie Willis not expected to be taking part in that. There was a pretty bizarre exchange between the attorney, Ashley Merchant, the prosecutor's here, and Fannie Willis take- She's the lawyer for the Mike Roman. Yes. They seem like prosecutors because it was backwards.

Right. The adversarial cross-examination, if you will. Take a listen by one. How did you know to come into the courtroom right then? There were people I was pacing in my office and I heard someone yell, his testimony is done. It only made sense to me that I would be your next witness.

And I've been very anxious to have this conversation today. So I ran to the courtroom. So as soon as you heard that Mr. Wade was done testifying, that's when you just assumed you would be the next witness?

It only makes sense. Did you listen to any of the testimony? I've been in my office pacing, ma'am. Did you listen to any arguments? I did hear the arguments this morning. It's ridiculous to me that you lied on Monday and yet here we still are.

And I did listen to that argument. So right there, she was- So she cut it off before the witness testimony. Now, Andy, when you've got a recusal or a sequestration rule- I'm just lazy because it's kind of like if you've ever been on jury duty- If you're a witness to a case, they will sequester you. Take you out before the proceedings start or at least before the witness testimony start.

She was careful there. She said, I was pacing during the witnesses. I did listen to the oral argument. Well, the arguments are just part of the evidence that is argued by a lawyer to further his or her case. So when she says she listened to the arguments, she listened to the evidence as well. It's inevitable because during the argument, you talk about the evidence. Under the rule of sequestration, no witness is supposed to be in the courtroom when another witness is testifying, or not only in the courtroom, but listen to anything that is going on in the courtroom, because that way you fabricate the testimony to fit what the prior witness said.

So what Fannie Willis did here was, in my view, violate the rule of sequestration by listening to the argument with respect to the evidence in the case. Yeah. All right. So there you go.

So that could be an issue right there. Let's take Melissa's call. She's calling on line one. She's got a question about this. Melissa, welcome to Broadcaster on the Air.

Hello. My question is, I believe in the USDA and the Department of Justice, there is a rule in the law about fraternization between peoples. That would be like lawyers and lawyers and all that there. Well, you can't fraternize with witnesses. You can't fraternize with jurors. That is true, by the way, in state and federal proceedings.

Go ahead with your question. Well, my question is, the conflict of interest that it definitely shows, and she says she did nothing wrong in her own testimony. And so what you have to define is, what is the conflict of interest? That the standard is, would the prosecutor's actions undermine a confidence in the judicial system? So you watched some of this. Melissa, what did you think? I've been listening to it back and forth, and I believe that there is a conflict of interest between the two attorneys there, but I believe that it is to undermine President Trump.

Yeah. So Melissa, it's not a conflict of interest as much as an appearance of impropriety, okay? Under the Georgia case law, a prosecutor in a case is supposed to have the integrity that is necessary to pursue justice, not a conviction, but justice in the case. That's what a prosecutor, that's what I did as a prosecutor in Georgia for 20 years of my life, okay?

And what happens in this case is if you have so compromised the integrity of your office that it undermines the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system, and you become the focus rather than the defendant in the case, then that gives the judge grounds, if he wants to or if she wants to and feels that it's appropriate to disqualify you from the case and to have the governor in this case appoint another prosecutor. That's what it's all about. All right. We got a lot of calls coming in on this.

Let's go ahead and take them. Yeah. I mean, 1-800-6-8-4-3110. I do want to get the call on Unruh while it's still a little bit fresh in people's minds because we were talking about that with Secretary Pompeo.

We just had mentioned that too with some of our clients. The United Nations release agency was aiding and abetting Hamas. That violates international law.

There is an immunity issue that they have as an international organization, but there are exemptions to immunity and we're looking at whether we could pierce that. Yeah. Let's go to Michael in Indiana. Online three has a question about Unruh. Hey, Michael.

Yes. The former UN spokesman, Christopher Gunness, he tried to, he's very anti-Semitic and un-committed crimes. And I watched the ADF and your opinion that the UN was responsible for facilitating genocide against the Jews and they knew about it. And one of the UN Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim, he is a major Nazi war criminal. And here's the UN, Unruh. Here's what you got with UN. Here's what we do know. The UN relief agency, Unruh, was aiding and abetting the terrorists, not only hiding them out, but actually their staff members paid by your tax dollars were holding hostages. What we want to do is pierce their immunity privilege and see if we can get into federal court with some of the individuals that were both Israeli and Americans.

Our client, Doris, for instance. And we think there may be a way to do it. We are looking at it. It will be complex litigation, but I'm going to be up in our offices with our international team next week and we are working on that. That would be a very bold move to go after the UN that way, but that is the way you ultimately hold them accountable. Yes, that's right.

That's how you go. You go after the UN in whatever way that you possibly can and hold them accountable. Unruh has actively abated and abetted the terrorists for years. This time they were caught. And this time, yes. They were caught.

And it kept getting worse and worse. Remember, there was one commander who was pretty high up in the Hamas on October 7th planning, and then nine additional employees who were part of Hamas, maybe not part of the planning of October 7th, but could have taken part in it. And then they did a test that basically 90% of the people working in Unruh have a family member who is part of Hamas. 50% of them are living with one of those family members. So the relationships you're getting, again, so if you've got cousins, uncles, that's the 90%. And the 50% is people living in your home with you. Parents and grandparents and spouses.

Exactly right. So I just want everybody to understand, it's complicated litigation here when you're dealing with the UN. There's a general immunity statute that they have, like a government would have.

There are exceptions. We are working on seeing if we can craft a case within the exceptions. That's what we're working on right now. It's going to take us time, but we've got a team of great ACLJ lawyers and our international team working on that as we speak. All right, we're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

We only have one open line. I'm sure that's going to fill up, but then you can keep calling because we'll go through these calls in the next segments rather quickly. 1-800-684-3110. Don't forget also, support the work of the ACLJ. You can donate. We appreciate that, of course, ACLJ.org. But also, we have a prayer guide that we've just learned today in our pre-radio meeting that we've had over 80,000 downloads of the, I guess it's volume one and volume two, of the ACLJ prayer guide.

And we're going to continue to produce these. And it's very important for you to be praying for the team here at the ACLJ and our offices around the globe and our clients. So if you just go over to ACLJ.org slash pray, you can download the prayer guide right there. And like I said, knowing that 80,000 people have done, that's very encouraging to us here at the ACLJ.

So again, ACLJ.org forward slash pray. If you want to ask, answer a question or ask, make a comment, 1-800-684-3110. 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 talking, of course, in the first half hour about the trial yesterday in Atlanta and the proceedings that were ongoing.

It's flipped. This is, of course, the district attorney, Fannie Willis, who wants to bring this RICO case, has been bringing this RICO case against President Trump and a number of associates. Some of them even already pled out to lower crimes and financial penalties, community service, things like that. But then this issue came up with that special council she brought in to handle putting together a RICO case like this.

And that's not unusual, by the way, for DAs to do that. What was unusual here was that they had a previous, and at some of this time, yeah, a physical and romantic relationship and the amount of money. $700,000 over a couple of years. Because the other experts brought in got about $80,000.

Yeah, John Floyd. Yeah, just to put it in perspective. So that, Andy, that number in and of itself is kind of earth shaking. This is a RICO case and you have a RICO expert and you pay him nothing compared to what you're paying your boyfriend.

Yeah, I mean, that's where the problem is gonna be for her if he decides to do this. Do we have that ready, Will? Here's what some of the liberal commentators were saying about her testimony yesterday. This is epic. This is monumental. It's a huge deal. I can't overstate it. It was obviously a tough day for Fannie Willis.

She came in a little bit hot and emotional. The only person who really benefited here was Donald Trump and the other defendants. What's mind blowing is that these searing, probing questions into the personal life of Trump's prosecutor couldn't possibly sink that case. If he in fact disqualifies her from this case, Lester, then her entire office is removed from the case.

We need to, and we need to explain that to everybody. So if she is, if the judge, she says he's not gonna rule from the bench, so probably get a decision next week. If he is disqualified, if she is disqualified, what happens, Andy?

The entire office is disqualified. That means the district attorney's office for Fulton County is out of the case and Georgia Code Section 45-5-3.2 kicks in and that is the governor appoints the special prosecutor or the DA pro temp to take over the litigation. And that district attorney who is appointed or prosecutor, sometimes it's a DA from a neighboring circuit or another circuit in the state, that DA is called a DA pro temp, pro temporary for the time being. That DA can do anything that that DA would ordinarily do in a criminal case. Including dismissing the indictment. Including null processing, which is Georgia jargon for dismissing the indictment.

Yeah, so I mean, her, if she is removed, that could become a very, very big deal. Let's go ahead and grab a call, Jordan. Yeah, back to the phone as we go. We will go to Robin in Nevada online for, hey Robin.

Hi, I love your show. I just wanted to say that my husband and I are not dissuaded from voting for Trump because we feel like he's shrewd. He's not a criminal.

And his opponents have been out to get him since before he was even in office. So it's not going to change our mind for voting for him because he still has the backbone that we want. So a conviction, let's say in the January 6 case, doesn't change your vote. It will not. Okay. We want to know this because there's a lot of people that are saying, Jordan, that it could sway five or 6%, but I'm going to keep taking calls at 800-684-3110.

We'll get some more when we come back from the break. But the political consensus is a conviction could impact somewhere between, I guess, 3 and 6%. Where Democrats thought that just bringing the charges were going to do that, that backfired on them. In fact, Donald Trump went from, really the MAGA movement was kind of even looking towards maybe there's someone else that needs to be the flag bearer. They were looking towards Ron DeSantis. People were not as excited maybe about President Trump.

And the polls were even showing tighter, the national polls. And then all of a sudden Mar-a-Lago gets raided and these charges start coming, two in New York, one from the feds, one from the attorney general, one from the district attorney in New York. You've got feds, you've got a special counsel. And all of a sudden his numbers go skyrocketing to a point where this way in he's been dominating the primaries and even in some of the tougher states that he lost in 2020 and won in 2016, he's pulling ahead of Joe Biden right now. So, but what happens if he actually, that's the charges being filed and the feel of persecution. Where does the mindset change if he literally is found guilty of a crime?

And do you feel like they could actually carry out their task if they're incapacitated? Yeah. All right, welcome back to Seck Hill. We are still taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

I kind of want to do a quick rundown of what's out there, what do we expect? We now know that we are not going to get a decision by the judge from the bench today on whether DA Willis is taken off this case. He's going to take an under advisement and write an opinion. Could that be come out on a Saturday? No, probably not that quick. I think next week.

No, not that quick. It'll be sometimes. He'll issue an order in the case. So that's the Georgia case.

And we've got Monday, is it? New York, you have the case involving the hush money payments that has now been set for trial for March 24th jury selection. Then you have the next New York case is the civil fraud case. We are expecting the judgment today, which will be a monetary fine and the possibility of either not being allowed to do business or, Andy, the appointment of a receiver. Yeah. If people don't understand that one more time, because I think actually that's worse than the financial penalty if that happens. Okay.

I will. I've been a receiver. A receiver is basically an officer of the court. The court appoints a receiver to basically take over and operate the businesses, whatever those businesses might be. Trump's business operations would not be operated by him, but by a receiver and a receiver can make decisions regarding selling property or not. Now the receiver can recommend to the court that certain property be sold, certain property be hypothecated, that is mortgaged or so forth. And then the others, both sides, both the attorney general, both the state and both the Trump group would have the right to be heard on those things. And the judge would ultimately make the decision. The important thing here is that functioning and operation of the businesses would be taken away from Trump's hands.

Yeah. That would be a huge move in New York. Now you've got the January 6th case, which is where all this motions for immunity are pending. Let's take Chris's call out of Florida. Harry Hutchison's joined us. Chris, go ahead.

You're on the air. I would vote for Trump regardless of what happens for two reasons. One is, first of all, I haven't been clearly convinced of any clear law that Trump has broken. And two, if he does get convicted, I think it'd be a great humiliation for the powers that be has been operating against Trump for Trump to be President in jail, running the country. Trump would be in jail. So let me, let me clarify that.

This is something I know a lot of people are asking, thinking, because we asked about, what do you think? So if it's a federal claim, let's say he goes to trial and he's found guilty and they sentenced him to jail, which I don't know if they would, but let's say they did. And he wins the presidency. He simply instructs the department of justice, which works under him as does the Bureau of Prisons and say, I am automatically released. The case is going to be dismissed. We should have never brought it in the first place.

And it's gone. Now that doesn't, I don't know how that impacts the voting, but procedurally that is what can happen. On the state charges, let's say he loses one of the state cases and they put him in prison there. He could come out and say, and he wins the presidency. Article II and the supremacy clause of the United States constitution as well say that that would interfere with his Article II responsibility. The President, as I argued in Trump versus Vance, is uniquely the only branch of government that's based on a single person that would interfere with his duties, he would be released. So there'd be a lot of constitutional issues there, but that's how this would play out. The question, Harry, that we're looking at is what is going to be the cumulative impact of all of this? That's what we're trying to hear from our listeners to see, do people start saying things like, how's he going to govern?

Well, I think that is true. But also the caller raises a very important issue in the mind of voters, and that is whether or not Donald Trump can get a fair trial, for instance, in Washington DC. And I think many observers would conclude that that will be difficult, if not impossible. And then that decision would then impact the voter's view of, let's say, a Donald Trump conviction. Having said all of that, I think if Donald Trump is indeed convicted, this will likely have a negative impact on his ability to win an election in the fall.

That's just my own intuition. And making that on, it's just what, this... Well, I think... People will worry about governing? Well, people will worry about governing, but people also will perhaps give the jurors the benefit of the doubt. I'm not necessarily sure that a DC jury is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But they might.

But they might give at least the jurors the benefit of the doubt. All right, we are taking your calls as we said we would throughout this whole program at 800-684-3110. I know this material is heady, but we're really trying to break it down for you. Jerry's calling from Rhode Island.

He's on line two. Hey, Jerry. Hello, team. Like many other people, older voters, we have an observation what's been going on since 2016. We question the neutral objectivity of several places, New York, Washington, even Atlanta.

Mr. O'Connell knows Atlanta very well from his years, and I think Jay even practiced there. Yeah, I did. So we're all just saying... We see the surface. This is the wag the dog type of stuff.

And most of us maybe we're just saying, look, we don't believe this stuff. So we're gonna still vote. That's my answer. Okay, very good, Jerry.

Appreciate that. Jordan, you're the one who's... You have been concerned that it doesn't take much of a percentage to cost the vote. No, not if any indication of 2020 is any indication. Again, the Democrat Party is going to go all out.

Republican Party is gonna go all out. And most of the states that are in play have been in play this entire past two years, two and a half, three years, and we've been polling and looking at it. And it's the states that President Trump was able to carry in 2016 that led to the White House. And it's always... We've had some shift. Florida used to be a major battleground. That's gone deeply red. Ohio used to be a major battleground. That's gone deeply red, but it's shifted now to places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. You've got to look, again, places like Minnesota throughout the country and kind of see, can that coalition come together? If I was on the Trump campaign, I would already be putting together a very simple ad and a messaging campaign about why a conviction, even a criminal one, has no... should not worry anybody about President Trump serving as President of the United States and go through... And basically explain what we just did.

But in a really tight way that 30 seconds, minute version, and start pounding that pretty soon. Not to like self-incriminate yourself, but to make sure that... Because you know that the other side, the Dems, are going to be calling you a convicted criminal who's going to have to end up being President behind bars. They're going to run those ads very soon. So you need to be ready now with your response to the American people. He also needs to be able to explain it. So he's got to be able to get up at a rally or an event and be able to explain why even a criminal charge while appeal is going on, if he loses the appeal and ultimately got sentenced, why that would not impact his presidency. You know, the constitutional law issue is raised by a President being, or someone running for President, happens to be a former President, being convicted and sentenced and it could be sentenced to jail. The secret service issues there would be enormous. But Harry, you've got a lot of untested constitutional theories about separation of powers, supremacy clause, interfering with Presidential responsibilities. These would be huge issues. I think the President, if he wins, would dismiss these cases and order his own release if he was in prison. I'm not convinced he will be in prison, but they are big constitutional issues here.

The country is never in our lifetime, no, never in our history has seen. I think that's correct. And so we would be entering uncharted territory and this uncharted territory would be ripe for confusion, particularly from the other side. And so I think what that then produces is a level of uncertainty. And I think many Americans, they are prepared to flee uncertainty.

And one of the ways of fleeing uncertainty is to vote in favor of another option. So I think at the end of the day, uncertainty would not be Donald Trump's friend, even if Donald Trump mounts a brilliant defense and explanation of how this might indeed work out. And then you could have the unusual situation of a case going to trial like Jack Smith's. At the same time, the Fawney Willis case may totally, we don't know this, although you think, Andy, your gut instinct is she gets disqualified?

That's what I think. I think there's plenty there for Judge McAfee to find that the focus of attention becomes the prosecutor rather than the prosecuted, the defendant. And because the integrity of the office has been so compromised in the case of Fawney Willis that the judge could say, I'm going to disqualify you, get another prosecutor in here.

So the focus can be on the defendants. Talking about the hostility, let's just play, we got time. Let's play, this is an exchange between attorney merchant and Fawney Willis.

Isn't it true that you met Mr. Wade on February 2019 at the judges' conference? We haven't gotten to the point where Ms. Willis should be treated. I very much want to be here, so I'm not a hostile witness.

I very much want to be here. Not so much that you're hostile, Ms. Willis, and be an adverse witness. Your interests are opposed to Ms. Merchant's. Ms. Merchant's interests are contrary to democracy, Your Honor, not to mine. That was a ridiculous statement.

Ms. Merchant is a defense lawyer doing what defense lawyers do. This is where this is getting into the level of absurd. And it'll be very interesting to see what this judge does. I think we'll know that next week.

We may get that New York opinion later today. Stay involved in our social media and we will post something as soon as we get that. Of course. And we'll continue to take your phone calls 1-800-684-3110.

There's more to play too. 1-800-684-3110. Be right back on Secular. All right.

Welcome back to Secular. I do want to play, I think, again, this exchange because obviously you've got defense attorneys who are kind of like in this definitely adversarial role here because they're kind of like prosecuting the DA in the sense of trying to remove Fannie Willis from the case. So this is, again, it's not criminal prosecution and she wouldn't lose her job as district attorney. Though what comes of this could certainly lead to potential investigations where she could lose her job and potentially be criminally liable. That's not what's at stake here. It's whether or not she could run this case or does she need to be replaced by the governor and someone who comes in as district attorney to decide whether or not to carry this case on or not. Not just about President Trump, but about the other 15 or so defendants. But the tone, we played that super cut of the left kind of freaking out and melting down, but the tone from her in response to these questions, trying to figure out what was this relationship that you had with the special counsel that you paid $700,000 to who has no experience in RICO to run a RICO case and be a specialist in that for you.

Take a listen to how she responds by 14. Has he ever visited you at the place you laid your head? So let's be clear because you've lied in this. Let me tell you which one you lied in right here. I think you lied right here.

No, no, no, no. This is the truth. It is a lie.

It is a lie. There you go. The judge stepped in and said, Ms. Whitley, they took a break actually. They took a five minute break after that, after she was declared a hostile witness. Yeah. I don't know what the judge is going to do, but it's embarrassing.

Well, I mean, it is. It undercuts in my view, the criminal justice system. When you have a district attorney who is so personally enmeshed in the case and takes the, and has done such personal things with respect to the prosecutor in the case, the other prosecutor, and has taken these attitudes that it undermines really the idea of who the defendant is and who the prosecutor is.

Your idea is to do justice in this case and not to take these personal stances. Do we have that bite where she says, I'm not on trial here, they are blessed. We'll get that one ready too. Let's go ahead and yeah, let's get Michelle from California on line one. Hi, Michelle, you're on the air. Hi. Thank you.

Okay. So I've got two comments first, as far as Fannie Willis, I think that she is a despicable human being and she is a liar and she should be disqualified. She's completely unprofessional as well. Regarding Trump, I believe this has already been an absolute election interference because if they get Trump out, then we're stuck with Nikki Haley. And if Trump were not in it from the beginning is my belief that DeSantis would have been the top choice. And so now everyone, all the Republicans have dropped out except Haley. So we're left with no choice.

And I personally... If something were to happen to Donald Trump, that does not mean Nikki Haley becomes a nominee just because she's still in the race because all these other ones did was just to spend their campaigns. They didn't stop them and close them. Yeah. I mean, they could reopen their campaigns. The question would be, would there be any time left to get delegates? Here's the other overriding question here.

I'm going to ask Harry this one and that... Well, go ahead. Yeah. But I think, again, these are all decisions people decided. They knew this was coming. They could have played that out and their campaigns couldn't keep paying the bills. Yeah. So the question here is, I think Nikki Haley is going to...

I think even if she gets clobbered in South Carolina, which it looks like she's going to, I think she's staying in. For that very reason. For that very reason. But here's the question, is there a fatigue issue with the voter on this where they start saying... And I'm not saying this is fact. I'm just saying that they start saying, too much chaos, too much questions, too much, can you do this? You got the base of 40% saying I'm with Trump, but then you got the others that might vote for him saying, if he's convicted, I'm not so sure. I think that's a real... Like Jordan says, that's a real risk. I think it is a risk, but I also think Trump has a number of supporters who intensely support him and hence they are willing to stick with Trump despite the fires that are perhaps coming his way. I also would suggest that Nikki Haley is unlikely to receive strong support from Trump supporters.

And so I think the caller may indeed be on to something that if DeSantis were still in the race or if he resumes his campaign, he arguably has a stronger shot at replacing Trump than Nikki Haley does. But that's very difficult after Super Tuesday, Jordan, right? Yes.

Yes. What would they have to do? I mean, we don't have super delegates in the Republican Party.

Democrats, dude, Republicans don't. Very difficult. I'm trying to play the number. I'm sure there might be enough numbers left.

There probably are enough numbers left, but you'd have to have money, turn the campaign back on and actually go win. So it gets very complicated. Let's go to Justin in California on line four with another kind of interesting question. Hey, Justin. Thanks for taking my... Hey, thanks for taking my call.

Appreciate everything you guys do. My question is this. Does a President elect have any authorities under the Constitution prior to being sworn in as President of the United States? Yeah, great question.

The answer is no, they don't. They're entitled to briefings so they can be prepared to take office, but they don't have any constitutional powers. So you could have an unusual situation where if you were to lose a case and there was to be a sentence between the time he had won the election and sworn in, he could be having to serve that time if it is jail time, Andy.

Yeah. Well, a President elect is simply that, the President elect. He doesn't have powers under the Constitution to do anything until he takes the oath of office. I think he's entitled to Secret Service protection as well, Jay. Yes, and briefings, but that's not even constitutionally required. So that would be a fascinating one, Harry.

In between time, what happens? He can't order himself released. At that point, he's not President.

I think that's correct. And it's doubtful that the Biden administration would be inclined to cooperate with President elect Trump even though it might be in the interest of the country. Unless the outgoing President, if it was Joe Biden, if he lost, would just say, I am going to do this. I'm going to pardon my son, Hunter Biden. And I'm going to pardon Donald Trump too, because he's now the President of the United States and the country doesn't need that.

And that takes a lot of the sting out of the Hunter Biden situation. I'm just throwing it out there as a possible. Let's try to get last call in here from Karen, calling from line six. Hi, Karen.

Hey, how are you guys doing? Great. I have two observations. Number one, no, he will not get a fair trial in Washington DC.

Number two, I will vote for him no matter what. We can't afford to have anyone else in there. My retirement's taken a hit. Can't afford groceries.

My light bill's high. We've got to have some kind of relief. And I don't see anyone else doing anything for us but Trump.

Well, this is the interesting thing. Most of the callers that called in this broadcast, Jordan are saying it's not going to affect them. You're still concerned it affects four or 5% of the people not calling in. I know that our audience could follow this discussion today and understand why, again, if he became President that this would not actually be a bar, if you will, he would not be behind bars.

And it would not actually prevent him at all from carrying on his duties. But you're folks who tune in and listen and are really educated in the system. When you go to a general election, a lot of people are not even thinking about it until a couple days before. They'll say to their husband or their wife, what do you think we're going to vote for? Because they got a lot going on. And if they hear that someone's been convicted of a crime, they see that ad constantly, I do think you've got to have a very strong response back about why that's political in nature and it doesn't hamper you at all.

You got to send your surrogates out all around the country, especially in the suburbs where suburban voters are not likely to probably be interested, voting for convicted felons. So you've got to then flip it on them. Yeah.

No, it's a fascinating thing. All right, folks, thanks for watching the broadcast. Stay with us on our social media. We're on all of the platforms. If we get a decision out of New York or any of the other cases, we'll let you know right away.

There's a great way to stay engaged. Download our ACLJ prayer guide at aclj.org slash prayer. And if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, just go over to aclj.org. You can donate online.