MASSIVE UPDATE in Fani Willis Disqualification Case

Today on Sekulow, a massive update in the Fannie Willis disqualification case. 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. Thanks for listening this Truth Network Podcast. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-644-3110. First is that the judge in the Georgia case was really expected to make a decision likely on whether she would be disqualified by now. Fannie Willis. This is about, remember she has the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend who had the divorce and then with the Wade divorce, you had the former Wade partner, Bradley, try to testify except he said everything was privileged because he handled Wade's divorce. And so he would testify about what he knew about when Fannie Willis and that relationship began.

It was the money that was paid to the new special counsel, nearly $700,000 before, after, during all this cash talk. He is now going to have Bradley come back into his office next week. So this is going into next week and try to clarify his testimony. Which was, so I don't think the judge has made a decision yet. I mean, that's clear. And Logan, on top of that, he's going to add to that closing arguments on disqualification.

That's not normal. This is something that we thought would definitely be done by this week. I mean, is now going to go into a full third week. Well, it's like the Supreme court as well.

Another one of the situations. Of course, the Supreme court can issue these opinions tomorrow if they want, but likely, you know, the next opinions orders days on Monday. The actual scheduled day.

So, I mean, you might get the immunity case and whether or not there's a stay there. You could get the 14th amendment tomorrow, but, and again, they don't have to follow these strict guidelines that are online. But think about the fact that people are voting right now at every single Super Tuesday state. Actually, the voting comes to an end pretty soon. I thought about voting this morning, went all the way into work. I'm like, well, I got some early time. I could go do early voting and get it taken care of.

I haven't done it yet. Depending on how the line is, would I go get my kids later today? Yeah.

And that's a, look, I'm looking at this. One thing also we need to address is nationwide cell phone outage. If you're on AT&T or Verizon, you may have had these problems as a lot of them have come back so far.

Mine came back and then left again. So right now, no cell phone service, and that is a, something we need to at least keep an eye out on. I've got full, I've got Verizon, I have full wifi and full.

You're good. They've worked it back, but this happened like 3 a.m.? 3 a.m. and it hit two of the biggest, probably the two biggest, maybe T-Mobile's up there, cell phone service.

And it really does show you how much we rely on it and what it could look like. Even today, I dropped the kids off and I was like, okay, let's check the traffic. Do you not have wifi in your car?

I do not. I drive an old car. A lot of these cars now, a lot of cars now have wifi. Yeah, they do. But it depends on who that cell phone provider is.

It's been up a little bit this morning. It still depends on who the provider is. I don't know who's actually doing that providing. I'm sure some of that is done through AT&T or Verizon or whoever.

That's true. Because it's still wifi powered by some kind of satellite or cellular. So that's, it's an interesting thing because what we're even seeing, you're probably going to see numbers not as big on, on phones calls today. People can't call, maybe even on people watching on their phones at work.

If you can call, give us a call, 106-8431-TID. Has your coverage been restored? Are you able to follow the news?

As Tim Scott asks, did Nikki Haley get out of the way in South Carolina? Donald Trump has the top. Yeah, let us know in the comments how your cell phone service is. We're just curious. Yeah, I mean, they said it was mostly AT&T, did affect some Verizon and then everyone else too. But most of the people we've talked to, it's been AT&T who's suffered the most. Now that's in our area of the country. We'll take your calls, 1-800-684-3110. We'll talk more about where this goes next in Georgia. Because we're going to go into the third week of whether or not she is disqualified from the case. Not removed as district attorney, but removed from this case.

We'll be right back on Secular. Alright, so there's a lot of politics surrounding the potential move of Fannie Willis from the case, which now we're into, we will be into the third week next week. Andy O'Connell is joining us now. Andy, of course, you've been an assistant U.S. attorney there and worked in these matters. And these review of DA's and DA's offices when a party feels like they should be removed.

They've got a conflict. The judge here is young. He's running for reelection this year. He's running for reelection in a primarily Democrat county that Fannie Willis would have a pretty easy time getting reelected in.

And he'd probably have a tough time getting elected in. But he's not moving very quickly in this. Is it unprecedented to go into week three? I think it is when you're talking about a disqualification of a prosecutor from pursuing their duties to criminally prosecute crimes in Fulton County or anywhere. You would think that something like this would be decided rather quickly. You've put up your evidence and within hours the other side puts up their evidence as to why the DA should stay in the case.

And the judge usually makes a ruling either from the bench or within a day or two. But this is just strung on and on and it's because Trump is involved and it changes the complexion of everything. Do we think that, yeah, because of Trump being involved, you've got a judge who now next week is, we know, is going to have an in-camera review with a witness who he said, who's attorney, a former attorney with the special counsel that Willis brought in, who she had the relationship with, Wade. The $700,000 being an issue there.

He was no longer, has that, they're no longer partners. But he did handle his divorce and he kept invoking privilege. And the judge, McCaffey, thought there that he didn't really understand privilege.

So now, when they say, just for our audience, they understand this. What is Bradley walking into when they say he's having an in-camera review with the judge? Okay, what the judge is going to do is he claimed privilege. That is to say, he said, I can't answer those questions that you're posing to me because they were, the answers were given to me or the information was obtained by me during a time that Wade was my client. And therefore, I say that the attorney-client privilege precludes me from going into those.

The attorney-client privilege, very old privilege in Georgia and everywhere else, whatever you say to an attorney in confidence, in connection with your consultation, can never be disclosed unless there is some outstanding reason to do so. An order of the court, for instance, would find that there was no privilege, possibly. But what the judge is doing is saying, okay, these privilege matters came out in open court.

They're very complicated. What I'm going to do is I'm going to have an in-camera, that simply is a fancy Latin word for meaning in chambers in my office, conference with the lawyers to determine what was this privilege. Is it valid? Can it be used to preclude anyone from going in to what was told by Wade to the attorney or not? And the judge is going to have to make that tough decision as to whether the privilege applies. He may order him to answer.

He may say no, the privilege applies, and you don't have to answer the question. At this point, I mean, so we have that next week, and then we are going to have closing arguments next week. And they're calling it that. So, I mean, literally, the parties who are the defendants in this case, in this criminal case, they will make a closing argument, and then the DA's office, who is representing Fannie Willis, will make a closing argument. They had also made, Andy, the controversial decision not to bring her back for a second day of questioning.

Yeah, that was a tactical decision that I think was very smart. She was a train wreck on the first day, and I think she'd have been worse subsequent to that because she came in combative, angry, arrogant, and everything else. But what's going to happen now is the judge is going to entertain what they call closing arguments. In other words, each side, each of the defendants and the state is going to be given an opportunity to argue their case, to say where the law comes down here, why she should be disqualified, or why she shouldn't be disqualified. And by the way, if she is disqualified, that disqualifies all the Fulton DA's office, including all her assistants.

A new prosecutor would be appointed by the governor, Jordan, who would come in and make a new evaluation of the case, totally from the beginning. That prosecutor could decide this case is done, right? Absolutely.

All those different clients? Absolutely. The prosecutor can make a decision.

It's pretty tough to take this one on from nothing. I mean, I'm sure the judge has got to be thinking that too. Not to say that he would, I mean, he's a Republican appointed judge, I'm sure he's got some issues with what he's seeing here, but he's got to decide is it enough to actually remove her from the case. You also have these defense attorneys.

Ooh, that's a dance you've got to make. Andy, when you're in front of the DA, you want her removed, but you go too far, and she doesn't get removed, and now your client, who may have been like, you know, number 15 on this list, is suddenly number two to Donald Trump, and the DA is the target list. Yeah, they're gunning for her, you bad boy. So you saw the attorneys be pretty chill. Yeah, they were very careful. I love that, I noticed. No, he didn't, he wants to show.

There's no guarantee, most of the time do you lose these? Yeah, most of the time, it's very difficult in Georgia to get a prosecutor disqualified, I got to tell you. There has got to be a systemic problem with a prosecutor pursuing the case for the judge to do it, and I think what the defendants are going to argue, Jordan, is that the misconduct that took place was so undermining of the integrity and impeccability that should obtain in the criminal justice system that she shouldn't be permitted or her office to prosecute the case, and it's a matter of public perception, that's what they're going to say.

The public has to be convinced that the criminal process is pure and above reproach. You know, it's, to me, I think, again, it's going into its third week, we know, there's going to be more argument that you will get to watch. I guess that will be televised too. And then, I mean, he should be making a decision after that. I mean, three weeks of this is a long time. I mean, that's a long time to make a decision whether to disqualify a prosecutor from a case. I think what he's going to do is, the longer he takes, the more I think that shows that he's going to disqualify her, because he's really going to have to justify it in a lengthy legal written opinion as to why it should be. And then, of course, Jordan, each side is going to be entitled to ask the judge for a certificate of immediate review.

Okay, I'll tell you what that is. A certificate of immediate review, the losing side can say, Judge, let this thing be decided by the court of appeals. Let us take this up to the court of appeals.

The judge doesn't have to give a certificate of immediate review, but Judge McAfee is going to be happy to get it out of his court to the court of appeals. If they do or don't take it up, are they sending a signal? Like, if they don't take it up, are they kind of sending a signal if he did remove her that they would have done the same thing? That probably gives him some cover. If they take it up and he does move it out, you know, and they're looking at it. This could go on for weeks of war is what I'm saying.

Oh, yes. I don't think this case is going to be tried this year, because if the court of appeals were to decide to take the case, then they would have another briefing schedule. Then they would have the possibility of a oral argument before a three-judge panel of the Georgia court of appeals. And it would go on and on and on.

And you know what, Jordan? In addition, the losing side could seek certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court in this case, which would even make it longer. So the idea of the defense, and they're doing it brilliantly, is drag it out.

Drag it out forever. And if she gets moved off, she might go that far. Because this is her maker. This is the case that takes her from DA to the next Stacey Abrams.

That's a good way to put it. Unless the scandal is too much of it. Or the scandal, because she can't beat back the scandal, and this is it for her.

Because that will make her, to a lot of the anti-Trump world, they will blame her. Yeah, Stephen Colbert came out. He almost had this moment on his show where he was almost yelling at her in the middle of it.

Saying, why would you be able to do this? Now he took a lot of heat for that because they're saying that you're such a shaming her. And it's probably not the best look for you, Colbert. Well, John Oliver tried to buy off Thomas. Which I think, again, for a white guy who became an American citizen, a British guy, he's so racist. Do you think that they would ever make that joke about one of the white justices?

That's a good point. No! Would you make that joke about one of the black liberal justices? If you were a conservative? No, I mean, I would not make that joke in general. You think you could get away with it?

No. I think John Oliver is a typical rich kid. Not a ton of people watching those shows.

You just gotta remember, there's a very small percentage of people watching any of those television shows. Yeah, but they're bringing a lot of money. To be racist and to abuse our own country's freedom of speech. Where in his own country, if he said that about a judge, I think he'd be in jail. And the thing is, they didn't do that for him, but they are kind of blaming Colbert for going after Foddy Willis.

Saying, essentially, he's making racially motivated statements. Because Foddy Willis is a liberal. And Clarence Thomas happens to be a conservative. The lynching continues of Clarence Thomas, as we say. The high-tech lynching that was started by the way, by Joe Biden, when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, continues by John Oliver.

Who, funny, because he worked so hard to become an American citizen. So he could take advantage of our true and real freedom of speech to attack our Supreme Court minority justices whose judicial philosophy he disagrees with so strongly. We only got a minute left until our break, and we're going to tell you also about how you become an ACLJ champion. We've got a lot of challenges facing the day, every day. It seems like there's more and more, and your support really helps us, whether that's at the Supreme Court or on the local level. You could be a part of the ACLJ right now. Become an ACLJ champion. You'll be giving monthly and help our support, whether it's our legal work or our media work, all year long. Join the fight. Become an ACLJ champion today.

Go to ACLJ.org slash champions. Support the work today. We appreciate it. We'll be back with more. If you have a phone call, you'd like to call in, great time. If you have cell phone service, that would be great.

1-800-684-3110. I have been restored, Jordan. You said that the second time you said it.

You feel like you really have? Yeah, now I can check the maps. But it's not just Georgia. What about New York? Now, President Trump's legal team has got 25 days to file an appeal of the $400 million.

It's a little less than that, but that's how much it'll be with interest, and it keeps adding every day. To appeal that penalty, the civil fraud penalty, his team has asked for an additional 30 days to that 25 days. We don't know if the court will grant that or not. In a lot of cases, a court would. In this legal world that is so anti-Trump that we have seen, I'm not sure that this is going to be treated normal.

I'm not sure he's going to get the extension. And so without that, he's got to figure out to put up the collateral of about $400 million, $20 million of which is money he will never see back to get a bond like this, even if he ultimately wins the case and beats back the New York attorney general in this fraud case, which is a fraud case where there is no actual harm done to a party. So there's no fraud done to a bank that gave them a loan. In fact, all the banks that gave them loans said they paid back their loans. And Donald Trump, like he said, it's like they don't take our word for it.

When we ask for hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, they have to do their own due diligence before they hand out those kind of size loans. But in New York, it doesn't matter. You can still have to pay these giant fines.

And there's a lot of questions about these fines in New York. We're going to go to the phones on them. Harry Hunt says he's joining us as well. Let's go to Nathan in Texas.

Online one. Hey, Nathan. Hey, guys. I'm just extremely curious. Is there any possible way or route that the Supreme Court could get involved in that Trump fraud case that you're talking about? So I was asked this on Newsmax this morning, Harry, because the Eighth Amendment. Like, is this cruel to unusual punishment because the Eighth Amendment also speaks to excessive bail and excessive fines? And is the $400 million plus interest every day, could it be considered an Eighth Amendment violation? The issue is we're not even close to getting to that place in the courts.

I think that is correct. I think there is a basis for Supreme Court intervention. If you go back in the time machine, approximately 30 years ago, the Supreme Court did intervene in a tort suit where a BMW was damaged in the amount of $1,000 worth of damage. But then the jury in Alabama awarded the physician something like $30 million in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court did intervene. That was a tort suit. This is a criminal case.

And so there may be a basis when the judgment is truly excessive in light of this stated crime. And certainly the Eighth Amendment might provide an avenue for recovery. The problem, of course, is that will take tons and tons of time to get before the justices of the Supreme Court.

More likely than not, it would take a two or three year period. Meantime, the clock is running and the attorney general of New York has threatened to seize Trump's properties. So he could ultimately prevail, but he also bears the risk that he could lose a huge amount of money and the Supreme Court might decline to take his case.

The Supreme Court has taken up a number of cases involving former President Trump and perhaps the Supreme Court will experience something called Trump fatigue. Do you think, a lot of people have asked this, how soon, if this 30 day extension isn't granted, could we see the New York attorney general seizing 40 Trump Wall Street, which is the building she wants? I think she would move expeditiously because it's a political case. She is not interested, in my judgment, in justice. She is interested in imposing the greatest cost possible for having the last name Trump. And so she suffers from what might be called the Trump derangement syndrome. And as a consequence, she will move, I think, to impose the maximum amount of fines and she will do it very, very quickly.

She was gifted in this particular case because she had a rogue judge who issued a rogue verdict. And this verdict is sending a signal to each and every potential investor in the state of New York. Don't come to New York because you never know when you are likely to receive a politicized verdict.

I mean, talk about kicking you when you're down in New York, Logan. I mean, the idea here, people are now realizing that New York is one of these states. Not all states have this law that has a law that says you could take a loan out, you could repay the loan, you could be okay with the bank and the loan institution. But the state can decide that you shouldn't have gotten that loan, thus fine you hundreds of millions of dollars.

And remember, for three years, he can't run his business. So much of appraisal in that whole business is so subjective. You may think your home is worth X and an appraiser comes in and says, it's worth more. We live in a city where it's probably quadrupled in years and now it's stapled out a little. I live in a house now that's probably 200% what it was when I purchased it seven years ago.

I've lived up 100% in it for four years. And I've lived here longer and I've seen that happen. So you have to do that on a small scale and go, well, everyone's had that appraiser walk through their house and you're trying to have that conversation and negotiate with them and think your business is worth more than your business may be worth because you have a different kind of value than maybe the bank does. But if you all come to an agreement and then all of the payments are made, how is that even a controversy?

I don't really get it at all. I think that's where the American people are right now. That is why you have people questioning whether they're going to do business in New York. I love New York.

It's my favorite states, favorite places. How flippantly, Harry, they could be applied in the sense that she has said since the beginning she wants to get Trump and this is how she'd get Trump and she'd get Trump by saying it wasn't that he didn't pay back his loans, it was that he lied to get him. Yes. So this is a manufactured crime and so we basically have a rogue attorney general bringing essentially a case before a rogue judge leading to a rogue verdict and Kevin O'Leary, a lead investor in New York and elsewhere. Yeah, Mr. Wonderful from Shark Tank. Yes, Mr.

Wonderful. He has suggested that no one will invest in the state of New York going forward because the state of New York has become essentially a banana republic with respect to the investment community. And so I think the state of New York will pay a heavy cost, but that cost will be borne by the residents of the state of New York, not necessarily by the judge, not necessarily by the attorney general. She will get her pound of flesh. All right, folks, we're going to take your calls. We come back 1-800-684-3110. Rick Renell is going to be joining us as well.

We are going to talk about this new executive action on Biden and restrictions on asylum at the border, a Trump policy now that Biden is looking to interact. We've got a lot of people watching on YouTube. We're not going anywhere during the break. We're actually going to stay live, so stay tuned. We're not going anywhere.

If you're listening on radio, you're going to get ads, but it's the benefit of watching on one of our video platforms, one of our own streaming platforms, you get some uninterrupted special coverage. So we're going to stay live over here coming up, so don't go anywhere. I encourage you to do that. Again, you can call in though. We'd love to hear from your 1-800-684-3110. As Jordan said, Rick Renell is joining us in the next segment.

And in the final segment of the broadcast day, a really special guest. You get to see the work of the ACLJ. Again, how we work for you, not just for Presidents of the United States, big organizations.

We are there working at an individual level for you at absolutely no cost. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. Logan, you said a lot of people are asking. Yeah, so obviously our title right now, if you're watching on social media, is Massive Update in the Fannie Willis Disqualification Case. We covered that in the first segment, but there's a lot of new people.

Let's chat it out. You're new to the show. So if you haven't heard yet, most people expected the judge in this case to determine if Fannie Willis would be disqualified for the case last week.

Then it was early this week. Now we know two things are happening next week, which means we're not going to get a decision at least until next week. One, he is going to have another discussion with that witness, Bradley. Bradley was the former partner with Wade. Wade is the special counsel. He handled Wade's divorce.

He would not answer questions about whether or when he knew that the special counsel, Wade, was having an affair with Fannie Willis. And when that started, because of attorney-client privilege. So that's going to happen. He's going to have to talk to the judge. The judge will then decide if he has wrongly claimed privilege.

If he has, Logan, that means he will have to come back out and explain. Well, there is a cold conversation of, and look, I can see their point, I guess, in some ways, is why is this relevant to the actual Trump case? They understand why it's relevant to the fact of, is she the right person to be doing this job?

But why does this affect- You shouldn't be enriching yourself so you can prosecute a political opponent. But let's say they pull her. It's not like all of a sudden the charges go away. They could. They could because it's just become too corrupt. A new DA could come in and say, you know what, this is a Rico case.

I don't want to bring in a guy like Wade. They spent millions of dollars. They've got nowhere but a few little plea bargains of nothing. The election's happening as we speak. We've got Super Tuesday next week. We have voting in South Carolina Saturday where it looks like Donald Trump will beat Nikki Haley. We'll talk about some of that, too, where Nikki Haley is trying to change what victory is in South Carolina. Try to say that if she gets to 45%, that's a big victory. She's at 35% right now in her home state.

35 or 45, either way, to me, your only one thing is you lost. Let's quickly take a call. Kelly's calling in Pennsylvania. She's got a related question. You're on the air, Kelly.

Watch her run by. My question is if Fannie Willis gets removed from the case and or the case gets dismissed completely, what happens to the people who have already pled out? I think they take their cases back. I mean, Logan, if they cost them money, if it took them, I mean, listen, you can't ever give back prison time, obviously, but fines and things like that, people would certainly want it reviewed because the whole case is gone at this point.

A new prosecutor would have to come in, review those plea bargains, review the entire case, but that is why it is such a hefty decision, Logan, for a judge. I mean, a lot has happened here already. It's kind of like the 14th Amendment with the Supreme Court. Is it going to be a precursory of opinion where they don't sign it, but they all want to write an opinion right now because people are voting already for Super Tuesday. I mean, literally, we will know who the Republican candidate is for President within two weeks. Yeah, likely.

And no decision from the Supreme Court on what affects Colorado and Maine and probably 14 other states. Yeah, we'd love to hear from you. Give us a call.

1-800-684-3110. Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us in the next segment. And in the final segment, I really encourage everyone who's watching. There are thousands of you watching right now. One, if you're not a subscriber to our channel, if you're watching on YouTube, because on the ACLJ channel, we do this show every day. I know a lot of you are new.

I'm seeing it in the comments. I'm going to ask you to subscribe. That really helps us, and you get to get this more in your feed.

Also like, do all the things. Thumbs up. We appreciate that. I just want to tell you that is a great way to support the work of the ACLJ.

Even if you can't make a financial support, just subscribe to the channel. Like us on our social media platforms. That means more eyeballs can see this. We know a lot of you right now. We're in the palm of your hand in your phone or we're in your workplace right now. We are right there on your screen. Know that we appreciate it and we are seeing the word spread.

So many of you are watching right now, and I'd love to see those numbers continue to rise. We've got Rick Grinnell joining us. If you don't know Rick Grinnell, he is the former director of acting... Director of National Intelligence. What'd he say?

And a former ambassador to Germany. So, I mean, we have top-notch... A pretty tough talker. Top-notch staff here and top-notch team. We can't do that without you, but also if you're new to the broadcast, you're going to hear from that. Also, you're going to see how we are always fighting also for the individual, for people like you who go to ACLJ.org slash help. Put in that they need legal help, and we are on it for no cost.

Zero cost to you. You're going to hear from someone directly. We've got something resolved really quick in terms of Israel. You're going to enjoy that segment. That's going to come up at the end of the show. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to Sekulow from our team. Rick Grinnell, who's at CPAC right now in Washington, D.C. And I always say, usually this is... I said it yesterday, Rick, this is usually a very heated time at CPAC every four years because you're right in the middle of a... right before Super Tuesday, you're down to maybe the top three candidates usually, or even top two. And they're actually polling pretty close. And you've got even CPAC maybe divided. People are working on the straw poll. And you actually feel like you may have a few months left, though, to see who's going to be the Republican nominee.

Right now, it looks like after the South Carolina primary this weekend, Nikki Haley's trying to redefine winning by saying that if she gets 45 percent of the vote in her home state, which would be 10 percent more than she's polling right now, but still a loss, that that is somehow a win. Now, we'll get to that in a little bit. We may have time, Rick, but I want to get to Joe Biden's policy first because he's announcing that he's considering a new executive action to restrict asylum at the border, even though we've had his team say the reason why the border's so bad is because of Congress.

We'll play that in a second. This is exactly, Rick, what we've said is that the President does have room to act here. He doesn't always have to wait for Congress, and he's failed to do so. Now, because we've got an election coming up, he's not taking the advice anymore of the squad.

He's taking the advice from people like us. Yeah. Look, let's be really clear about one thing. Joe Biden and the Democrats tried to blame the Republicans by saying, we need this legislation that's going to lock us in forever. It was terrible legislation, and the Republicans said no. So they tried for a couple of days, even maybe a week, to say, well, Republicans aren't interested in doing anything on the border.

That blew up. That really failed because what ended up happening is we presented the facts, which is Joe Biden can absolutely do a whole bunch of individual things without new laws to shut down the border. And so now what we see is the Biden team is scrambling to try to fix this at the last minute by actually doing what we called him to do three years ago. He's trapped. He was pushed into a corner where they got to make some sort of progress because this border openness is in is literally a losing issue for them politically. And it's getting worse and people see it.

So I think he was trapped. He had nothing else to do than to go back and say, OK, well, maybe maybe there are some things that I can do and I'll quietly try to do them. It's interesting, though, to see sort of the response that's come in. We have a response from KJP.

We'll talk about that. But there is a tweet that just went out earlier from AOC. And in that they the CNN article she reposted said President Biden is considering executive action to restrict. But her response was doing a Trump impression isn't how we beat Trump seeking asylum as a legal right of all people in the face of authoritarian threat. We must not buckle on our principles.

We should commit to them. The mere suggestions outrageous and the President should refuse to sign it. So that's interesting, Jordan, to see that the far left. We've seen this now because, look, we had we had to leave and saying, don't vote for Joe Biden. It's interesting also, though, Rick, is, well, a lot of people looked at AOC's tweet.

She only fifteen hundred people retweeted it. I mean, I think that on the border, even very liberal Democrats are sick and tired of hearing this. Let's play it. Well, let's play the supercut of acting like they couldn't do anything to stop the fit. No, to stop the criminals, to stop the cartels. It was all Congress's fault or Republicans in Congress.

Take a listen. He has tools that he's used to make sure that we do this. We actually deal with the immigration system in a humane way, in a in a way that is that actually deals with what we're seeing at the border. And that's why you've seen the parolee program be so successful. It has it has it has when it comes to illegal migration, you've seen it come down by more than 90 percent.

And that's because of this act. The actions that this President has taken. The President has done more to secure the border and to deal with this issue of immigration than anybody else.

He really has. Look, you know, on day one, the President put forward a comprehensive immigration plan. legislation for Congress to take a serious look at and to work with him on getting it done. We have a broken immigration system.

It's been broken for decades now. And the President has done everything that he can on his own to try to figure out how do we deal with what's going on at the border. Rick, the illegal immigration numbers are breaking records every single month. There were nine hundred sixty one thousand border encounters since October 1st of fiscal year twenty twenty four. That's on pace to set a record. Two point four million total in fiscal year twenty twenty three. That is the current record.

Seven point two million total encounters since Biden took office in twenty twenty one. These are just people caught in the San Diego sector since October 1st. Colombia, twenty eight thousand. China, twenty one thousand. So don't think this is Mexico. Mexico doesn't even register, Rick, until you get to number three with eighteen thousand.

Then you drop down to Brazil. Eighty seven hundred. Ecuador seventy seven hundred. Turkey sixty one hundred. Guinea five thousand. India five thousand. Guatemala five thousand.

Peru four thousand. That is migrants by nationality in one sector in San Diego since October 1st. But everything is record breaking. So suddenly he's thinking about using executive orders. Look, the border is wide open. It's a mess.

It's it's a crisis of epic proportion. And the White House has a media strategy that is in shambles. They keep undermining their own message every week or two. They're literally just trying anything to throw against the wall. They get away with it because the media in D.C. allows them to.

But I love that Logan brought up AOC's tweet because what AOC did is she said the quiet part out loud. We know that this is the reason there's an open border is for one reason and one reason alone. The Democratic Party philosophically believes we should have an open border and that everyone around the world deserves the chance to come into the United States and seek asylum. Now, look, it's very important that our listeners understand that we are the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration or funding.

Americans and American taxpayers are incredibly giving and generous. And you should never feel bad for wanting immigration rules. We have to have rules. If you don't have rules, then we literally don't have a country. We give a million people roughly citizenship every single year. We have one hundred million people that want citizenship. So you can't just say open the border and come in and cut the line.

You've got to have a process. You know, Rick, what we also know is that the White House is in their full political mode and they're trying to figure out, you know, they keep hearing in the media that the liberal base is so mad at them that young people are not going to vote for them. So the AOC's and the progressives, they don't like what their positions have been on Israel.

They've been too supportive. So they need to be at least sound like they're tougher on Israel and sound like they're more pro-Palestinian. So they put out statements, but policy hasn't necessarily changed. The statements alone can do a lot of damage to the state of Israel. Because you see also from the head of the Progressive Caucus, Pramil Jaipal, she's saying any Biden action that restricts migrants seeking asylum would be an extremely disappointing mistake.

So he's got the far left threatening him, saying it's a huge mistake. But I think a lot of Democrats, Rick, will ignore these policies that he failed to implement, would be happy if he implemented an executive order. If it started working, he'd be taken credit for it six months from now, I guarantee you. If there was a Presidential debate or ads run on TV and he issues some executive order that shuts down some illegal immigration, especially through the often abused asylum process right now that's so backlogged.

Like you said, it's important to have, but it has to work. I mean, right now it's so backlogged, it's not going to work for any of the people who actually need the asylum. But if they can get less people coming, they're going to run that ad, Rick. And we know we're less than a year before the election. And they are going to start looking at the Donald Trump playbook.

Yeah, there's no question. And sadly, for three years and a month, they've been able to get away with it because the media just allows them to. If we had real journalists in Washington, D.C., they would be pointing out the fact that Joe Biden just undercut his argument that he needed Congress in order to shut down the border.

Now he's going back and saying, OK, there are some things that I can do. Yeah, why didn't you do that three years ago? Why didn't you just follow Donald Trump's policy?

Those are the types of questions that real journalists should be asking. They won't. And I think you're exactly right, Jordan. If he starts to make a little dent, they're going to do what they've done with gas prices, which is say, oh, the numbers are coming down and our policy is working. What we need to do is call them out right now. And so I'm so glad that CPAC does does this on a consistent basis.

And we have our partners, ACLJ, that constantly are doing it as well. So to our listeners, people just need to understand, speak up, speak out, don't let them get away with this, because the media are certainly going to let them. Rick, we appreciate you joining us, folks. I think, Logan, I think we're going to see a very conservative, some very conservative policies come out from Joe Biden, potentially at least be discussed. He's got to throw them out there. Will they actually implement them or not?

We don't know. But like Rick said, they did on gas prices. Yeah, absolutely.

We saw the prices come down considerably. And they said, see, our policies work, you could drill less, but but get more out. Yeah, I encourage you, everyone who's watching right now, support the work of the ACLJ, go to ACLJ.org.

You can become a champion with a monthly supporter. But I also want to tell you this next segment is going to give you the reason why you should be doing this, how quick we can act, how fast we can act when there is injustice happening around the world and in our own country and our own university systems. What we can do for even the smallest of small cases. We could turn it around really quick all the way to Presidents and world leaders and the political governments. We can be involved on all scales because of your support.

We'll be right back. We have one of our clients joining us live. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. As we talked about yesterday, we have assisted a student at SUNY, one of the schools and colleges in New York, this one in Brooklyn, a Jewish student who wanted to wear an IDF shirt to class after seeing other students wearing pro Hamas, pro Palestinian shirts. And of course, this Jewish student with the IDF shirt gets pulled into a dean's office, reprimanded. ACLJ gets involved.

We make sure this is handled properly and that that shirt is allowed to be worn. And I'm really honored to be joined by the brave Jenny Blass, who we represented in this matter. We're able to handle it really quickly. Jenny, thanks for joining us today on Sekulow to kind of tell your story.

Hi, thank you for having me. So from what I got from our team is that, you know, we saw the atrocities of October 7th, our organization is still representing families who have lost loved ones, who were taken hostage, who have some who may still be alive. We've also, families who and those who were killed on the October 7th attacks inside Israel. But we've also seen the increase, a kind of anti-Semitism on college campuses all over the United States. And from what I heard from our team is that you were going to class and seeing a lot of your fellow classmates wearing shirts that were pro Palestinian, even pro Hamas.

Tell people about that. So, yeah, I've been so right after like the after October 7th, we came to class and my fellow Jewish classmates. And it was like immediately there was like a tension in the class that we that we felt.

And that was like actually palpable. And like as the weeks went by, a lot of students came in with like kafias and like Palestinian shirts, and they were also coming in with like flags and stickers and pins. And it was just kind of overwhelming for me and for the Jewish students and I to be sitting in the class like that. We're just a small group of, we're just a small like class, so it was we see each other every day, like we always would be like face to face with them. So it was kind of like overwhelming.

Yeah, they. Before this, before the October 7th attacks, was there always tension there between these like the Jewish students and some of these students who supported now this, you know, the Hamas attacks or the what's going on in the Palestinian territories? Was it always high tension or did this take it to like a next level? No, there was never actually there was ever any tension, us and the Jewish students and everyone with everyone else in the class, we were pretty close, actually, we especially like all the girls and the Muslim girls, especially we were we were like we related on like a religion level with like modesty. So we were actually kind of a quote, we were actually pretty like close and we spoke to them all the time. And it was like it was like a regular day to day, no issues. But then immediately after October 7th, like we walked in like there was the tension, like I said, very palpable people like started ignoring us, getting looks, not staring at us. I mean, staring at us, it was just, yeah, you could it's like they flipped the switch. It was like very surprising for me and the Jewish students.

So ultimately, you decided in November to do something about it. It was disturbing you and your fellow Jewish students, but you wanted to kind of speak out on your own through a way which was totally viable, which was wearing a T-shirt. I think it's a T-shirt you have on now. Just yeah, it's the kind of typical IDF T-shirt if people have seen it.

If you've been to Israel before or you want to order one online, you can. So you wore it to class and how quick were you contacted by the Dean and the school to come to a meeting? So actually in November, it wasn't the first time I've worn it.

I have worn it before. So I was pretty surprised why like the second or third time that I wore it, like around November, like I was called in like I wore it on like a Friday, I believe. And then I guess they didn't want to send emails over the weekend because it's not like it's not school. So immediately Monday, the day we got back, I got an email from the Dean to come into the office and to speak with him. And so in between that time, you contact the ACLJ.

We're able to be there on the phone. The Dean actually, I mean, were you reprimanded for this? So in the email, like I was with the rest of the Jewish students when I got in, I was, we were speaking, I told them about the email and it sounded like the way the email was worded, it sounded as if I was going to get reprimanded for wearing the shirt.

But then one of the Jewish students recommended that I should like get in touch with the rabbi of the school and also like lawyers that can help me out with this. So she had a friend who connected me with the ACLJ. So once I had cc'd the ACLJ, like once we started talking and I cc'd the ACLJ with the emails with the Dean, it seemed like he, it wasn't like the meeting wasn't going to be like punitive or him reprimanding me.

It seemed like he was just going to speak to me. So I think there was like a change in how he approached it once I started, once I cc'd the lawyers. So we were able to, you know, not have to go to court, you have to sue, but it does take people like you, Jenny, who are willing to take the bold move, to wear the shirt, to get the email, to then, you know, you're in college, you shouldn't have to be doing this. Just having to contact, you know, a rabbi to contact an attorney to then go to the Dean's office.

What ultimately then happened, just to tell people the story, when you talked to the Dean? So when we spoke to the Dean, like you said, the ACLJ lawyers were on the phone and we were, and basically he said that he, based on like the current situation, like everyone should be mindful about everyone in the class. And that ultimately, like he can't really tell me what to wear and what not to wear. So he said you could do whatever you want, but just like be aware of your surroundings, right?

Like be aware of the people that you have in your class and like everyone emotions are very high, like during, like at that time. And then I said that, like the Jewish students weren't really reporting the other students in the classroom for what they were wearing because we didn't think there was a need to. Like when I wore this shirt, them reporting me, I didn't think they would do it because, like I said, I wore it before.

So when he said he wasn't aware, he said he would also speak to those other students and they will come and speak to the class as a whole again as well about what was going on. So it wasn't, let me just say this, we are so proud of you to represent you. We're proud that you put the t-shirt on and I'm sure you've put the t-shirt back on before you're wearing it for this interview and that you're representing a lot of students who are afraid to do that, who I hope see this interview and decide to put that shirt on as well. And know if they need help, they can contact us at ACLJ.org slash help. You're not going to have to go to court.

You're not going to get reprimanded and you're going to be able to wear that shirt if you do want to make that statement. Because Jenny, it takes people like you again to protect all of our rights and of course also to stand up against this anti-Semitism that we're seeing spreading across campuses. So I thank you for taking the time for us today and folks, if you find yourself in this situation like Jenny's, go to ACLJ.org slash help. We will assist you. It doesn't cost a thing. Support the work of ACLJ at ACLJ.org and we'll talk to you tomorrow.