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

LIVE: Trump Takes on NYC Judge Appealing Civil Court Fine

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 26, 2024 1:26 pm

LIVE: Trump Takes on NYC Judge Appealing Civil Court Fine

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1024 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


February 26, 2024 1:26 pm

President Donald Trump has appealed the outrageous ruling in his New York civil fraud case. He had asked the judge for a delay in paying the $355 million fine but was denied; the state’s appeals court will now determine the President’s fate. Meanwhile, New York City’s economy is taking a hit from the boycott by Truckers for Trump. The Sekulow team discusses President Trump’s legal woes, the GOP primary results between former Governor Nikki Haley and President Trump, the ACLJ’s case at the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve election integrity, the tragic death of the Georgia college student, President Biden’s plan to visit the southern border – and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Adam Gold Show
Adam Gold
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Today on Sekulow, it's live.

Trump takes on New York City judge by appealing the civil court fine that's over $400 million. Your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, folks, welcome to Sekulow. There's a lot to talk about today. If you want to give us a call, 1-800-684-3110, we're going to get into politics. Of course, my dad is back with us, our chief counsel at the ACLJ, and in just a couple more segments, we are going to deep dive into what's going on at the Supreme Court with both the immunity case that was asking for a stay from Jack Smith in DC, but also the 14th Amendment case where we represent, we're a party to that case, the Colorado Republican Party, because many people expected those would be fairly quick decisions. One is on a stay, and, you know, it's either accepted or denied, and the 14th Amendment, based off what everyone heard and was expecting, was that they were not going to allow one, you know, a state official like a Colorado secretary of state to do this on their own. But that opinion yet, still not out, so we'll get more into it on the third day. It's not out yet, and, look, with Supreme Court cases, quick is a relative term. However, and this I think is important, the immunity case, you would have expected some reaction by now, whether a grant or a denial of the stay, but there could be dissent, so we'll get into it later, but there's a lot more at play than I think we realize. Yeah, and, folks, we're getting into the politics as well after South Carolina. Big news about the support for Nikki Haley starting to dry up in the financial support as we, again, like where we live, you've got two more today and tomorrow to still vote early with that 14th Amendment case hanging out there. It's kind of a bizarre time, but hopefully you would think the Supreme Court handles that by Super Tuesday so that there's no confusion about your vote if you're voting for Donald Trump, and somehow that won't be counted later on because of a Supreme Court case.

I mean, that would bring up a whole list of other constitutional issues, but, again, I do think that we want to just break through all of this. There has been appeal, and we're going to get into that more in the case in New York where he's got the $454 million civil fraud judgment, and that keeps going up. I think $112,000 a day is uninterest. He did not get the extension. Remember, that was a 30-day extension he wanted. Most people would have, but as I predicted on TV at 6 in the morning last week, it's Donald Trump in a hostile court system. I don't expect that he will get it. Andy agreed. Most of the times you do get it, but when you're Donald Trump, you don't.

So it's the kind of he's being treated very differently in this legal scene. It's almost routine. Yeah.

It really is almost routine. Yeah. I mean, you just asked for 30 days, so you put the assets together. You're not saying, I don't have the assets. No. It's a complicated thing to put together that much in a week or three weeks, I mean. Yeah, I know.

They're treating him differently than anyone else. No question. Yeah. So, Logan, we're taking calls from people.

That's right. Get your calls and comments in right now, 1-800-684-3110. If you're watching online, that's fine, too. You can still give us a call. We'd love to have you. Just let our phone screener know. We'd like to know where you're watching, so whether you're watching on the thousands that watch on YouTube or on Rumble on ACLJ.org, or maybe you're listening on radio or Sirius XM. Later on, you can be podcasting this later on.

We'd love to hear from you, 1-800-684-3110. A lot of you have asked about the Eighth Amendment in this case involving President Trump and the huge fine, even though all of the people that loaned money, all the banks were repaid. None of them testified that they had any trouble with President Trump. In fact, the opposite, of course, he said they do their own due diligence. No bank would ever just take your word for it, me or yours, for a much smaller loan.

They'd go back and then they'd dive into their own details to say, are we going to move forward? And they said they'd check the boxes on these major loans. But yet New York has this provision that said if they think what you gave to the bank was somehow fraudulent, we could still fine you even if the bank ultimately gave you the loan and you repaid it.

So in the bank's mind, it wasn't fraudulent because you were able to repay the loan the way you said you'd be able to repay the loan. So we're going to get into the Eighth Amendment. Does this rise to the level of a constitutional punishment that is too high, that doesn't fit the crime or the civil action that is being charged? I want to take your calls on that, 1-800-684-3110, because we're getting so many new constitutional issues arising out of these cases. We're still waiting to see what's going to happen in Georgia this week. We know that Bradley, that big witness, is in court with the judge behind doors today because he invoked privilege.

They think a little too much. And also there's going to be final arguments there. Join us, share it with your friends and family. We'll be right back on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We're going to get back into the Supreme Court with my dad. If you notice a little voice issue with him, he was at Regent Law, where I attended law school up in Virginia Beach, Virginia, on the campus of CBN and taught a full five-day class, I think about three hours a day. So again, tough on the voice. But he does want to come back and at least explain to you from his mind what could be happening right now at the Supreme Court that seems to be delaying, even though in the normal court terms these would all be extremely quick. These feel delayed because of the impacts they have. And now people, I want to bring in Harry Hutchinson, are really questioning.

Harry, I've gotten the question so many times. This $454 million judgment, which keeps going up every day by $112,000 per day, and you've got to put out, if you had to use a bond company, about $19 to $20 million, that's just something you'd never get back. Could you invoke the Eighth Amendment that this has gone too far? Because usually people think of cruel and unusual punishment as violent punishment or long-term prison sentences in solitary confinement. But there are provisions within the Eighth Amendment about financial penalties.

Absolutely. So in politics, we should never assume that because something is insane, it will not be done. Equally plain in our highly politicized judicial system, we should never presume that because something is idiotic, it will not be done. And so if you look at Judge Ingoran's ruling on February the 16th in a New York civil fraud case, a case without any victims and without any fraud, you could argue that the ruling was at a minimum insane.

However, it's important to keep in mind that there is something called the Eighth Amendment, which constitutes a limitation on the power of the state to impose penalties which are ungrounded in rational analysis. And so let's look, for instance, at the Thames v. Indiana case, which was decided in 2019. In that particular case, the police in Indiana seized Tyson Thames Land Rover, then worth around $42,000, and he purchased that from life insurance money that he received when his dad passed away. The state sought a civil forfeiture of the vehicle.

Why? Because Thames had pled guilty to a drug dealing and conspiracy charge in the amount of $10,000. The state of Indiana claimed that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to the state of Indiana judgment. It only applies to federal cases, but the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that it does apply and it limits the ability of the state to impose crazy penalties. Equally clear here, you could make the same argument with the state of New York.

And now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's going to be an easy road. It will require appeals. It will require making sure that either the federal courts or the Supreme Court, for instance, takes jurisdiction. But there clearly is a basis within the Eighth Amendment. You could argue that the penalties imposed by New York are excessive.

Well, you want to go to the phones? I think we should. Tim, because again, people are asking over and over, but you see how this could take another side angle in the legal system. And now you've got a constitutional law question, which is in the state court.

A question that probably a lot of us should answer, just so you know. Let's go to Joe calling in Maryland on Line 1. Joe, you're on the air. Yes, sir. This is Joe from Maryland.

Thanks for taking my call. If somebody else could pay this bill for a former President Trump, if they wanted to. I mean, is that legal for somebody to do that, to raise funds for it, or for Mr. Trump himself to raise funds for it?

Or, you know, some other wealthy billionaire pay that fund? Let me just jump in. So, of course, this is a New York state case. I know in federal cases, and we can check a dive on the New York state law real quick, guys. Will you do that?

Just take a quick dive to see. But I know in the federal courts, Harry, that's not unusual. In fact, the most recent main example of that was that Hunter Biden, a friend of his, put up the money for his bond.

It wasn't this big, but it was in the millions. Absolutely. You know, in the federal system, you absolutely can have someone else put up the bond, because ultimately, what they're saying is, I'll lose this money if my friend, or like in this case, it would be President Trump, doesn't comply. Like co-signing on an apartment, you know, it's very similar. With even more responsibility to the one who's giving the money, because if President Trump or the organization didn't comply, you would lose it all.

Absolutely. So you could argue that there's no reason in the world why, unless there's some specific New York law to the contrary, why citizens of the United States could not gift money to Donald Trump and enable him to pay the fine out of those particular funds. Also, Donald Trump is seeking a delay in the enforcement of this ruling. Whether that will be granted by the New York courts or not, we don't know at this particular point, but I don't see any reason in principle why people can't send gifts to Donald Trump. And technically, his appeal of this fine, though they've filed a notice of appeal, you can't actually appeal in New York officially until you've hit the bond that's been posted.

Though you could certainly then go to a separate court and say, this is, we believe, unconstitutional, which brings up, again, a whole different line of argument because you're talking about constitutional issues now. I think ultimately, end of the day here, President Trump's got to figure this out. He's the leading Republican candidate.

It's a lot of money. I know he would rather not have to put that kind of money up, but if you notice on the campaign trail, Logan, he's not saying, I can't do it. No.

Well, I mean, I don't feel like he would in general. But brand-wise, he can't not do it. You know what I'm saying? I don't know. What do you mean?

If you're Donald Trump's brand and you can't make a corner. Oh, you can't afford it. Yeah, exactly. No, that's not going to be, even if he couldn't afford it, that wouldn't be the way he'd go from a...

He said that's not the issue. The issue is we need time to put the right assets together. You gave us 30 days. Now they're... Yeah, still a lot of cash. For anyone, that is... I think they're at 24 days now.

I think it was at 27 days on Friday. The clock is kicking down. Most businesses don't have that ready-to-go liquid, just, you know, all of a sudden, to just push one check over. No, I mean, that's what she said. I'm looking at that building. But, well, you said Mar-a-Lago's really worth $18 million, so what's the building in New York going to be worth? Are you going to lowball that? I mean, it's just, we know it's not $18 million based on federal experience with New York real estate. You don't buy a tower in New York for $18 million.

No, I don't think you can barely get a condo in New York. But they're going to try to, I think, lowball on all those issues. But, Harry, ultimately, I think what people want to know is does he have a serious claim on the Eighth Amendment when you get this size fine? And it seems like you believe he does.

I believe he does. And you can recharacterize the so-called civil fraud penalty as a judgment that is in actual criminal law as opposed to civil fraud. And clearly, this would constitute an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. And I think he has an absolute case.

And I think, as a former law professor, this would be a dream issue to research and write about. Let's take one more call before the break at 1-800-684-31. Taylor? Let's go Michael. I think Michael in Arizona. You're on the air, Michael.

Hello, gentlemen. The question is, is there any recourse of sue Trump to cease for his legal expenses provided he is successful in his litigation so he can replenish without continually going broke like Flynn and Giuliani have? And lastly, how can the public participate without it being a legal campaign contribution that would create a grassroots movement to really collect money for the defense? A legal fund would be set up separately. They have their own set of rules aside from a campaign fund.

So that would be separate. And I know there's some people that have thrown those out there. Be very careful right now in donating to those. If it's not been endorsed by President Trump clearly, like on his own social media with his leaks, be careful about what's out there.

Because bad actors try to use this as a time to say, hey, you're helping President Trump. We're putting together a legal defense fund for him. And then you read the small print that some organization never heard of. Be careful where you're doing it. Be careful where that money is going. But here overall, the idea is that you can get these resources together. Again, that there is a way to pull together. They're just having to do it in a way that's very, very quick while he's on the campaign trail.

I think that is true. And with respect to whether or not Trump can get reimbursement from the state, I think that would be highly doubtful. I think the state would be able to claim immunity from being required to reimburse him with respect to the legal fees he's incurred. And so that if I'm sued by the state of New York, I can't then go back to the state of New York unless there's a statutory provision and then ask for legal fees. I'm not sure there's going to be a strong legal basis for that. The best thing that can happen is you're going to get back what you posted. Bond, if you would.

Make your $450 million. You're probably not going to get legal fees. You probably have to show something plus just that the fact that you didn't like the charges they brought and you beat them ultimately. But that there was some kind of wrongdoing or corruption. Kind of like what's going on in Georgia they'd have to find was going on in New York. There was some of that with Letitia James because she ran on defeating Trump. But that's again why she's not presenting so far this case.

We're following it all very closely for you. These legal issues aren't going away. We still don't have two major cases out of the Supreme Court affecting President Trump. One that we're a party to, the 14th Amendment case. The other, the stay on whether his Presidential immunity kicks in in the Jack Smith case. My dad, Jay Sekulow joins us in the next segment.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. My dad is joining us now because I wanted him to break down the two issues we're awaiting at the U.S. Supreme Court. One that we are a party to. So let's start with the case on ballot access, the 14th Amendment case. Colorado, of course the Secretary of State there up to the Colorado Supreme Court said that they under the 14th Amendment Section 3 could remove President Trump. So if you try to write him in, he could not, those votes would not be counted.

Of course the effect that could have on the general election as well. It was also happening in Maine. We saw it happen about, we represented states about 14, 15 of these. Where most of the time we shut it down in liberal courts and conservative courts because they just thought this was wrong. But it made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court then with full briefing, full oral arguments and now we're on week three. So the case was submitted February 8th was when the oral argument took place.

All the brief's been done. So the question then becomes where's the opinion? And look, if it was unanimous, you would think it'd come out quicker. Doesn't mean it's not unanimous.

It just could be there's different ways they're getting there. I am convinced we win the legal issue, that we're going to win the case. But there could be different rationales.

We gave four different reasons. Right. And I mean I think one thing people are definitely concerned about is you get a Super Tuesday with the majority of people. Listen, they're voting already, in early voting in those states. That if that answer isn't clear, it's not that President Trump won't win those primaries.

But it does make it a little like there's a shadow. Yeah, to clarify, Super Tuesday is next Tuesday. A week and a day is Super Tuesday. Which tells me the court will rule this week.

If they don't, what are they doing here? They're hearing arguments tomorrow and Wednesday. Those are usually opinion days. But in a case like this, while they normally wait for an opinion day to read the opinion, when they issue it, they don't have to hear. The more complex issue is we all thought it was going to be, at least there was some thought it'd be, per curiam, meaning the court was in agreement. But if one justice isn't, that justice could be writing a concurrence or a dissent and that can take time.

More time than it should. But if we get this Tuesday, Wednesday, that still clarifies it for the rest of the race and it'll be a non-issue. Is there a race? No, I'm actually talking about the bigger general election race. To clarify this is not valid.

It also kind of takes away that he somehow was an insurrectionist. Because it takes that provision kind of out. You can always politicize that, but again, I think it would be very helpful for our election process long term to handle this once and for all. I hope they do that in this case. It's not just tied to President Trump, but it's tied to the bigger pictures that this is not the process that can be followed and we move on from these kind of issues.

Because I could see this happening way too often on both sides of the aisle trying to play this legal game of tying up candidates for being able to get into to actually campaign. Yeah, so I think what we have to do is realize that right now they're probably finishing up that opinion. I think we win. I think you'll be on the ballot. And I think it does come out before next Tuesday.

It has to. Let's go to the phones. Cat in made on line three. Hey, Cat.

Hi, this is Pat. I'm calling I, I'm not a lawyer, but I am an ACLJ member and proudly supporting. There was a there was a show on eight o'clock Sunday night on Fox, and it featured Mr. Mark Levin interviewing Professor john you.

I believe he's at Stanford or Berkeley. And the discussion was about this provision, apparently in New York law, as I understood the conversation that in order to appeal. You have to put a bond up equal to the verdict amount. That's correct.

So in the thought is that. OK, so here's here how it works for the bond. It is for the amount of the decision, but it's only a purport. The bond is it's a surety bond to make sure you're going to appear. It's a percentage of what is being usually 10 percent. Now, in New York, because of some peculiarities and frankly, the way they're treating this case, it's a little bit more unusual than it would be. Because normally you put up, you know, in this case, you put up forty fifty thousand forty fifty forty fifty thousand forty or fifty million dollars. And off you go to the Court of Appeals here. It's a little bit different. But that's what appeal bonds are for.

Yeah. Make sure that you're going to you could that if if they fight against you, the money is there, that the money is there. So it's worth their time to be consider your appeals. But it's very expensive. Bonds are expensive. They are estimated this one would unless he just went out, was able to do it totally on his own. Twenty million.

About twenty million. That's money you don't get back. Like you don't get to sue the state of New York to get that correct.

Even if you win. Yeah. So I mean, you realize she's already taken a twenty million dollar hit out on Donald Trump. It tells you to be careful doing business in New York. Yeah, it's sending a signal.

I mean, especially, you know, I haven't heard from Mayor Adams yet on this matter because politically it's kind of a minefield for a Democrat mayor. But certainly, you know, he's getting phone calls from New York companies and businesses say, you know, we're not going to stay registered here, which means the majority of our taxes are not going to be paid here. If you continue to do this in a global economy where we could get our goods anywhere we want. Right. Let's let's move on to phone calls. Let's go to Charles is calling in Tennessee. You're on the air, Charles. Go ahead.

Thank you, sir. I was asking, you know, about the New York case with Latifah James. She targeted Donald Trump before he ever, you know, before she ever assumed office. If this goes to the appeals court or say it goes to the Supreme Court, cannot a justice look at this and say this was an illegal targeting of an individual. Therefore, the case is thrown out.

That has to be illegal. I understand. No, one justice doesn't have that authority. One justice can issue a stay.

In other words, right now in the D.C. court, there is a request for a stay as to this issue of absolute immunity for the President. A justice, one justice could issue that. It was sent to Chief Justice Roberts.

Looks like we don't even know that for sure. He's referred it to the court. But one justice cannot make a binding substantive decision. It's a quarter final review. It takes a majority.

In that case, it takes five members of the court to come up with a decision. So you still believe we get the 14th case sub-type this week? I'll tell you, if we're not, something else is going on. I think so. Especially, when did Logan say Super Tuesday? A week from tomorrow?

A week from tomorrow. Yeah, I think so. I think we get it. Yeah, that kind of put that issue, to talk about it for a day, that pushed it to rest.

But of course... The immunity case is the one that's a little bit more interesting right now. You would have thought that would have been denied that stay initially. Yeah. But it could be a dissent from the denial. It could be they turned it into a cert petition and are drafting a question. You said that those were filed that way. Yes. So in a way that was almost opening the door to that possibility. Well, he filed it as a stay, but the court on its own can... Yeah. Yeah, it was pretty serious.

The filings were almost like a merits brief. I think that's right. Alright folks, we're going to continue to take your phone calls.

1-800-684-3110. We're going to get into direct politics as well. Following the South Carolina primary, there's some big news about Nikki Haley's campaign. That big source of their money was supposed to be up to $200 million from the Koch brothers in their kind of AFP world. They have officially announced that they are no longer going to be contributing. They still support. They're not like pulling their support from Nikki Haley.

They want to be accurate here, but they will not be sending any more resources. And the question will be is, you know, how many of those resources are left after what she spent to get to that 40% in South Carolina? And there's a lot of back and forth punditry on that wasn't great for Donald Trump.

And here's what I'd say. When you're going up against a home state former governor who was very popular there, two-term governor, who then President Trump elevated to the national stage as UN ambassador, and you still beat him there by 20 points easily, that's a huge win. Now, when you go into the rest of the Super Tuesday states, do you want to be beating Nikki Haley by larger margins?

Absolutely. You want to get into the 75, 80%. Now, some of that depends on do they let Democrats vote?

So you have to be realistic there. Sometimes those are protest voters since they don't really have a primary going on. We're going to get into all of that as we move into kind of polling numbers, the money of the politics. But we're going to take your legal questions as well at 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ. Again, remember our champions campaign, folks, to be at ACLJ.org slash champions, where you decide to make a donation each month automatically.

ACLJ. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We are waiting, as we said, two major cases out of the U.S. Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment decision did not come out this morning in court, but they have opinion days, oral argument days tomorrow and Wednesday.

Before those oral arguments, they usually do announce opinions, so that could definitely happen tomorrow or Wednesday. Also, because this is a case unlike others, it's been on a fast track even though it's felt slow these last few weeks. Getting a decision back from the Supreme Court in three weeks is still very fast and usually unheard of. The other one is just the stay on the immunity case out of D.C. Usually the stays don't take as long. Now, that hasn't been quite as long up there as the Supreme Court. That's down into the second week, but you would imagine the court wants to handle those issues as quickly as possible so that voters are clear, so that also law enforcement is clear about what can and can't be brought forward in these cases.

We're also watching very closely, Logan, what will go on in Georgia this week. We know there's a behind-the-scenes with the judge there with one of the main witnesses, Bradley, who invoked privilege. The judge said nicely to him, I think you may be, you know, I see what you're doing.

This is somebody you represented in a divorce case, but you may be interpreting privilege too broadly, so let's do it behind closed doors so you and I can talk about it and not in front of everybody. Not television, not nationwide coverage. And then supposedly each side will get to make closing arguments. I don't know if what happened last week and also with that phone call data, how that changes things. And Fannie Willis said they were going to respond to that data. So far, I haven't seen an official response yet.

Maybe that happens this week. So there's a lot happening in Georgia, this D.C. case with Jack Smith, and of course what is going to happen with the bond situation, the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court as well. Just a lot going on in the legal world and in the political world. Yeah, and obviously coming off of South Carolina just over the weekend, kind of a nothing news, which was obviously the… So did you see the montage of all three networks when they got to zero seconds, polls, every three, all three? They all called it immediately. And all the cable news too called it immediately for Donald Trump. Yeah, I think everyone knew that. And I think that even Nikki Haley was putting out that she was in a fight for 40, 43 percent is what she was hoping to.

Ended up around 39 and a half. So not too far off from that prediction. There is obviously going to be spin from both sides. There's going to be a spin of, well, this was a dominant victory. And then there's going to be the spin of 40 percent didn't vote for President Trump. So that's interesting. But you're coming from a state where she was the governor, right?

Yeah, here's where I think it's important to point out. One is do we know how much she had to spend there yet? Have we pulled that number?

Around $10 million she had to spend to lose her home state. Now she's got to go into Super Tuesday with 16 states and one U.S. territory. They'll be voting next Tuesday. Of those 874 delegates available on Super Tuesday, two-thirds are in states with open or semi-open primaries.

So let's explain this to you. Seven are open primary. Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, and Minnesota have open Presidential primaries or caucuses. That makes it easier for independent voters to participate without having to declare a party affiliation. If you already have declared a party affiliation, I believe, Will, like in Tennessee, you could still switch to independent that day and then decide. I believe you just walk up to the polls and they say, when you vote here, they say, are you voting in the Democratic primary or the Republican primary? Right, that's it.

And then you can make a call regardless of how you're ready for it. Right. Okay, so that's those states. California and Colorado, they're semi-closed primaries. That allows independents to vote in certain party primaries if they want to, but it does not allow people who are officially Republicans or Democrats to do that. Massachusetts has unenrolled status, a unique feature. It allows voters to remain independent while still participating in the party primary of their choice. On Election Day, Oklahoma and Utah have specific rules with independents to vote in Democrat primaries, but not those for Republican candidates.

So you've got to know, what am I saying here? Your party rules, and then what's a legitimately good number for Donald Trump in those states? Because you can see, as I'm walking through, in a lot of these states, it opens the door for protest votes from the Democrat side, since Joe Biden doesn't have a serious challenge.

For sure. It at least gives you the opportunity to siphon a few percent off of that. Right, and to make the victory a little smaller for Donald Trump.

I still think he wants to be hitting in the 70% plus, because in so many of these states, you could say some of those votes were just Democrats anyways. I wasn't going to get their vote anyways. Things like that. We'll take your calls, too. We'll go through some more of those numbers at 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ.

Remember, you can become an ACLJ champion. You choose an amount comfortable for you, and then you donate online, and it donates each month. Welcome back. As you said, we are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Staying into politics, but there's also important updates on the war in Israel we want to get to as well, because, of course, we've got our team at ACLJ Jerusalem, and I know many of you are concerned about and support the state of Israel.

You see the rise in anti-Israel, anti-Jewish behavior here in the United States of America and in Europe. So, again, we'll get to that update in a moment, but I do want to take another call, Logan, on these cases, because they're good questions now that the eighth amendment has been raised on this giant financial penalty that Donald Trump's supposed to put together the next 23 days. Yeah, let's go to Greg who's calling in Georgia. Greg, you're on the air. Yeah, hi.

Thank you for taking my call. My question is simple. Trump is a Florida resident. If he goes the eighth amendment route, can he file that in the state of Florida in Palm Beach County where he'll have a better, I think I would say, more chances of having more favorable judges than he would in New York?

Or does he have to file in New York on this particular case since New York is suing a Florida resident? So, in this situation, remember, we are in state court, so the appeal on the eighth amendment at this point would remain in the state court system. Is there a possibility to ultimately move that constitutional question to federal courts in that, is it the second district? Second district is New York. Yeah, second circuit court appeal.

So, that's possible, Cece, but, I mean, again, you're not going to get to move it to Florida. And I get your question. It makes sense because some cases you can't move venue. This is not one of them because the case is already progressing. That happens usually at the beginning of a case.

Yeah, that's right. The case is already progressing, so it would already be well on its way and can't pick the venue of Florida. To update everyone on what is going on in Israel, there was talks in Geneva or Paris over the weekend between kind of the main players. I like how they're saying that Massad's chief was there with Qatar and I think a few other of the Gulf states. And the French, of course, were trying to negotiate a ceasefire.

They kind of came to an agreement. We don't know if Hamas will accept it, but, you know, the simple bullet point terms to what this ceasefire would mean. Right, and I think it's similar to the past ceasefire, but it's just more detailed. And, basically, they're going to release hostages, but, of course, they're only going to release about 35 hostages for several hundred Palestinian hostages. So 35 of the Israeli hostages would be released, and, again, that would be women, children, elderly, and anyone that has a medical condition right now. And for every hostage that's going to be released that they release, they would get a day of reprieve.

So that's about a six-week reprieve. And I think they're really trying to push this because Ramadan starts about the second week in March, and they're trying to get a ceasefire before Ramadan starts. Of course, their attack happened on a Jewish holiday also, so it's just part of the course.

I mean, this is, again, folks, 1-800-684-3110. We are answering your calls, your questions, if you've got questions about that as well. And for the most part, what I'm hearing from Israelis is that there would be a lot of support for this ceasefire. Maybe two months ago, no, but now that they're deeper into this conflict, to kind of finish off the idea of getting the hostages returned, the ones that are dead, the ones that are alive, the bodies, so that they can reassess where they are militarily and decide what they want to do next. And they also put this pressure on Hamas to actually make good on the ceasefire, which means there's no more attacks coming in, no more rockets coming into Israel, which could also help the businesses and the economy of Israel.

Which is always easier said than done. Yeah, and they've seen that with Israel trying to get back into gear. As you said, I believe American Airlines is the first one to say, yeah, we're returning to regular flights to Israel, not just specific ones coming from Israeli Airlines. So we're seeing that hopefully start to pick up. Obviously, people are going to be nervous even getting on an airplane flying to Israel right now, but it is what it is. Yeah, I want to go to play a bite. This is Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking on Face the Nation over the weekend, just to kind of explain the three war goals of the state of Israel.

Take a listen. I've set three war goals. The first is to release the hostages. The second is to destroy Hamas, and the third is to ensure that Gaza does not pose a threat to Israel in the future.

And obviously, the three are intertwined. They are achieved basically by our very effective and often heroic military operation and also by tough negotiations. We're combining the two, and I hope it yields a result. But understand that unless we have total victory, we can't have peace. We can't leave Hamas in place. We can't leave a quarter of Hamas battalions in Rafah and say, well, that's fine.

So again, you could do that by CC still agreeing to this deal. That's right, and I think Netanyahu has noticed that. And as you see, the very first thing that's on his list is to release the hostages. And I think we've done a good job, and Israelis have done a good job of let's not forget that they took 250 hostages. They did release 100, but they're what they believe is about 134 still alive.

We don't know that number for sure, but they think 134 is still alive. And they don't want us to forget the hostages are still there and trying to get them back. So it is this very intricate trying to negotiate a ceasefire, trying to get the hostages, and trying to wipe out Hamas.

It has been a very difficult, really, road for Netanyahu to travel. Yeah, I mean, again, I think this is the most likely scenario. We'll see if Hamas really wants to make a deal or not because I don't think they're going to get anything better than this. Six weeks of no Israeli combat inside the Gaza Strip, which of course would allow them to rearm. It would also allow Israel to kind of reassess what was working when they invaded and what was not working. So I don't think they're going to not go back in. But six weeks is a long time to... Well, you can think about it.

At least there could be that conversation of, is this it? Have we done enough damage? Have we gone in there and taken out enough? How long does it have to last to get the hostages? Because the concern is that Hamas doesn't have control over like Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So if they go on some rocket barrage because they don't like this, Israel's got to respond. Does that then end the ceasefire? Does Hamas fight back or do the hostages come first to get the six weeks?

Do you have to let the hostages out? And I think if that would be a safer play, it's just usually tougher to do that because they're just kind of like, well, all sides got what they want. They want to go back to war again. So I think, again, we're going to follow it closely for you to see if this one is viable. Seems like it's viable for the state of Israel.

Will it be viable for Hamas? They've got to accept this as well. And it just feels like in America, things have just continued to heat up. It doesn't feel like it has calmed down at all.

We've seen that sort of even in their table world. You had Jerry Seinfeld out on the streets yesterday getting harassed, getting thrown slurs at, calling him a Nazi. That's happening to big stars. You had Mattis-Yahu getting his concerts canceled, so much so that the- His songs were played, and I just want people to know this. Mattis-Yahu, when the World Cup was in South Africa- Yeah, everyone knows the World Cup song. It was one of the songs. There was the Shakira song and the Mattis-Yahu song. It was the mainstream act that's been playing for decades.

But also, he was Orthodox Jewish, now has sort of gone a little bit more reformed, I think, in his belief, but not much off of that. But he's been a strong supporter of Israel, so much so that his concerts started getting canceled. One happened in New Mexico. I want to let people know, these are concerts being canceled. I've been in that venue. That venue only holds maybe 200 people. It's not because he didn't sell the tickets.

The staff. There was two things. There was too many people who called out and said, I'm afraid to work this. They didn't necessarily always disagree with him. Then there was too much attention on it.

They were just scared of it, yeah. And then there were people who came still and protested just his tour bus, but so much so that you had the lead singer of Disturbed set up a fund for Mattis-Yahu this week. Mattis-Yahu Defense Fund, essentially, to make sure he has armed security at his concerts, because obviously he's being very specific in his beliefs.

But that's what's happening here in America. And again, Jerry Seinfeld last night, Gideon Acosta on the street. Obviously, he's been a big supporter. His wife's been a major supporter of Israel. We had someone set themselves on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in D.C.

They ultimately died from that police combat. Those kind of acts of extremely self-immolation. It just shows you, when those acts start occurring, how serious this issue is becoming. You've got Michigan Democrats saying, because you've got a lot of Muslims there, and the fact that they're all... I don't like saying that all Muslims are going to vote this way because they happen to be Muslim.

That's not true. But that Michigan Democrats are threatened to turn away from Biden over Israel aid. That would be almost a death blow to a Biden reelection, because Michigan is exactly the state that Donald Trump won in 2016, that he didn't win in 2020.

Because Biden was able to go in and work more of the union vote than Donald Trump was able to get more of in 2016, because Hillary Clinton wasn't doing his good enough job with that. So, again, there's a lot of politics at play, so we're going to get into that as well. Can you take your phone calls? 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And Logan, we want to make sure, too, we're adding to our ACLJ Champions every single day. Tell people about it. Yeah, with all our topics, whether it's Israel, whether it's your right to vote, which obviously this week we have... South Carolina, the 14th Amendment, then obviously we have Super Tuesday coming up next week. There's a lot of... there's a major life case coming tomorrow, as we're filing in Idaho.

And in three days, we're in federal court on the FOIA lawsuit against the Biden administration for awarding taxpayer funding to Hamas sympathizers. But we can't do any of that without your support, so you can become an ACLJ Champion. It essentially means you're becoming a monthly supporter.

All you have to do is go to ACLJ.org slash champions to donate now. You'll see it. It's really simple. If you're watching online, you can scan that QR code. It's easy. It'll take you just a few seconds. And again, you become a monthly donor, which is crucial to keeping us in these fights.

You're an ACLJ Champion. We'll be right back with more of your calls and comments in just a moment. Welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We're going to talk a little bit about what's going on at the border as well. And President Biden is making a trip the same day as President Trump is to the border on Thursday. It also ties into the fact that ICE has confirmed that that Georgia student murder suspect entered the U.S. – surprise, surprise – illegally and was previously arrested in New York City and was let out on their own. Were they let out on their own?

Did they even have to post a bond there? Yeah, I mean this, again, it tells you when you've got this illegal immigration crisis. This is just one of the heartbreaking stories that flows from it as you've got bad actors all over the country. In this case, I don't know if it's about just money.

I don't know if this is the kind of guy who just is a killer. I mean, we didn't get a lot more information, but the fact that it was an illegal immigrant has now, it takes an issue that was always number one or number two to people and it's going to stay there, I think, Logan, for this entire election. Yeah, and I was getting alerts on my phones and I just had them because obviously I follow all the Georgia accounts, the Georgia fan from Atlanta. That happens on the campus of a giant university. Yeah, it happens on the campus of a giant university and it's unfortunate, like you said, it opens up a very pointy conversation that needs to be happening in America. Obviously, you see now President Biden going to visit the border next week. On the same day, I believe, they said that President Trump is scheduled to appear also at the border. So, it's starting to become an issue they can't ignore and I think that is what will be the turning point. When they can quit ignoring it, actually embrace the fact that everyone knows there's a problem.

Maybe the Biden administration sees a way they could try to turn this around in the election year. Let's go ahead and take some phone calls. Let's go to Kevin who's calling my home for a long time. We appreciate it.

Kevin in California, you're on the air. Hey, I have a comment about the Trump trial, but also if I could, Hamas afterwards, that's up to you. So, the Trump thing is unbelievable. If this sets a precedent, a mortgage loan, now you can look at any mortgage loan and here in California 15 years ago, the majority of these lower end loans were stated income loans. So, you open up for no reason, there's no victim, the loan's been paid off, and somebody just decides arbitrarily to open up the file and go, oh, look it, you said you made $75,000. Now, the nature of a stated income loan is that you can't support with documents that income. That means every one of those loans would be subject to the government saying, wait a minute, because I don't like you and there is no victim, but I'm coming after you. Can you prove that you made $75,000? And that was a federally backed FHA loan.

And this is why Kevin O'Leary kind of famously, maybe Elon Musk, have brought this up. It would be every loan. Oh, you said you worked, and this is just one boxable loan. Yeah, I think, okay, so right here, I think New York, you're talking about California, you know, these are at the state level, and there are not many states that have this law. That is not the norm. In the most business-friendly states of the country, you're not going to be caught up in a civil fraud case because you got a loan from a company who agreed to loan you the money after what you submitted to them and after they did their due diligence and that you paid them back.

That would be it. This state would have nothing to look into. But in New York, you could do this without a victim. The victim, they're saying, is the state of New York that was defrauded somehow.

And again, it's a way, they think, to push Donald Trump out and, of course, punish him and push him out of New York City. But you look about it in the bigger picture and you say, Logan, this pushes lots of businesses out of New York City. Now, some have to be there, but what you do is you would minimize your assets. Your headquarters may not be there.

You'd minimize the assets. You're going to be doing business. I saw Jimmy Petronas, CFO of the state of Florida, he was putting out social media posts just overnight, last night, saying, hey, if you're one of these New York institutions, you want to move yourself to Florida, reach out to my office. So, I mean, now Florida, these states that are a little more accommodating, are going to start marketing. Bring your business here and directly on social media. With Oracle building up a huge … Well, I mean, you hear about it.

Obviously, they contact it. You don't see a lot of Instagram posts of take your business out of New York and bring it to Florida. But you have great leaders like Petronas that are doing that, so I appreciate that. But it is interesting to see that that's going to become a talking point, also beyond people who can or will bring up business one way or the other. But it will be a conversation that's happening and another boost to Florida, another boost to states like Tennessee. I think if your business is not politically aligned with the DA or the attorney general in that state, that somehow, because your business is aligned with their politics, though you follow all the rules, that you're going to be targeted more than someone who gives campaign donations to that person. And that is not a city or state you want to be doing business in. You can still do business in, but you minimize your assets and you minimize what they can take from you.

New York can't go to Florida to take Trump properties. Let's go ahead and go to Jeannie, who's calling in Oregon on Line 1. Jeannie, you're on the air. Thanks for taking my call.

I listened to you guys for years, and I appreciate all the information you share. I have a question. I don't know if you'll be even able to answer it, but considering what happened when the Supreme Court made the ruling on Roe versus Wade and how they even experience personal trauma in their lives, do you think that that is going to be a factor in their thinking in this Amendment 14? You'd hope not. The nerves of the fact that people doxxing them or showing up at their house, those kind of things that wouldn't impact. And you know, the people with selected Supreme Court are maybe stronger than that.

But I'm sure it's crossing your mind. Roe versus Wade and that was actually a bigger deal than this Colorado ballot issue and a bigger deal than even Presidential immunity because this would not just be about Donald Trump's immunity. It would be about future President's immunity.

They're a little bit more heady. I think also there's a lot of people out there who don't like the fact that a Republican secretary of state could decide to take a Democrat off the ballot who's the most popular Democrat. So again, I think the Supreme Court is more nervous.

There's a lot more security there than ever before, obviously. There's potential for more cases involving Donald Trump to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Now we're talking about the Eighth Amendment issue. That would be another issue that could work its way through the state court system and ultimately still end up. You could go from the top state of any court.

So in New York, it's not the state. The Supreme Court is the district court. But the Court of Appeals is their highest court. And once you finish out in the highest court, you can always appeal those kind of constitutional decisions directly to the U.S. Supreme Court like the Eighth Amendment issue. I mean, look, that's why, again, you wonder what's happening in Georgia and, again, how the Supreme Court decides on immunity. Like Dad said, they could even turn that into a merits case. Is it whether any of these trials will even proceed very far before the November election?

We'll be here for you to explain all of it and break down if there's anything new that breaks. Also, just so you have a baseline understanding, a better understanding of what these cases are, what they can mean for the future of the country. And we can't do that without the support of our ACLJ champions. Those are people who have decided to support the ACLJ on a monthly recurring basis.

We remain visually engaged in the biggest battles we face. You'll hear about it all week. We'll be talking about everything, whether that's from Israel, whether that's the Fourteenth Amendment, whether that's our pro-life causes.

There are so many different aspects of the ACLJ. And we do that at no cost to our clients, but obviously we can't do that. We can't do that or put on this broadcast without your support. So we encourage you to give monthly automatically by becoming an ACLJ champion. Get engaged in these critical battles.

Just to give you kind of some numbers to fight back with. In the 2016 South Carolina GOP primary, which Donald Trump won, like he was winning big all over the country in this third. Haley got 32 percent of the vote and won because there were still five candidates in the race. Marco Rubio and Cruz were next at 22 percent. In 2024, he got 60 percent and Nikki Haley got less than 40. In the 2020 South Carolina Democrat primary, Joe Biden, who was running against Sanders and then a few who, like Buttigieg and Ward who were polling low, got 48 percent in South Carolina. So again, was unable to go over the majority there. So the idea they're saying this was bad for Donald Trump, I think when you go into Super Tuesday and he starts getting 75 plus percent, people forget South Carolina. He just won it big. It's the news. Try to keep a story alive. We will keep you updated at ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-26 14:42:09 / 2024-02-26 15:04:07 / 22

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