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

BREAKING: Judge Orders Divorce Attorney to Take the Stand IMMEDIATELY in Fani Willis Case

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 27, 2024 1:10 pm

BREAKING: Judge Orders Divorce Attorney to Take the Stand IMMEDIATELY in Fani Willis Case

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1044 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


February 27, 2024 1:10 pm

The saga continues for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade. The judge in the case has ordered that Wade’s divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley, testify about the couple’s relationship. Will the testimony impact the judge’s decision on whether DA Willis will be disqualified from her case against President Donald Trump for alleged 2020 election interference? The Sekulow team discusses the disqualification hearing in Georgia, the ACLJ’s battle at the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve voting rights, President Biden’s foreign policy – and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Breaking news today on Sekulow as a judge orders the divorce attorney to take the stand immediately in Fannie Willis' case out of Georgia.

Hi Sekulow folks, there's more breaking news now. We told you yesterday that the judge in the Fannie Willis decision about whether she should be removed, the entire DA's office removed from that trial in Atlanta. Fulton County involving President Trump and about 15 others. And again it's not just about removing her, it's removing the entire DA's office.

Then a new DA would be appointed and could come in and try to continue the case but they'd have to start from scratch or dismiss the case entirely. And things are continuing to get worse for Fannie Willis and the special counsel she brought in, Nathan Wade. Because initially Nathan Wade's former partner at his firm, who remember he took the stage initially, testified but really claimed a lot of privilege. The judge of the case thought he was claiming too much privilege dad so he brought him into the judge's chambers yesterday and after that discussion is putting him back on the stand today. So the point of the discussion was to determine if in fact what he was going to testify to was in fact privileged.

If it's outside the scope of the representation, it's not. So that was what that, in camera, when it was just the judge and him. So basically the judge was able to tell him these are the kind of questions you do have to answer. You're not violating privilege, you're not going to be in trouble as an attorney.

You need to give straight answers whether it's yes or no or that you don't know. But you can't just say privilege. But the more you want a judge to tell you, you have to testify. Especially because that was kind of happening, as we told you, that was happening very quickly that day. Remember, Fannie Willis didn't have to burst into the courtroom and testify.

Yet. Right. Like she chose to do that. Then she was supposed to come back the next day and her team was, you know, trying to claim, oh she hasn't...

Wisely decided she shouldn't do that. Right. But now you have an extra hearing. Plus it's more cross-examinations. And then we know it's still an opportunity for closing statements. The question will be does Fannie Willis and Wade have to go back and have another time on the stand to counter this? Well, Wade's going to be in the stand.

I think he's going to be in there today. I would suspect he's going to have to testify. Steve Sadao, Trump's lawyer, will cross-examine him.

And it's a hostile cross, so you can ask leading questions. And he's going to have to correct things he said. He was under oath.

So it is conceivable that the two people that are in real trouble in this are Fannie Willis and Mr. Wade. And this is because, again... Because if you lie to a judge under oath, that's a felony. They were under oath when they said that they saw each other prior to... The defense attorney said it started prior to the hiring.

They said no, it didn't start until 2022. Then they've got these phone records and times and the 35 visits and the trips that they've taken together. But this is different.

This is... They said that when the relationship started... Let's put all that aside. He will have to answer that today. Put all of that aside.

He'll have to answer that today because he knows that. Correct, because that's not going to be deemed privileged for whatever reason. So if it's not privileged, the real question becomes then, who is telling the truth? Well, the records tell the truth because of their records.

Now, they don't pinpoint you to a house. But if you made a false statement under oath to a judge in a live court proceeding, that is a felony under Georgia law. So both of them, if this is what it turns out to be, could be... The prosecutors could be charged with a felony.

Here's the message. Don't prosecute ridiculous cases because you end up in trouble, prosecutor. Put Rico together. Which was never a RICO case. Right. And then bringing in someone with no experience.

That's why initially people started investigating Wade himself. Right. He wasn't... Usually a DA would bring in a RICO expert and he wasn't. Right.

Never done one. I don't think he'd ever done a RICO case. Correct. Bringing him in, paying him that much money, and he's not a specialist, raised everyone's suspicions from the beginning. So it gave something for the defense teams to start looking at while this case was just getting started. We're taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. Again, there's a private... This could put the whole case over with.

Yeah. So you can have one of these cases against President Trump could be done. We still are waiting for the Supreme Court.

We did not get opinion today on the 14th Amendment or the immunity stay. So, again, they have another day tomorrow that could come. We'll see. We'll be right back on Sekulow. All right.

Welcome back to Sekulow. So, again, just to kind of update you, we are still awaiting and watching the Supreme Court on two matters involving President Trump. One is a case where we are party, where we represent the Colorado Republican Party.

That is the 14th Amendment Section 3 case. Early voting in our home state ends today. We're a Super Tuesday state. And then, of course, you can vote on Super Tuesday, but this is the last day to early vote.

So we know that in a lot of these elections, that's half the people who have already voted in many of these Super Tuesday states that have early voting. So we thought the Supreme Court would likely come out with opinion before Super Tuesday. They still could do that because there's another time tomorrow, Dad, where they would usually issue opinions like that before they go to arguments. There are opinions Wednesday. So, normally, on opinion day is also the day of the oral argument. However, in a case like this, where it's so significant, they could especially release it at any time. At any time, at any moment.

I'm a little bit surprised it's taking this long. And then on the stay matter. Now, that's the stay matter. That's the Jack Smith matter on the immunity question and, you know, when does Presidential immunity end? Is it official acts versus, you know, unofficial acts outside the presidency, inside the presidency? That immunity question that the Trump team asked for a stay for the Supreme Court, there wasn't a quick yes or no. Yeah, I mean, surprisingly, normally, it goes to the Chief Justice, then he'll, in that particular case, because it came out of D.C., and then it's referred to the rest of the court.

And they have to have five votes for a stay to be issued. There's been nothing. We don't even know if it's technically been referred to the court. On the docket sheet, it doesn't say that.

But in law probability, it has. So, there's three options here. One is, could be they've converted the… Yes, that's it. So, it's technical. They could have converted the stay application to a petition for certiorari and the court may be working on a question presented.

So, that can take some time. It could be that there is, there were not four votes for certiorari, but there were maybe two votes for certiorari. So, there's a denial of the stay and a dissent from the denial of the stay. And the third option is, they could be writing an opinion. I mean, they could do a per curiam opinion based on what was filed. As you said yesterday, those were fairly substantive briefs.

So, it could be all that. Yeah, on Presidential immunity, post-Presidential immunity, what happens, you know, is that court of appeals said you lose all of it the day you… The moment you're at 1201 on January when you're no longer President, which makes no sense on the official acts. And then defining what are official and unofficial acts gets very in the weeds. The courts, they want… This tells you what happens when you have political prosecutions.

Yeah, multiples going on at the same time. So, you've got up in the air on the Jack Smith case and, remember on the Jack Smith case, that one of the issues, which is the interfering with an act of Congress, the Supreme Court's already granted review over. Those are two of the four charges against President Trump. The court's already granted review on those, on a case unrelated to Donald Trump.

So, that's up there. They need to pause this stuff. Let the election take place.

Pause this stuff because here's what's happening. And Georgia is the example. It's out of control.

We look like a third world country. Right. I mean, you know, again, you're starting the case and now you've got a separate case within the case about whether the DA and the special counsel was brought in to bring this RICO charges should be disqualified from the case. And even now they've gone under oath. Did they lie under oath?

And that it poses other issues if a new DA is appointed. So, we're going to have that hearing this afternoon with Wade, a former partner, and he was his divorce attorney as well, who mostly took the stand and claimed privilege, but now he knows what he's got to answer. That will be on camera probably this afternoon. And then you will see, again, do we see testimony again? Does Wade take the stand again? Does Willis take the stand again? We know that they're still closing, like closing arguments scheduled from the defense team and the prosecutorial team, and then ultimately a decision by the judge. That could come, again, I guess by the end of this week. This is now on week three of this matter within the case. It has been a long time.

And you've also, just to make it clear, people have this question as well. If this all got tossed, if she gets removed from the case and the next DA comes and says, I'm not restarting this case. The election is about to happen. This is too much work to start with. It was started so badly.

Starting from zero doesn't work because we're too far removed from the years this happened. The people who did make plea agreements, what happens to them? They will file motions to vacate the plea. Those will definitely be granted and their records will be removed. And if they did pay a financial penalty?

They will get it paid back. And what about, you said there is even potential for them to sue? Maybe even, you know, prosecutorial misconduct. See how far this goes with the, again, it's no guarantees that Fannie Willis is being removed, but even the Atlanta Journal- Boy, I think the headline seems, I mean, look, we'll find out this afternoon that this is what you're going to find- They're preparing for it. The left is preparing for it. Here's what you're going to find out.

I mean, let's, okay. You're going to find out that they made untruthful statements under oath during a trial while they were under oath in a criminal proceeding. Where neither one of them were, she was not compelled to testify like that. There was still an open question.

She voluntarily did it. They both testified. Apparently, we'll see what it says, now that the attorney client issue was not there, that those misstatements were material.

Material misstatements are felonies. So the people that could end up being in trouble in this, when it's all said and done, are Miss Willis and Mr. Wade. Okay. So I think, again, we're going to take your calls.

This is 1-800-684-3110. Logan, again, we also encourage people to, if you're watching us on YouTube, there's going to be a lot of this this week. I mean, there's a lot of people watching on YouTube. And there's, again, we know we brought in a lot of people as we break down these legal issues because we're going to have an afternoon hearing. We're going to see how that will impact future hearings on just this matter within this case that could be the end of, the beginning of the end of this prosecution in Georgia.

And then, of course, watching what the Supreme Court will do. So we want people to make sure they subscribe to our page, who maybe do. That's right. If you're new to our YouTube channel, we encourage you to subscribe right now. Click that subscribe button.

Click the thumbs up as well and put in your comments. We monitor the comments, the whole broadcast. We take many of them during the show. So if you're new to us, join the ACLJ channel right now by subscribing, same on Rumble. Or if you're watching on Facebook or whatever it is, just do whatever that feature is to make sure you're following along because we continue these updates throughout the day with tons of video content.

Amazing video content. Let's go to Janice is calling on line three. Janice, you're on the air. Hi. I was wondering, I need some clarification on this whole New York case.

OK. I don't understand the charges that were brought against Trump. I don't understand how it ever got a conviction.

And isn't there some kind of law against. Well, it was a civil it was a civil fraud lawsuit, not a criminal case. It was a civil fraud lawsuit.

And that was relating to putting over evaluations and false statements on loans. So it's not a criminal case. It's a civil case. And he was convicted. So it's not deemed a frivolous lawsuit at this point because he was convicted and found guilty.

Yeah. I mean, there's there's certain things that you can you can challenge the the penalty is whether or not that has been that could be part of the legitimate challenge. But to to file that appeal in New York, you've got to put up the bond. They put they have filed the notice of appeal so that it appears that a bond will be put up for that amount. But that that this penalty alone was too much. They could even make an Eighth Amendment argument there.

We talked about that yesterday. That will all be happening in the future where, again, New York is unique because everyone that gave these loans was repaid or is being repaid the way they should be. No one has any issue. None of the companies. There was no victim and no damages, though. That's what New York said.

There should have been no case. But it just listen, if you're a business in New York, this has got to be sending shockwaves through your entire corporate structure and system. Yeah, especially if that's your headquarters, especially if we've got the majority of your assets, even if you've got assets there. Yeah.

I mean, it could reach them. Yeah. That includes think about all those international banks that have made New York what New York is through all of the financial world being there.

Rethinking that, OK, if we put all these assets there and they could seize it just because they don't like us one day, even though we haven't done anything illegal. Right. Or wrong that we knew of because we just have a business contract with another business and it all went well.

The other business didn't complain, didn't take them to court. Again, it's unique to New York. A lot of people had not seen this used before. And I think it's another thing that will hurt New York down the road. Unfortunately.

Yeah. Maybe the people are not thinking about it because they can't take their mind off the Trump derangement part. It's like, oh, it's Donald Trump.

That won't happen to me. But I think long term people, the business people are smarter than that. They realize this new Democrat of New York City is different and they're coming in. They're pushed out a lot of the old Democrats. They went after him legally and they're they're using all the law they can to take on political opponents.

That's right. We also encourage you to become an ACLJ champion and support the work of the ACLJ. Your ACLJ remains vigilantly engaged in the biggest battles we have ever faced.

And in the midst of the crisis in Israel, in the midst of the crisis at the border, all the different things, there's also a lot of action happening right now in the battle for life. We are grateful to the over 19000 champions right now who are fighting alongside us at the ACLJ. We want you to know that you can also if you're looking for just a pro life information, we have a lot of categories broken up on our website. You can just go to stuff like ACLJ dot org slash pro life where you can you kind of get all the facts you can share with your friends. Again, ACLJ dot org slash pro life. And we encourage you to check out becoming a recurring monthly supporter. That's an ACLJ champion.

You can do that by just going to ACLJ dot org slash champions and do that today. We appreciate it. We got a lot more coming up. Mike Pompeo is going to be joining us here, I believe, in the next segment.

Is that right? Well, yep, next segment. We got Mike Pompeo, so make sure you stay tuned. If you want to call in 1-800-684-3110, those on hold will get to you a little bit later in the show. Yeah, we understand a lot of these are complicated legal questions, so don't feel like you can't ask your question.

That's why we're here for you. 1-800-684-3110. There's also a primary today in Michigan. We'll get to that as well as what happens on Super Tuesday.

Mike Pompeo coming up next. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to get back to your phone calls too on all these legal matters that are circling around Georgia, that are circling around the U.S. Supreme Court as we wait for a couple of big decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court. Early voting. A lot of people, I know where we are in a Super Tuesday state. This is the final day of early voting before next week on Super Tuesday. Waiting to see if that case will be out of the Supreme Court before on the 14th Amendment.

We believe so, but what didn't come out yesterday, didn't come out today, could come out tomorrow or at any time this week because it's a unique case that's kind of been fast-tracked, but not as quickly as some thought, which could lead to a few different things. Secretary Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs is joining us now. Secretary Pompeo, I want to go to some international issues first because we've been focusing on all these domestic and political issues, but the Biden Administration going to Israel just reversed what was known as the Pompeo Doctrine by declaring new Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal and against international law. And so, again, Biden has gotten a lot wrong when it comes to Israel.

What is he getting wrong by reversing the Pompeo Doctrine this late into his first term? I don't think we've administration's policy all along, which is this central idea that Israel has the fundamental right to defend itself and that's the rightful homeland of the Jewish people. When you when you declare that when you reverse the idea that these and state that these settlers are illegal, what you're saying is that the Israelis are occupiers, that this is not their rightful homeland. And when you do that, you encourage the bad guys, the really bad guys, the terrorists, the Palestinian leadership, Hamas, Iran, you encourage them because you have now sided not with Israel, but with their adversaries.

And that's that's the danger. And by doing this in what appeared to be kind of a flippant comment made down in Brazil off the top of his head from Secretary Blinken, you undermine basic idea that says, no, the Israelis since 1948 have had this nation and continue to deserve it. And it is the right place for them. They are not occupiers. They're not indecent.

They're good people simply trying to live their own lives. And it'd be retroactive so that even places that were built in the last four years or that are being built, that those would now be considered illegal by the United States government. And of course, as you said, that that goes to the issue of being an occupier, which then goes to the issue of is it legitimate to attack those individuals if they are illegally there or is it legitimate to carry out attacks on the IDF troops who might be protecting those settlements? But there was a second confusing statement as well relating to Israel, and it came from President Biden, because we know that there's top negotiations on a possible cease fire and a major release of hostages that actually has some life to it still. I mean, it doesn't it hasn't been fully approved by Hamas, but even Israel appears if these points remain, that as of now, they would be likely to accept it. We haven't heard from Hamas yet. And then you have President Biden come out and say that he thinks there's going to be a cease fire as soon as Monday, and both the Israelis and Hamas push back on that, and they seemed really caught off guard.

Is that another example? You just said Blinken kind of doing these things off the cuff outside the United States, you know, in Brazil, and now you've got Joe Biden getting ahead of negotiations. It just goes to the idea of not being strategic on really sensitive matters.

I mean, it could take a lot less to ruin a lot of hard work. Jordan, when I heard him say that, I was really surprised. I don't know the state of the conversations. I'm so thrilled that everyone's still working to try and get these hostages home. You've met with them.

I've met with these families. We ought to continue to work to do that. But to see the President just kind of randomly say, oh, I think the vibe looks really good when these are complicated, hard negotiations that have impact not only for the lives of the hostages, but the strategic security of Israel as well.

It just seemed it seems so unserious. And frankly, you know, you asked earlier, what's the real challenge with the Biden policy there? You know, they get some angry Arabs in Michigan and all of a sudden they say, you know, the Israelis need to stop. The Israelis can't stop, Jordan. They can't stop until they've eradicated this threat, not only the threat that exists in Gaza, but the threats that extend from Iran as well. This is serious business. Why not not to be talking about vibes and and going on late night talk shows and getting in front of the negotiators?

That is really dangerous stuff. And I think suggests that President Biden doesn't really understand the risk that he creates by doing precisely what we just talked about. Secretary Pompeo staying on Israel, but also now bringing in China. At the ICJ, there's an ongoing case involving the South Africa broad against Israel alleging genocide.

So at the International Court of Justice and China's foreign ministry, their legal representative made this statement, which I'll read before the International Court of Justice yesterday. China has consistently supported the just cause of the Palestinian people and restoring their legitimate right. The Palestinian Israeli conflict stems from Israel's prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory and Israel's longstanding oppression of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people fight against Israel's oppression and their struggle for completing the establishment of an independent state on the occupied territory are essentially just actions for restoring their legitimate rights.

The right to self determination as a precise legal foundation for this struggle. I mean, to me, that is the Chinese government endorsing as completely OK with what happened on October 7th, which was not a Hamas attack on the IDF, but was a Hamas attack on civilians, children, families and homes. And of course, they still have hostages. So it was not a military to military conflict. This was an attack on people, and China seems to be endorsing that.

Oh, Jordan, I don't think there's any doubt you nailed it. That's exactly what they were doing. They were endorsing what took place on October 7th and saying it was justified by Israeli occupation.

We've known for a long time. The Chinese Communist Party almost always sides with the bad actor, the indecent actor. They're playing footsie with the Russians, giving them weapons systems in Ukraine. They're working with the Iranians. They're very close to Chairman Kim in North Korea. Unsurprising that they would pick Palestinian terrorists, Hamas and Iran, to be their partners.

And, you know, it's interesting when I listen to that statement and then listen to our discussion earlier, frankly, some of the language that they used is not dissimilar from the language that the United States Department of State is using today, talking about settlers being illegal, talking about, you know, this has impact on trade and the BDS movement. I get that it's different, but the United States needs to be very careful, needs to be full throated in support of Israel, not come closer to the Chinese position than to the Israeli position. I mean, you got into it a little bit that they've just kind of side with the bad actors, but what do you think was the Chinese motivation to actually send a legal adviser there to make this statement official on behalf of China at the International Court of Justice, where I don't think they would fare very well amongst a host of issues. But it's interesting that they thought this was the time to go and make such a bold statement to the world. I suspect a couple of things. One, I think they're putting pressure on President Biden.

They can see he's beginning to become irresolved, become weak, and so they're putting pressure. Second, my guess is they were asked to do this by the Iranians. The Iranians provide an enormous amount of very cheap crude oil to the Chinese Communist Party. It wouldn't surprise me, but the two of them are, what's a simple term, in cahoots on this. And so the timing of this makes perfect sense, applies maximum pressure at the point of where the whole world is breaking against Israel politically.

And you can ultimately convince the Israelis they have to stop, at least that would be their objective, given the Iranians even more freedom to move about the region. Secretary Pompeo, as always, we appreciate you being part of our team as a senior counsel for Global Affairs of the ACLJ, so we can talk through these issues. Folks, when we come back, we've got one phone line open, 1-800-684-3110. We'll start answering your questions on Georgia, the Supreme Court, these Trump legal issues that also affect a lot of other people, and your votes when we come back on SECU. Support the work of the ACLJ, Logan, our ACLJ Champions Program, a great place for people to go.

Go to ACLJ.org slash champions, do that today. We'll be right back, and we're going to take more of your calls coming up after this. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls.

The lines are full right now, but you can call 1-800-684-3110. I want to just remind everyone we have breaking news, and we were talking to Secretary Pompeo about some international issues which were very important, involving Israel, China, the United States, cease-fire's potential, and some missteps by the Biden administration. We wanted to get to that, but I want to take you back to the bigger news, which is, remember yesterday we talked that the Fannie Willis, this kind of trial within the trial of whether or not she should be removed from the case as DA, and that means the entire DA's office. So everyone that works with her, including Bradley, Wade, who she brings in as a special counsel on the $700,000, should they all be removed because, again, they testified about their relationship. Was that correct or incorrect? Were they lying under oath about that, about the timing of that, about the time they spent together, the phone calls?

We've all heard about that. But remember there was a witness to this. It was Wade's former law partner who was his attorney during Wade's divorce that he had, and so he testified during this early but mostly was claiming privilege. And I think, again, he was being careful as an attorney because it put him in a weird spot because, again, you would probably want your attorney to do the same thing if it was happened very quickly.

And so he kind of leaned on the side of privilege. The judge thought he was invoking it too much, so they had their, in camera is what they call a discussion yesterday with the judge and him, and they've come up with what questions he has to answer that he cannot claim privilege on. And so we expect those will definitely go to when the relationship began, and does that contradict their testimony under oath, which says that the relationship began after, and there's been testimony that that relationship began before, that this was, again, all set up to benefit someone that you were in a romantic relationship with, and these trips and the money and then the list goes on from there. Why did you choose a special counsel on a RICO case who's never done a RICO case before and pay him $700,000? Then the questions are, again, what happens next? Well, we know there's going to be a hearing today. He will not be able to claim privilege on all of that because he agreed. The judge and him now know what he's got to answer from Trump's attorneys and other people's attorneys, and then there's definitely closing arguments. The question is, will we have more hearings on this?

You could see the fact that Willis comes back to defend herself or that you do that through attorneys or Wade as well, because they could be facing some serious problems, not just being removed from the case. And Logan, I do want to get to the phones. People have been holding on, and we're going to keep taking their phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Jamie who's calling in Georgia on Line 3.

Jamie, you're on the air. Hey, my question about with Fannie and Wade Lyon, if they're found guilty of perjury, would that not, could other people that they prosecuted, could they not bring that up and say, hey, this VA is a liar? I think, again, if she was removed and in fact got criminally prosecuted, certainly if you had some evidence that you thought you were wrongly convicted because of wrongdoing by the DA's office, you're allowed to present that. I mean, you could certainly try and present that.

Nothing happens automatically. I would say, again, remember, this involves this special relationship that doesn't exist in really these other cases that I know of with Wade. So if that's very fact-specific to Wade, if later on this turns into a criminal matter for her because she was lying under oath, yeah, people could certainly look at their case. It doesn't guarantee you anything because, again, you had the right to appeal then, but you could certainly, I think, look at it again and the way her entire office was operating.

It wasn't operating, as you said, like on the up and up, or is there a pattern here? And we just saw it because this case is so high profile, so you've got much more high profile attorneys, 16 of them involved on one side of this case, and a lot of money exchanging hands on the DA's side of this case, and a lot of politics at play that other cases usually wouldn't get. So no guarantees. Hey, there's no guarantees yet that she's getting removed.

I think the left is preparing for her to be removed and for this trial to basically crumble, but there's no guarantees of that yet. We've still got hearings to go. We'll see what Bradley says, and we've got more to talk about today.

We'll take more of your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. Subscribe to the channel if you're watching us on YouTube and rumble so you're getting these updates as these cases progress. All right, so we've broken through it now. A reminder, too, we're waiting for the Supreme Court on two major issues. I mean, one is the 14th Amendment case.

We're a party to. We represent the Colorado Republican Party and President Trump and removing him from the ballot. Secretary of State, I don't have to go all through it right now, but that case, again, is before the U.S. Supreme Court, and we expect a decision very soon. It didn't come out this morning before the oral arguments. It could tomorrow morning they have oral arguments scheduled. It could come at any time because it is a case that's not on a normal schedule, but you would think they would use their normally scheduled time probably to release it.

Now, the stay that President Trump has requested, that's very different. That doesn't necessarily have to come out through in orders in the morning before oral argument, but there's not been a decision on that. And as my dad said earlier, and he'll join us when we finally do get those decisions again, and if that happens this week, that even could be turned into, not necessarily, but it could be turned into an actual case that they hear or have decided they just hear it on the briefing and actually issue an opinion on. So, again, when you start getting two and three weeks passed, you start thinking that they're up to something more bigger, that they're not handling it in the shorter way that they could have necessarily handled, so we'll keep an eye on that and the hearing in Georgia today where Wade's, who was the special counsel in the Fannie Willis prosecution against Trump and the 15 or 16 others, that his former law partner had that meeting and now will have to go publicly and answer questions and not be able to claim privilege.

And so one of those questions we know will be when did their relationship start? So did they lie under oath about that last week? I don't know what he's going to say, but he didn't answer it last time. It doesn't mean that he's definitely going to go and contradict that, but if he does, you know, batter down the hatches because what else will he start contradicting? And he now knows from the judge what he has to answer and what he doesn't have to answer, so he's got that privilege issue handled.

And I think that was actually smart of him as an attorney because when you represent people, you wouldn't want your attorney necessarily going up there and just saying whatever about you when they just represent you in a very personal matter in a divorce case. If we take your calls now, 1-800-684-3110, we do have two lines open for you. You've got time to be on the show. 1-800-684-3110, Logan. I'm just going to order a people call in because so many of them called in. Let's go first to Jeff in North Carolina on line two. Jeff, you're on the air. Hey, Jeff.

Hi, guys. So what would the process be if Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade are found to have lied to the judge under oath? What would the process be? Would they be charged and then have to come back in court and face those charges? Or would it be a closed door kind of they're going to make it go away type deal?

It's not an automatic. I think in that matter, you'd have another DA. I don't know in that situation if it's a special counsel. Likely, if that's happening, that means this rises to the level of her being removed. So they thought that was so important to the case that that misstatement means that her whole team and all the work they've done to prosecute this case, that they have to be removed because of the fact that they were so bold on when their relationship began and some of the other questions they were asked. Then you would get into the matter about whether there was prosecution or not. Either a new DA or a new special counsel from the state, the bar of the state of Georgia could look into it as well. This could certainly affect their ability to practice law, depending on, again, if they believe this is substantive enough.

Until you get all the information, it's not looking good for them right now, Logan. I always say, until you know, in these matters that could... I think the first win for President Trump here is not her being criminally prosecuted or losing her bar life. The first win is her whole office being removed, a new DA getting appointed and having to say, they have to start from scratch then, and them saying, this is too close to the election, I don't think there's enough here, and then everybody, not just Donald Trump, is exonerated.

The win isn't the personal life that you're going after. The end is, this is a case that needs to be thrown out. And it also is a sign to these other prosecutors that if you're going to bring these politically charged cases, there better be real issues, and you better not just be doing it to get a lot of attention.

Because when you do get a lot of attention, that means that the defense attorneys are going to do what they can to defend their clients from the charges you're filing against them, and the way you're trying to destroy some of their lives. Yeah, let's go to David who's calling in Kentucky. Line 4, David, welcome.

Thank you. I've been following the Fannie Willis case and I find it very interesting. Some things that I think will work against her in the future is that, one, she states, she paints this picture of being in so much danger she had to flee her home to a condo that was in her friend's name. None of this, no paper trail to Fannie Willis. She paid her friend in all cash. There was no paper trail, so I don't know what she'd done to the friend, but we would have known nothing about this condo if it hadn't been for the friend. Now, this woman left her kids, her daddy, back in this horrible situation at the house, apparently. Nobody at work knew she was with Wade.

None of her security team knew she was with Wade. She was taking and going on these trips, these all-day drives. If her life was in that much danger, I mean, I would have took care of my kids and I would have made sure everybody knew this is who I'm traveling with in case something happened. Yeah, I mean, I think, listen, I think there are a lot of attention on these cases. I wouldn't put it past that the fact that you don't know anything about that is because of the threats you get when you get involved in politically charged cases.

I don't know if that's the most troubling part for her in this case, the fact that her home life has been disrupted by this case is not that surprising to me. I mean, when you go against a former President, you've got these former President supporters, people who act crazy, crazy people, you get more attention than you've ever gotten. You run on the fact that you're going to take this guy down. You put him through the process of fingerprinting him and photographing him.

I mean, the whole thing. Again, though, I don't think, I think we put too much focus on whatever happens to her. I think the right thing here is to think what happens to this case.

That's what we're looking at first. And then how does that affect the future in the sense of other DAs looking at doing the same thing? Because you better have a real good reason to open up an investigation because, again, these are, people are going to defend themselves, even in civil matters, criminal matters too. Which is what's criminal. If they believe their livelihood is in jeopardy for either financial penalties or losing their licenses to practice law, the list goes on.

They're going to fight back aggressively. And if you have done anything improper, it's going to get out there. And that's what's now happening to her. That doesn't happen in every case because every prosecutor doesn't have these complications. But she did it initially by bringing in an attorney who had no experience on RICO and paying him an exorbitant amount of money. So she kind of, again, she put the defense attorneys, she gave them a place to start looking and gave them a reason to fight back on this.

Yeah. There's a lot of calls coming in. Still, a lot of people are calling and we'll get to as many of you as you can. Some different topics here if they've come up, but let's go ahead and take them. Let's go to Tyler, who's calling in Texas on line one. Tyler, you're on the air.

Hey, I have three questions related to each other. How many lawsuits does Trump currently have? How many are in the Supreme Court?

And is there anything that protects a U.S. citizen from being bombarded by lawsuits? I'm counting five on my head right now. So you've got Florida, classified documents, Georgia, Fannie Willis, New York City, New York State, D.C., that's five. Two of them are at the Supreme Court. Now, one of those is the ballot access. That would be six. But that was the Trump campaign.

And that's him, though. I mean, is he going to be on the ballot or not? Two are at the Supreme Court. One on the merits, definitely. That's the 14th amendment question. The second one was a stay on the immunity case from D.C. It's not the insurrection case because they didn't charge him with that, but obstruction and things like that of congressional proceedings. So I think I'm right when I say six and two at the Supreme Court.

But one of the Supreme Courts on the merits, one is on a stay, but could be converted into an on the merits case where they have a oral argument. They also could be saying, well, your briefing was sufficient enough for us actually to come up with a decision. So we will see. We don't know. But again, it's a good question to remind people just how much President Trump and people associated with him are dealing with.

Let's clarify. There isn't for people been asking about what time the hearing could be today. They're saying just in the afternoon sometime.

Well, that's current update is sometime this afternoon. We'll keep you updated as we know more information. Let's take Don is calling California about Israel at a question about that.

But keep calling in 1-800-684-3110. We'd love to hear your questions. Don, go ahead. Bless you.

Bless you what you do. You know, I'm really upset. You know, I'm hearing that Biden and our government and the British are talking about recognizing a Palestinian state over the heads of the Israeli government. And it astounds me, you know, the Brits have a lot to atone for in Israel. They were the ones that, you know, led the Arabs in the initial attack against Israel back in 48. The Arab Legion, all that stuff. So where they get their nerve doing something this unconscionable is beyond me. You know, it just goes back to the book.

You know, I will bless those who bless thee and curse those who curse thee. You know, have a care when you mess with the land that God gave Israel. Yeah, I think, listen, Don, both the UK government through their former prime minister and current foreign minister, David Cameron, said that he would like at the end of this conflict to have a path to recognize a Palestinian state so that they have some positive way of moving forward. The US government says they're working on it, too.

So you're not wrong. What you just said is correct that both the Biden administration and the current UK government would like to see a Palestinian government. They've kind of laid out what it would look like. I don't think they could get there.

I mean, unless it's just on paper, they kind of like make it up because you ask these people who's going to be the leader? No one has a good answer for that. What about the fact that these two territories are not connected? No one has a good answer for that. I mean, Hamas in one, Fatah in another.

How do you do that in a year or less? But they are supporting it and coming out very strong against Israel. Reid Bank, taking your phone calls. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls, too, at 1-800-684-3110 on what's happening in Georgia. I did want to kind of get back to an issue that we're dealing with and assisting on here at the American Center for Law and Justice involving Israel. And of course, you've seen again what's happening internationally with President Biden kind of getting out ahead of the ceasefire negotiations, which Israel has indicated they would be if the terms were accepted by Hamas. But again, they'd have to be accepted by Hamas. We haven't seen that yet.

That they would be inclined to accept. We have some details, but again, we haven't had a Hamas answer yet. And President Biden went on publicly yesterday and said he thinks there's going to be a ceasefire Monday. And we talked about that with Secretary Pompeo. We've also done it, Jeff, this is kind of like very real time because we were just doing it this morning. You're in Israel and I'm here in the U.S. And as ACLJ attorneys, we were assisting a social media company.

We're not going to name them. They just asked for some help on an issue involving really what happened around January 7th and the rise in anti-Semitism that we're seeing and the word Zionism, Jeff. And so this morning we were working with them because we saw we're seeing it places like Google.

I mean, this is that was not who we were talking to. If you're trying to put that two together, where even staff is seeing it inside their offices, they're seeing the words kill all Jews written on their bathroom walls. Jewish employees being assaulted by protesters when they leave their campuses and needing more security because they happen to be Jewish. This happening inside the United States of America.

That's right, Jordan. We have gotten to the point that the incessant incitement against Jews and frequently they use the word Zionists and pretend they don't mean Jews, but we all understand they mean Jews. They know they mean Jews, that this incitement claiming that Israel is committing genocide or Zionists are committing genocide, none of which is true, has led to not just abuse and harassment, but physical violence against Jews around the world, including in America. And the fact that we were called on to assist social media companies to try to sort out when speech might be inciting speech more at this point now, it is literally dangerous just to be a Jew. Not just, you know, people think it's dangerous in Israel, it's dangerous in Arab countries because there are Jews now and, you know, countries because the Abraham Accords, those are some of the safest countries. In the West, there are certain places it's physically dangerous to be a Jew, and many of those are woke corporations. Yeah, I mean, this is happening inside Logan, I think it was January 7th, but since really what we saw on October 7th in Israel, we saw this rise to anti-Semitism around the world, especially in Western Europe and the Western world, including the United States, where we're seeing massive protests on a daily basis. We have Google saying, yeah, they found some anti-Semitic writings that are very specific in their bathroom.

Sure, there's a lot of people that come in and out of those buildings, you know, staff level at all ends. So you don't know what you're talking about here, but the fact that that's even something that's going through people's minds, whether they are doing it as hate speech, by the way, could be towards also the Google employees and to the people there, because guess what? We've got a lot of Jewish employees, I'm sure, at Google, who knows when it comes to the direction, but we do know specifically at least who it's aimed at, and that is the Jewish people at large. And we're seeing that over and over again. We're seeing that with, like I said yesterday, Jerry Seinfeld getting attacked on the streets.

We're seeing that with modest Yahoo having to cancel concerts. It's not just individualized to someone randomly in a bathroom stall writing something offensive, even a big corporation. It's now seeped its way into the streets, into pop culture in a way that maybe we haven't experienced here in a long, long time in this country. And Jeff, we're seeing it, though, I think this administration encouraging it for political reasons because they're worried about the youth vote siding with the Palestinians. And so you have Anthony Blinken, I think he was in Brazil, we talked about this with Secretary Pompeo, say that they're reversing the Pompeo doctrine. Now three and a half years, almost into the end of this four years of the Biden administration, which means that all settlements that were currently being built, it's retroactive, or that would be built in the West Bank, the U.S. would now view under the Biden administration as illegal, which then leads to that point that somehow the Jews there are occupiers, which then leads to the point that somehow these attacks on those individuals are justified because they are legally there. You know, before the break, Jordan, you're 100% right, and Logan, before the break, we had a caller, I think his name was Don, who sounded appalled and shocked that America would be taking these positions, or that Britain would be taking these positions. We have to put this in context, it is impossible to imagine, truly, even today, that the United States of America would adopt a position that is illegal for someone because of their faith, or because of their ethnicity, or their identity, or their race, to live anywhere in the world. You can't live in this region because you're black, or you're a Christian, or you're a Buddhist, and yet it is officially this administration's position, it actually is in the Democratic Party platform, if you parse through it, that Jews should not be allowed because we are Jews, because they are Jews, to exist, to live peacefully in Jerusalem, in certain parts, in Judea, literally the place named for us. We are not supposed to live there, it's outrageous that this is happening in America, and the fact that they're doing this, as you just pointed out, to appease a domestic constituency, the immorality of it is astonishing. This is not for peace, this is not for prosperity, this is not to help America, it's not to help Israel, it's for pure domestic policy, and the media write about it as though that's acceptable, that they're adopting a policy that Jews, because we are Jews, should not be allowed to live in Judea. Yeah, I think again, we know that things get very political in the United States when you get close to elections, but you're supposed to be allies that are facing real conflict and tough decisions on ceasefires, trying to get hostages out, even bodies of hostages who were killed by Hamas out, and be willing to release up to 100 Hamas terrorists, or 100 to 200, to get these individuals out, and willing to go to a six week cease fire, and to jump ahead of that, and say, hey, I think it's going to be done Monday, where even Hamas and Israel both have to push back, because there have been no agreement yet to come out in Brazil and say the United States is now declaring that anything built under the Trump administration in the West Bank, and now is considered illegal by the United States, so you've got China going to the ICJ, Jeff, saying that the actions by the Palestinians are justified, and by the way, they did not couch that and say, Jeff, that they shouldn't have attacked civilians on October 7th, they just went forward as the Chinese government, one of the largest militaries in the world, and said what they did on October 7th, and the attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are justified. Look, Don pointed out, essentially, he didn't use these words, that Israel's enemies tend to be God's enemies.

That's the truth, listen, Israel's enemies tend to be America's enemies, and that's what you've seen, when America turns on Israel, that's what emboldens the likes of all of our enemies, from China, to Iran, to the Houthis who are now attacking American assets, right, those terrorists out of Yemen, to the Palestinian terrorists, Hamas, and now threatening in the North Hezbollah, it emboldens all of them to attack, and they've declared they want a genocide against the Jews, but they've also declared they want to bring down America, and so this is what happens when you have an American administration that turns its back on the most fundamental principles of right and wrong for purely for political reasons. All right, again, Jeff, we appreciate you joining us from ACLJ in Jerusalem and overseeing our work there. I did want to just remind people quickly, Logan, there is a primary today in Michigan. Yes, explain to me how that works real quick, we've only got like 20 seconds to figure it out. So the primary only puts out, what is it, again, 16 of the delegates, and then on Saturday, March 2nd, the GOP holds a caucus for the other 39 delegates, which will be awarded at the party convention. So, again, Nikki Haley is campaigning in Michigan, I mean, President Trump I think will win the majority of the delegates, and then I think at the caucus, you know, he'll probably get all of them, but again, right now it stands, he's got 110 delegates, she's got 20, you have to get over 1,000 to get the nomination, but they'll start pouring in Super Tuesday next week. Yeah, we'll cover that and more, make sure you subscribe if you're new to us on YouTube or Rumble, and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org, become a champion, that's a reoccurring donor each and every month, we really appreciate it keeps this show and our work going, without you it doesn't exist, ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-27 14:28:29 / 2024-02-27 14:50:10 / 22

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