LIVE UPDATE: DA Fani Willis Final Arguments in Georgia

Today on Sekulow, live update DA Fonny Willis and the final arguments in Georgia on her removal.

To Sekulow, we have a lot to talk about and one case not to talk about yet. That is the 14th Amendment case at the U.S. Supreme Court. They could have issued that opinion this morning. It has not been issued. They could obviously, in a case of this significance, they don't have to follow the normal protocol that which means we could get it this afternoon. I am hoping and praying just for the sake of voters on Super Tuesday, I am going to be one of them, that this case comes out before I stand in line on Tuesday.

Well, you would certainly hope so. The court, I mean, if you think about the schedule, we filed our brief, our cert petition on December 27th. Court granted review shortly thereafter, I think on the 5th of January. Briefs were due on the 8th. Briefs were due again on the 18th. Arguments were held on, it's been now how long? My goodness, over a month, almost a month. Yeah, almost a month and no decision. Now, the normal rules on decision, the grant of a decision, which is normally you have a situation where they have opinion dates, which we had Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, they issue opinions.

In a case like this, Jordan, those rules don't apply. Fast tracked. Yeah. But now it was fast tracked, it had extremely slowed down.

Yeah. They're in conference today. The conference really has nothing to do with the opinion being issued. I would think that, excuse me, the opinion will be issued sometime today. It could come late. If it does, we'll go back on air.

Or it could be Monday, but it's gotta come out before... I just wanna let everybody know who's watching. If you're listening, you can join us later if that opinion comes out wherever you watch online. So whether it's Rumble or YouTube or Facebook, Twitter or Truth, we will get updates. If that case comes out, as much info as we can to you immediately.

So make sure you're subscribed onto your favorite channel or all the channels to, again, get that alert so that you know you're getting the best coverage of what is actually decided in the 14th Amendment case. Does it cover the future? Does it cover the general? Does it put it to rest forever?

Or is it a... It sure should....bunch of different opinions that we have to just kind of put together, which is the holding part and how... I don't think it's gonna affect President Trump. What we're looking to is how can this be done for the future as a weapon by either political party?

To try to remove candidates they don't want on. Yes. So the court needs what's called a definitive ruling here, which I think we're getting. By the way, my view on how the case goes and where it's going has not changed. No.

I think we're winning. I think it's probably on the officer issue. But maybe it's multiple opinions on that. Could be a dissent that's keeping it delayed. But my goodness, we gotta brief it in record time. You would think they'd get the opinion.

But they're not shying away from taking board, obviously. No, I mean, with the grant of the immunity case yesterday, and by the way, the legal scholarship in the 24-hour period on everybody saying that case is a loser for Trump, it's a disaster for Trump. I'm not saying I'm making the prophecies here, but remember what I said three days ago. I said the question, read the question presented.

We did it on the program yesterday. Tells you, I think the court's gonna find, say, like in civil case, see in a civil case under Nixon versus Fitzgerald, there is absolute immunity from official acts in office. You cannot sue the President after the fact. The fact that the DC Circuit had that line in there about, which was gratuitous in my view, the 1201 he became citizen Trump is nonsense.

You're still the former President. So the decisions you made have a direct bearing on whether you should be held culpable, and they limited to official acts only. So what they're gonna do is, I think, say, immunity for official acts, then goes back to the district court to determine if it was official acts.

It was election interference allegations. To me, that looks like official acts. I think, by the way, we've got a team working on it.

I was sending out information on it late last night. The scholarship is, at least the commentary is totally shifting to now that this case could be another win for Trump. And we're involved in a front and center. This was a Jack Smith miscalculation. Another one. And by the way, we are in a major...

This is it, folks. Day one of our Life and Liberty match. Today, we're thrilled to announce the kickoff of that match. And I wanna encourage you to support us. Any amount you donate, your gift will be doubled at ACLJ.org slash Life and Liberty. That's ACLJ.org slash Life and Liberty.

Back with more in a moment. All right, welcome back to Secular. Again, this is the beginning, March 1st, of our Life and Liberty drive, folks. Let's spend a minute on this, Jordan, telling people what this is. Just to give you an example, and we'll get into this, but I just wanna run down to the work the ACLJ is doing right now, including a new brief we're working on immediately. We've been working on it all night.

And it's very early this morning. It is due March 19th at the US Supreme Court. That is the brief that we will be able to file on the immunity case and how the question presented, which we've walked through, was probably a Jack Smith's worst nightmare, if you could pick the worst question presented. But he asked for this to be granted cert, and they wrote a question presented... He wanted a granted cert, but he wanted a granted cert on a similar scale as the 14th Amendment case, where it would all be over within a month.

That did not happen. No, and I wanna get into later about how you think this case could go. They make a decision, then it could basically restart the case. We also are filing, again, four different briefs at the US Supreme Court in two different life cases. In an FDA case, we are filing on behalf, individually, of Operation Rescue, West Virginia for Life, the Elliott Institute, the Entering Canaan Group, and what is that other group is the... Elliott Institute.

The one after Elliott Institute is the Rachel's Vineyard. So different groups, different reasons why, but ACLJ filing five separate amicus briefs in just that one case. In a second case out of Idaho, the ACLJ has filed an amicus brief on that as well. That is the six weeks plus exceptions that the Biden administration has challenges. So I mean, on just two life cases, you've got six briefs done by the ACLJ.

We've got a new brief we're working on for March 19th. Four briefs. Yeah, four briefs. Four briefs, sorry about that.

No, it's okay. The point is what Jordan's saying is, we've had in just a series of two cases, in one of those cases, we filed three briefs at the Supreme Court. Right. And one brief in the Idaho case. So four briefs in the Supreme Court while we're working... That's on the life issue. While we're working on the Presidential issue, which on the immunity issue, which we argued the predecessor case on, Vance versus Trump and Mazars, all those cases we argued in the Supreme Court in 2020, this is now the follow-up. Now the scholarship's changing on that, which I'm going to go to Harry on that for a second before we get to the Fawnee Willis thing.

Harry, we talked about this a little bit in the radio meeting. Initially when the immunity case was being brought up, your colleagues in the teaching profession were boo-hooing at saying, there's no way Trump's going to win. They're not going to take it. And if they do take it, it's going to be a slam dunk. And boy, in the last 24 hours, it has shifted totally because of what they're calling the loose reasoning of the DC Court of Appeals.

Absolutely. And this is something that you rightly noted on the day that the Court of Appeals issued its opinion. The Court of Appeals has essentially stripped all Presidents going forward of any immunity claims for official acts that they have committed while President. They're basically saying, the Court of Appeals is basically saying, whatever you have done as a President could be subject to a criminal penalty after you leave office. This is nonsensical. This means that the President of the United States is hamstrung, at least potentially, by future prosecutions. And I think the Supreme Court is rightly concerned about the limitation on the President's constitutional power.

I think that's why they took it. So folks, all I'm saying is we're in our Life and Liberty Challenge. This is a match month. And those of you that are ACLJ champions, you're part of that. When you donate your monthly gift, we'll be able to put that in our match. And if you have not donated to the ACLJ, this is a great day to do it. I want you to go to ACLJ.org.

You can go to ACLJ.org slash Life and Liberty. Whatever amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. Now, if you can make that a monthly gift, and 19,400 of you have, you are an ACLJ champion. That means we can rely on you each and every month. So whether it's a one-time gift to the ACLJ or you decide to become a champion with a monthly gift, go to ACLJ.org, a champion for life, liberty, and freedom. This is our Life and Liberty drive.

We're in the middle of, or it's beginning of actually, and we really could use your help. Of course, your gifts are tax deductible. Again, it's doubled.

So whatever amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. ACLJ.org, we encourage you to do it today. That was just in the Supreme Court life briefs. Didn't even mention our win in the Nevada case for the student.

We're going to get into that more on Monday. Let's get to the Fawnee Willis situation, because that hearing is today. That's supposed to be the final hearing. So the final hearing begins at 1 p.m. Eastern time. So both the defense, which is kind of like the prosecutors of this situation, that's the defense for President Trump and others.

Roman, who brought this forward. So you'll see Ashley Merchant again, likely Steve Sadow again, presenting the final argument here. And then you'll have the opportunity for the Fawnee Willis legal team to present their final argument. And the judges said, if that stays on track, we'll get a decision likely next week, but like a real written decision, not just a bench order. But Dad, you said, when you've had one that continues to go on and on and on, if something happens or is said within these two closing arguments, he might say, especially by Fawnee Willis's team, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I need evidence on that. I need a little more on this and this case could keep going.

Yeah. Well, you've got that. So listen, he said this may not be the end. It's the closing arguments, but something could develop in the...

I've had that happen, in a closing argument where the judge says, we got to have evidence on that. So we'll see. We'll know this afternoon. If there's a big development, we'll let you know.

Certainly, we'll let you know on social media. But interesting here, the governor has been very quiet, Governor Kemp, until when? I guess yesterday.

I think it was yesterday, Harry. And Harry's got an analysis of this because I think it has a big impact on what... If you've got the governor of the state saying, there's a problem here, he's really stayed out of it.

This tells you something. Absolutely. So Governor Brian Kemp has suggested that because of the romantic relationship between Fawnee Willis and Norman Wade, that the case against Donald Trump and 17 other defendants essentially a RICO election interference case, that case has become more and more political. In addition, I think the governor has been motivated by clear and irrefutable evidence suggesting via cell phone data that Willis and Wade had a relationship going back several years. And at least before Wade was appointed by Fawnee Willis.

So essentially, that cell phone evidence refutes their claim with regard to when the romance commenced. Now, the essential question, of course, is whether the appointment of Wade amounts to, if you will, a perversion of justice. In other words, was Wade pursuing charges against Donald Trump and others largely in pursuit, if you will, of his financial and romantic benefits received via his relationship with Fawnee Willis? So let me ask you this, Harry, because the standard normally that we be governed by right as lawyers is you have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And I would think on that standard... Now, whether that is gonna be the standard for disqualification in Georgia, I'm not sure what the Georgia law is on that, but that should be the standard. Clearly, it's met that.

Yes. Clearly, there is the appearance of impropriety. So we have the district of attorney, district attorney in a relationship either before or after the appointment of the special counsel, Nathan Wade. More likely than not, the evidence clearly indicates that they had a relationship before he was appointed. And so if he was appointed simply to go after Donald Trump and then provide financial benefits to Fawnee Willis, and the record seems to indicate that, then there's an argument for disqualifying Fawnee Willis, and this may ultimately moot the case going forward, and then the case may disappear. Secondly, I would point out that if Judge McAfee does that, he now has at least some political cover from the governor's office. The governor can appoint him to another judgeship if McAfee were to lose his retention election in Georgia.

That's an interesting thing. He's up for... He was appointed because of a vacancy. He's up for a retention election.

I think we found out it was May. Correct. And so he's in a really politically difficult spot. I believe he's gonna call the right play. He's an honest guy and he's been a good judge for the short time he's been on the bench, but it does... All of these are factors.

Absolutely. And so I think at the end of the day, my hope is that the judge looks at the clear and unmistakable evidence and reaches the correct conclusion. I did want to play some sound because this was with Steve... Well, we'll play it when we come back.

But it was Steve Sadao and then the response from Terrence. And again, the judge heard this and the text messages, even though he didn't want them in evidence. There's a lot to get there. But what I wanna encourage you folks with these briefs to the Supreme Court on life, with the new brief we're preparing right now on immunity. Of course, you know we were involved in the 14th Amendment as a party representing the Colorado Republican Party awaiting that decision to protect your right to vote for the candidate of your choice. This is why we need you in this special life and liberty moment where your donation to the ACLJ is doubled.

So if you make a $50 donation right now at ACLJ.org, that is effectively $100 to the ACLJ. This is the time to support our work. We're at the tip of the spear.

You know that. And you see, these cases are continuing out throughout the summer into the fall. We are gonna be engaged in every one of them. And we want you to be at the tip of the spear with us. Donate today at ACLJ.org and be part of that magic challenge.

All right, welcome back to Secular. So a little bit more on what is happening today, just so you know, on Fannie Willis. So when we're done with our broadcast, I would imagine most of cable news outlets, unless something else happens bigger, will want to tune into those closing arguments. Again, that will be presented by President Trump's team, by the Robins team as well, Ashley Merchant, Steve Sadao, and then the lawyers representing Fannie Willis and the DA's office. Because remember, if she goes, the entire office is taken off this case. I wanted to play sound from Steve Sadao and then read the text message.

I think this is still key, and it will still come up today. Bite 11 from Sadao when he is talking to Terrence Bradley. This is President Trump's lawyer, Steve Sadao, friend of ours. He's talking to Terrence Bradley about the text messages he was sending to Ashlee Merchant, who was an attorney for one of the defendants of Fannie Willis. Take a listen, Bite 11. The first page starts off by saying, Ms.

Merchant, like Just Date, don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him? You see that? Yes, I see it. Yes. Did you hear very softly what he said right there?

Oh, dang. I mean, it's clear. He said it. When he looked down, he said, oh, dang, I did tell her that it started before the relationship, which goes back to the questioning in the text exchanges where he says, you know, he didn't really want to do this. He wasn't sure if he wanted to give the information, but now we know that he said it absolutely began before Wade's hiring. The issue here is the text messages weren't allowed into evidence. The judge said those were attorney-client. Yes, but he said that in court. That was his evidence and that was not objected to. And I mean, can we get the oh, dang hire for people so they could hear it?

Work on that. I want to ask Harry something, because this goes to what you were talking about, the fundamental fairness of the process. You've got a prosecution here of the former President of the United States, number one. Number two, you've got serious questions about the ongoing prosecution as it relates to the DAs involved and the special district attorney that was brought in.

And if you look at the appearance of impropriety here, and now you have the governor saying this is looking very political. I think the judge has to say this isn't fair. This isn't due process. This isn't equal protection under the law.

We can't have this go forward. I think that's precisely correct. And the evidence is mounting that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade were essentially careless with respect to the mounting evidence of their relationship. So for instance, Ms. Merchant points out she texted Mr. Bradley in early January that she had records showing that the two prosecutors had traveled to Napa Valley in California, had taken a Royal Caribbean cruise together, writing that she was shocked that they were so careless. I would add the word that they were so brazen about it. So essentially Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade are basically thumbing their nose in the face of prosecutorial ethics. They're basically saying we can do anything we want to.

We can have a romantic slash financial relationship and we can get away with it. Meanwhile, Fannie Willis and her district attorney's office is essentially charging Donald Trump and fellow defendants with doing what? Engaging in illegal conduct that threatens fundamental democracy.

This is nonsensical. It was always, in my judgment, a political prosecution. And now the governor of Georgia has weighed in suggesting indeed that it is a political prosecution. And I think that Judge McAfee will at least hear that evidence. You know, on this broadcast we like to bring you the analysis, which Sherry just gave you, and the evidence. Put it together for you. These are complicated issues and you ask great questions.

And we'll take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. But they did highlight. You want to replay it? Yeah, I just want you to be able to hear exactly so. When Steve Stade out shows this to Terrence Bradley after he said he doesn't remember when their relationship started, and he shows him the text where he says, well actually, you know, I know that it started before, absolutely is what he said, before he was hired as special counsel. So that directly contradicts what Fannie Willis and Wade testified to, which it didn't happen until after he was already hired by her. So it had nothing to do with their romantic or personal relationship.

Take a listen though, because I want you to hear, he tried to say it lightly by 11, so he turned up the sound for you. The first page starts off by saying, Miss Merchant, like just date, don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him? You see that? Yes, I see it. Yes.

Yeah, dang. And then in that text is because he said, absolutely. They were dating before she hired him. That should be the basis upon which she's disqualified, and the office goes.

I'm sorry. Whether the text goes into evidence or not, that was his testimony. Right. So even though he tried to kind of subterfuge around it, he could not. Now we were going to get into the latest on the Jack Smith stuff. Let me tell you what's going on in Florida, folks. This is on the document case, and we've been talking a lot about that. So Jack Smith wants the Mar-a-Lago documents case now try to begin July 8th. She's doing that because he realizes with the Supreme Court granting review in the January 6th case, he's not going to be able to try that this summer, or probably before the election. The President's team requested a delay until after the November election, which would make sense since he's running for office.

But if they had to, they could start it around August 12th. Once you have one case going, that's it. The President can't be in two different cases at the same time.

Plus he has to campaign for President. They argue that an earlier time would interfere with the New York campaign finance case, which is the husband money payment case that's been delayed to begin now March 25th. The prosecutor has said, though, this is very important for people to understand. We talked about that 60-day rule. You can't bring a case 60 days before an election. Here's the official Department of Justice policy now on that. This is huge, folks.

This is big. The prosecutor says the DOJ policy regarding legal action 60 days before election does not apply to the classified documents case because it would apply when charges were filed, which happened in June of last year. So they're saying there is no basis to invoke the 60-day rule.

But let me tell you this. It would be an outrage if the then Republican nominee for President was being bantered about Thomas Jefferson's words I said to you yesterday from the Supreme Court, bantered about literally east to west, north to south, defending himself on these political cases while running for President of the United States. And that is why you need to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. Because while we did file this week four briefs on the life issue at the Supreme Court of the United States, and we are counsel of record for the Colorado GOP at the Supreme Court of the United States on the 14th Amendment case, which we may get an opinion even this afternoon or Monday, and we're already working on a brief in support of the former President on the immunity issue, your support of the ACLJ allows us to do just that.

That's absolutely right. Today we announced the kickoff of our life and liberty drive for the month of March. It's March 1st. Whatever you donate at, again, ACLJ.org will be doubled. So a $100 donation is $200. We've got a team of donors that are ready to match your donations, whether it's on the fight for life, the fight for your vote, the candidate of your choice, the amicus briefs on the Supreme Court on immunity. You need to donate today, double the impact, and be part of the life and liberty challenge.

ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So a big day in the Georgia trial involving President Trump and 15 others. Some have pled, and the question, of course, being is, will Fannie Willis and her DA's office be ultimately removed from being able to prosecute this case? And so far, it looks like these, as of now, are the two final closing arguments to the judge by the Trump attorneys and one of the other attorneys representing another client, Mike Roman, and Fannie Willis attorneys. And then the judge is planning on issuing a decision next week. But of course, things could change depending on what is said or not said in the hearing today that could even extend that.

He's had no problem extending this out much longer than people expected. We have calls on this and we want to be able, on these complicated legal issues, whether it's the immunity at SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment at SCOTUS, all of these issues, even the words used within the questions presented, the words used this afternoon in these closing arguments, those are what is key to kind of insight into what will happen in the future. So let's go to take the first call. Lanay in Wisconsin on line three. Hey, Lanay, welcome to the show.

You're on the air watching on Rumble. Thank you. My question would be, if they find Fannie Willis and Mr. Wade where they are disqualified from this case, could criminal charges be brung against them for lying on the stand? If you lie under oath, that's perjury.

That's a felony under Georgia law. So the answer to that is yes. Now, who would bring that case would be the new district attorney or the state attorney general could refer it over. But they have a risk here of that is a risk. We're going to find out when we hear this hearing this afternoon, how serious of a risk that is. But Lanay, you bring up a very, very good point. It's not just now the appearance of impropriety standard that's been implicated.

It's not just when did you start your relationship. It is now, and I think this is the critical part of this, Jordan, did you lie under oath while you're prosecuting the former President of the United States and 19 other people, including prominent lawyers in Atlanta. So there's a lot going on here. I expect that the judge will hear the closing arguments today. He said he may open it up for more evidence.

That could happen. He could issue a ruling then the next week or two. So clearly that Georgia case is in jeopardy. The January 6th case is in jeopardy.

Now they're talking about the case involving the documents case, maybe going later this summer, which is another one that I think is very, very weak. Let me tell you though, folks, we are in the first day of our ACLJ Life and Liberty Drive, and this is very important for us. So we're thrilled to announce the kickoff of our Life and Liberty Drive today. We introduced this drive last year, and the response actually was overwhelming, both in the terms of the number of donors we got and the number of ACLJ champions. So thanks to the faithful support of people like you, our ACLJ members, and our ACLJ champions, we've been able to fight and win numerous and historic legal battles. This time around, we're in a critical election season, so the cases are a bit different, and quite frankly, the threats to life and liberty have never been greater.

Right now, we need your support in these crucial battles. In Nevada, we beat back a motion to dismiss for that student that was required to read basically pornography in the classroom. We won that motion to dismiss. The case is going forward.

Now the work starts, discovery, more motions, protect the student so that they're not embarrassed. We filed four briefs at the US Supreme Court just on the life issue alone. We filed, we're working on an amicus brief right now from the ACLJ on the immunity issue for the former President, and we can't do this without you. So go to ACLJ.org and have your tax deductible gifts doubled during our life and liberty drive. You will keep us in the fight, and if you can make that a monthly gift, you become an ACLJ champion. When we first did it in October, we had 15,000. We're now over 19,400 on our way to 20,000 ACLJ champions.

Makes a huge difference. It does, because again, we didn't know exactly the resources that are available. So if something new is coming in, we don't have to worry about, can we afford to do the case that we want to do? We just have to decide, is this the case we need to do?

And we do it. ACLJ.org, be a part of it today. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. As you know, Tulsi Gabbard's a member of our team here on Sekulow, and she's joining us right now. Tulsi, I wanted to get to a statement you made, and it ties into your new book, which is available for pre-order now.

We'll do a lot more on it as we get closer to its release in April, but I think you've got a first hard copy with you today, and again, there it is. You can put it up longer than that. There you go. It's a pretty bold title. It's For Love of Country, Leave the Democrat Party Behind. The idea here that you've called it a party with the mentality of dictators. It is increasingly difficult to deny that fact. When we have a political party that is in power currently in the Democrat elite, using every arm of government available to them to undermine our freedom, our freedom of speech, our right to cast our vote for the candidate of our choosing to serve as President and commander in chief, and weaponizing the Department of Justice and law enforcement agencies in the national security state, all to try to rid themselves of the major political opposition in this Presidential campaign.

This view is based on fact and reality. It has nothing to do with whether or not one likes or dislikes President Biden or President Trump or whoever your preferred candidate of choice is. Every American should be terrified about what's happening here, because if this is allowed to continue, if the Democrat elite are allowed to win after so abusing their power, they will run around this country and say, look, we have a mandate of the American people to continue doing what we're doing, which will dangerously and negatively impact our fundamental rights and freedoms in a way that I don't know that we'll be able to be reversed if they're allowed to have another four years at this. You said that they will say that Trump is a dictator in chief, that if he's elected, it will be the last election this country sees. You said it's laughable. You said it's so crazy, it's laughable. They're justifying their actions by telling themselves they need to destroy our democracy in order to save it. It's lunacy.

And I'm reading it because I think it's very important, what you said, and it's mindset mentality of dictators. They're waging a multi-friend battle, and they will stop at nothing until they are successful. We're seeing that with the legal cases, which are falling apart. We're seeing that with the legal cases, which are falling apart, right before our eyes. All the legal commentators on the Presidential immunity case were saying, oh, they're never going to take it. They'll rule against Trump. And then in 24 hours, and I said, look, I represented the President and I argued on immunity, three of them, at the Supreme Court for him.

You have to have Presidential immunity because, Tulsi, if you were President and you made a decision in your official office, an official act, whether it was to engage in something or not engage in something, and then when you leave office, you could be criminally prosecuted for your official actions as President, you'd be having me sit in your office 24 hours a day, making sure you're not getting in trouble and you can't run a country that way. That's exactly right, Jay. And you and I both know without a shadow of a doubt that if the roles were reversed and it was Republicans coming after a former President Biden for whatever, I mean, you could point to what they're doing right now and allowing millions of people to break our laws and illegally come across our borders as grounds for prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems like it could be a pretty clear cut case. The Democrats in that scenario, that hypothetical scenario would be screaming and making the same exact argument that you are making right now. It's crazy and I tend to have a healthy skepticism about most things. I'm a wait and see kind of person and I'm glad to see that some of these cases at least are being exposed for what they are, which are essentially political hit jobs.

You're exactly right. But you know what is so shocking to me, Tulsi, and all this, and we've known each other a long, long time, and you served our country in the military, you served in Congress. If I was Joe Biden, if I was the President of the United States, you know what I would have done?

I would have picked up the phone, called Merrick Garland and said, what are you doing? Do you realize the precedent you're setting here for every single, put Trump out of this, for every single President or cabinet secretary, the exposure you're putting people in? That's what I don't understand because they're like myopic in their view to destroy this guy that they're not even thinking about the long-term consequences of their own policy positions. Jay, and that's the difference between you, a good man of character and integrity who cares about our country and Joe Biden and those around him and the Democrat elite, they lack that character and integrity and care about one thing, and that's power. That's all they care about. So they don't care that they're setting it. They're not stupid. They know they're setting a dangerous precedent here, but they don't care because caring about that would get in the way of their initial short-term objective, which is hold on to power at all costs.

And that's, that's what I detail in my book. That's what I'm running around the country, speaking to anybody who will listen and sounding these alarm bells about this very serious threat to our Republic, our democracy and our freedom. Tulsi, we saw yesterday the dueling visits to the border and all of a sudden, you know, the Biden team wants to do at least appear like they're doing something on the border. There are Democrats even trying to advise President Biden to temporarily close the border to individuals trying to cross for two, two weeks to a month before deciding what kind of policies to implement. They've had four years to implement these policies that would have saved thousands of Americans lives.

The number one killer is the drug that comes across that border of America's between 18 to 45 is fentanyl. They didn't care about it for the last three and a half years. They care about it right before the election. The illegal immigrants coming over the border, killing Americans. They didn't care about it for the last three and a half years.

Remember that family that was gunned down by a cartel in Northern California. Now, now it's a few, few, a few weeks, a few months before the election. And I think you could talk to people directly for us right now and say, you know, they aren't doing this because they actually believe it. It is purely politics. And if they get power again, those policies will go right by the wayside.

Jordan, it's so blatantly transactional on their part. They are trying to put up a facade that they actually care about the border. They care about security and they care about all these things that they haven't cared about for these last three and a half, now almost three and a half years.

They, the, the most insulting thing is that they think the American people are so stupid that we're just going to sit here and buy the nonsense that they're feeding us this play acting that's going on. I heard a comment that came from President Biden's former communications director yesterday, where she was talking on CNN about how Democrats need to show that they care more about how people in our country don't feel safe. Then she went on to say that she doesn't believe what President Trump is saying, that there are actually criminals running around committing crimes, both against businesses and violent crimes in this country.

She's like, I don't buy it. But Democrats need to show that they acknowledge that people feel unsafe. What she said exposes them for who they are. They don't care about reality. They don't care about solving the problem. They don't care about the threats to our safety and security, both in our communities and at our borders. All they care about is winning votes and they're going to do their best to put on this fancy show. We've just got to know that that's what they're doing and, and let them know we're not going to fall for it.

It's crazy. All right. I want you to hold your book up again. And I want you to tell people, because we want you to, we want our, our listeners to get this, For Love of Country. When is the book out, Tulsi? Uh, the book comes out in April. Um, I encourage people to, uh, preorder the book.

Now you can preorder it on Amazon and, and what we're doing and how you'll help is to make it so that it's a lot harder for the New York Times bestseller list to try to ignore this book. Uh, it's a great book for maybe family or friends of yours, coworkers who, who may be frustrated Democrats or independents, and they don't really know what to do in this election. And I talk a lot about my journey, my political journey in this book and the experiences I've had that informed my decision to leave the Democratic Party and why, as you said in the title, I'm very direct. For Love of Country, leave the Democrat Party behind. I've said this to you privately and I'm going to say it publicly. When you were in the debates for the presidency, uh, in the Democratic Party, I called you and said you were, and our people, the people that were listening to this broadcast saying, if I was voting for anybody else, I'd be voting for Tulsi Gabbard because your debate performance was incredible and the positions you were articulating with are incredible.

But you just, if it's so clear that that your former party, if you don't toe the line on everything, it's like the guns come out and boom, and that's exactly what happened. So I'm going to encourage our audience, preorder that book. We know what it takes to get on the New York Times bestsellers list.

Preorder that book. We'll be talking about it more with Tulsi when she's back on. We appreciate Tulsi as always.

Thanks so much. Folks, again, to be part of the Life and Liberty Drive this month as we kick it off today on March 1st. Very important. And we introduced that drive last year, Dan. You said the response has just been overwhelming.

Yep. And we want to thank all of you who've done it, our ACLJ members, our ACLJ champions. We've been able to fight, win numerous and historical battles, legal battles in just the last year. This time around, we're in that critical election year, and there's more cases being added each week at the US Supreme Court. Like one will be filing in on March 19th. More battles for life that we'll be filing in. Four briefs filed at the Supreme Court on life this week.

And of course, a Nevada win as well. We're going to talk about more on Monday. Folks, we need your support to the ACLJ, and it's the time to do it because these months, you pick them out that you're comfortable donating, and it is effectively doubled because a group of donors knows how important it is to have these kind of matching challenge months for our Life and Liberty Drive.

So if you can donate $50, that's $100 to the ACLJ right now at ACLJ.org. We're right back with Rick Grenell. All right, folks, welcome back to Secula. We are joined by Rick Grenell, member of our team, of course, politics and national security, a senior advisor for us here at the ACLJ. And Rick, I want to go right to the border because of the difference between the backdrops, which I don't know if our team can show, maybe up on screen, like what it looked like for Joe Biden's very visit to a border area that hardly sees any illegal crossings at all compared to President Trump going right up to the Rio Grande River, actually waving across the river. I mean, seeing what Texas has done when they kicked the feds out to try and really secure that very dangerous crossing for migrants to make, as you see when the river is roaring like it was when he visited yesterday. But Rick, this idea, again, that Democrats have suddenly, they want to say that they've woken up to the issue of the border. We're going to have to fight back on very aggressively over the next few months and remind people they've had three and a half, almost four years to get this solved or to reinstate the Trump policies that were working, call it a different name, would have been fine with me because it would have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives from deaths from fentanyl.

And they didn't do it. And they're doing it now because they're scared Biden won't get reelected. Yeah, I hope our listeners know what I'm talking about when I say that Joe Biden yesterday looked like Tim Conway from the old Carol Burnett show.

I know this dates me, but I could not stop thinking about Tim Conway shuffling through the office when I saw Joe Biden. Good Lord. I mean, a picture is worth a million words there. Just go look at that video.

I tweeted it out. But that is embarrassing. We are sending that message to the world. China's seen it. Russia is seeing it. Iran is seeing it. And you've got Biden literally like shuffling like he's half dead. This is an unbelievable situation.

And you know what? The media are completely ignoring it. This is why Joe Biden doesn't know what to do on the border because he's half there. The reality is he's got all the power. He just needs to close the border, but they purposely opened it because they wanted to appeal to the far left. You know what's interesting on all this, Rick, is all the policies you all put in place when you were in office with President Trump, when you were in the DNI, or when even as your ambassador, but especially his DNI. All the policies you put in place, he removes because he's going to this bold stroke. And then we end up with this disaster, which even now Mayorkas is saying is a crisis. And they're talking about, we're going to hire more federal judges.

That's going to help, which it's not. Cities are being overrun. Every city is a border city now, including where we're broadcasting out of.

You've got these problems here. You've got a young woman, University of Georgia graduate, nursing student, nurse actually graduated and killed by someone here illegally. Unlawful entry, I don't call it illegal anymore, unlawful entry into the United States. Deported, comes back and the government just lets them go. The consequences of these policies are having devastating effects for the country.

Yeah, two quick points. One, some of this is our fault because we allowed the left to institute sanctuary cities and we didn't speak up loud enough. A sanctuary city is literally a protective city where you get to break the federal laws on immigration and you're protected. Nobody does anything when you break the United States law. That's what a sanctuary city is.

And the second point here is I tweeted out a video that is unbelievable. In the early days of the Biden administration, Mayorkas goes on television to brag about all of the Trump policies that the Biden team is getting rid of on the border. And they loved it. They reversed the policies of Trump.

They bragged about it. They thought it would do better for their base. But this is a this is a Brexit style situation. Remember, Brexit was all because of immigration.

The EU got smaller because of the disastrous immigration issue. We're facing the same thing. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I mean, when we look at all these issues, Rick, I mean, the politics of it, obviously they do take center stage, but people just have to be aware as we enter this season, after Super Tuesday next week, especially. And you said this broadcast this week, you do believe that Joe Biden is likely going to be their nominee. That's kind of that idea that he'll be replaced has kind of been, you know, getting too late into the ball game unless something else. It's Trump versus Biden. I mean, it's clear it's Trump versus Biden.

They're not pulling him out. They are going to do everything they can to try to appeal to the basis they think they could beat President Trump. So they're going to try to appeal to suburban women some way. They're going to try to appeal to border people on something by saying they're going to do something here. They're going to try to appeal to young people and act like they're somewhat pro-Palestinian by putting out, you know, statements about those Israeli illegal settlers in the West Bank and putting forward a Palestinian state at the end of this war with Gaza instead of talking about the atrocities by Hamas.

I mean, just right there, three different ways, three different constituencies, they will use policies to play politics. I hope our listeners and our supporters are ready. They got to buckle up because the next seven months is really going to get aggressive from this Biden administration. We need people to hold them to account. I would say, Jay, we should tell our team quickly take a vacation because by the time April comes around, we got to be all hands on deck and watching what's happening from this administration, they're going to be pulling all sorts of games.

And I would say the last nine months of a Presidential term, the most consequential and generally the most dangerous. Rick, as you know, we're in our life and liberty pitch. And of course, you're involved with us very heavily, whether it's on our Freedom of Information Act request, whether it's policies we're attacking. This week, just this week, we have filed four briefs at the Supreme Court of the United States on the life issue.

We are working right now. We just, you know, we just finished up our briefing on the December, I said December, on the, we started in December, the 14th Amendment case is expecting that decision any day. We represent the Colorado GOP, obviously arguing that President Trump should be on the ballot. We've got the, we've started our brief on the immunity case, which I believe is saying, and certainly the commentators are now saying, that may be a win.

They thought, oh, there's no way it'd be a win. And I pointed out publicly, hey, if a President can be criminally prosecuted for official acts, no one's going to be President, or they're going to have to have me or you or 14 lawyers in their office all the time before they make a decision on anything. So the consequences are great. We won that case for that student. We beat a motion to dismiss in Nevada, where that kid was a 14, 15 year old kid, woman, young girl, young student, required to read this. It was pornographic, what she was required to read. And the Obama appointee judge said no pedological, legitimate reason to compel her to do that. And then she was assaulted, touched by the teacher, shaken by the teacher, and they're letting the assault and battery go. We're in a life and liberty challenge, which means anybody that donates right now, it's doubled. They could do it monthly.

They become an ACLJ champion. You've been very, very direct on your feeling of supporting the organization. I'd like you to share it for a moment. Yeah, first of all, I am so proud to be a part of this organization. There's a ton of organizations to be a part of, but we are on the front lines. We're doing actual work.

I don't like to be a seat warmer. I don't like to just sit on the sidelines and complain. The work that our team is doing around the world, I'm so proud of. I hope people will join us and realize that they can't just sit back and watch their country go.

They have to get involved. Be a voice, speak out, give support where you can, but this is an organization that really is on the front lines and deserves your support. And folks, I mean, Rick, we have people like you on our team. You are on the front lines as well. I mean, whether you're with us or not, you're out there in the country too as part of our team on the front lines, whether it's in the media, whether it's at events, defending the rights and freedoms of Americans that we care about so deeply at the ACLJ. It's why we've got you on our team. And it's why you need to do what Rick said, which is support the work of organizations that don't just talk about things, but get things done, that do things that are at the tip of the spear of every single battle. Donate today, double the impact, ACLJ.org. Be a part of it.