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

NEW EVIDENCE: Proposed Testimony on Obstruction of Justice in Fani Willis Case

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
March 6, 2024 1:28 pm

NEW EVIDENCE: Proposed Testimony on Obstruction of Justice in Fani Willis Case

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1043 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


March 6, 2024 1:28 pm

A new witness, Cindi Lee Yeager, has emerged in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ disqualification case. The witness’ proposed testimony shows that Willis may have engaged in obstruction of justice. The witness can corroborate Terrence Bradley’s testimony that DA Willis’ alleged improper relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade began before 2022. This would contradict the timeline given by Willis. Also, will the Georgia judge allow this testimony before deciding whether Willis will be removed from her case against President Donald Trump for 2020 election interference? The Sekulow team discusses the Willis hearing, President Trump’s big night on Super Tuesday, former Governor Nikki Haley suspending her campaign, the latest polls for President Joe Biden and tomorrow’s State of the Union address, the ACLJ’s ongoing case in Nevada – 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

This is Jay Sekulow, brand new evidence, proposed testimony on obstruction of justice now in the Fannie Willis case. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments.

Or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. It's been a very interesting development in the last 24 hours, as if there's not enough on other things. But specifically on the Fulton County case involving, there is something that has me very concerned, and that is a lot of really good lawyers. I mean, we talk about a case affecting Donald Trump, but there's some really well-respected lawyers in Georgia, friends of mine and Andy, people we've known for decades, that have gotten caught up in this thing.

I call it the fiasco in Fulton. And there's new evidence now, or at least proposed evidence, of obstruction of justice. So this goes beyond what we already know.

And we're going to get into that. And the idea that this trial is going after a former President, a bunch of lawyers that are very well respected, and then you've got the whole misconduct issue with Fannie Willis. And the misconduct here I'm concerned about is twofold.

One is it's lately discovered evidence. I mean, this is new evidence. And it really aims at obstruction of justice from the district attorney. Andy, you've reviewed the motion that's been filed in the case. It's a notice of proposed testimony. I would have filed a different type of motion, but nevertheless, it's a valid motion. Let's talk about what's at play here. All right. What has happened is that the defense counsel, Craig Gillen in particular, who represents David Schaffer, one of the defendants in the case, has filed a document which asks the court to actually look at new evidence that has been discovered in the case from co-chief assistant DA Cindy Yaeger in Cobb County.

So let's talk about that for a second. This is Fulton County. Cobb's the next county over.

Next county over, right. What would be the – what was the tie in there? Well, apparently what happened is Ms. Yaeger was watching the Fannie Willis hearings for disqualification of Fannie Willis. And she then came up with evidence that she had accumulated in September of 2023, in September of 2023, in which district attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley, one of the witnesses in the case, in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade, who was the special prosecutor that Fannie Willis had appointed and his partners had been paid in the case. And I think there's something about the pay that people need to understand. A typical assistant district attorney in Fulton County, Andy, what would they be making? $80,000. Not a senior one, $50,000, $60,000.

A senior one? A senior one may be making $85,000, $95,000. Okay, so that's what the DAs that are working there full-time get paid. Wade was retained by Fannie Willis as a special counsel and his checks were approaching $700,000.

That's a lot of money. Well, if you're making $85,000 and they bring in somebody for $700,000, that's going to create some angst in the office? If I was an assistant DA and I was doing the work that Mr. Wade was doing in the case and I was being paid a fraction of that amount of money, I'd be rather resentful of the fact that he was getting that in kind of compensation. Let me tell you what I asked staff to do this morning because I'm concerned about the fair administration of justice here.

And when you start, lying under oath is bad enough. When you start getting into obstruction of justice, based on these kind of cases to begin with, I think you're raising an entirely new spectrum of what's at stake here for how we do justice in the United States. So the American Center for Law and Justice had a conference with some of our team in our DC office to put together... Georgia has, what is it called, Nanius? The Open Records Act. So it's like a Freedom of Information Act, but it's called the Open Records Act in Georgia. I've asked to look at that act to see what information we can get. For instance, the contracts of employment versus what the people were being...

They weren't employment contracts, but independent contractor agreements, what they were being paid, is there testimony or information regarding... I mean, there's an allegation here and we'll get into the next segment about the DA saying, don't talk to these people. That's obstruction of justice.

It is indeed obstruction of justice. It proven. So we're going to get into all that, folks. We're also in our Life and Liberty Drive. And as you know, our work never ends.

We just added more to it today. That's why we launched our Life and Liberty Drive, because the only way we can achieve these victories is through your dedicated support. Even with the landmark victory last week at the Supreme Court, the challenge we continue to face are monumental.

We got the Nevada student case going on right now, and others, go to ACLJ.org, have your gift doubled. We're going back to the broadcast, everyone. We're taking our calls at 800-684-3110. This is a very interesting development. I think it's important for me to read the portion of the motion that I think is most appropriate here. And this is what it says, in and around September of 2023, Mr. Bradley was visiting Mrs. Yeager in her office. Now, she was an assistant, a deputy assistant TA, or chief assistant, in Cobb County, the neighboring office. So Mr. Bradley was visiting Mrs. Yeager there in her office when Bradley received a phone call. Mrs. Yeager could hear that the caller was the district attorney, Fawnee Willis. District Attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case. Mrs. Yeager heard the district attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley, they are coming after us.

This is a quote, you don't need to talk to them about anything about us. Now, listen, she had the right to hire outside lawyers. Then it says, Mrs. Yeager watched Mr. Bradley's testimony before the court became concerned as a result of the fact that Mr. Bradley testified to on the witness stand was directly contrary to what Mr. Bradley had told Mrs. Yeager in person.

So this takes it to a whole different level because now you're dealing with what is basically a, I mean, you've got to be realistic here. This is beyond jury tampering or witness tampering because the witness hadn't been sworn in yet. She hadn't been sworn in yet as you said, Eddie. But this goes to the heart of obstruction of justice. This is obstruction of justice. And if alleged and true as alleged, because it's an allegation that this is what the testimony would be, this is a serious infraction of the law by no less than the district attorney for Fulton County. When she finds out that they're worried about how much Wade was being paid in the case, she tells Bradley, they're coming after us so you don't need to talk to them about anything about us. What are you talking about? You're supposed to be the district attorney and you say, disclose everything to everybody about all the true developments and what happened.

You don't tell them shut up and don't say anything about us unless you've got something to hide or you're concerned about. But what bothers me more than anything, this is coming from a district attorney who is an officer of the court and who is making these statements to a third party. Harry, what's your read on it? Well, my read is number one, Bonnie Willis was engaged in a conflict of interest relationship with Mr. Wade and she benefited personally from it and she attempted to hide evidence, clear and unmistakable evidence of this relationship, this financial relationship from the court. So I think what we have here is either witness tampering, witness influencing or obstruction of justice. Interesting, Harry, to clarify that point. Andy makes a good point. It could have turned into witness tampering if Yeager had been sworn in.

She hadn't been yet. So it right now goes to obstruction of justice. I think that is correct. So what Bonnie Willis was anticipating was that Bradley would indeed be a future witness. So the tampering, if you will, hadn't yet occurred because he was not yet a witness.

So she was basically saying, keep your mouth shut, don't tell the truth. And later in testimony before the court, before Judge McAfee, he did indeed indicate that he had sent a text message to one of the defense attorneys saying that there absolutely was a relationship. And so to the extent that that text is accurate, it now suggests his claim that he was merely speculating was indeed untrue. I want to put that part of it aside here because this is new evidence. You're right that that's been the historic evidence that's already been submitted before the court. So that's before the court. There's no need to open up the court proceedings for that. What's unique about this is, and there's testimony going right now on in the Georgia legislature where Ms. Merchant, the defense lawyer, is talking about the situation with Bonnie Willis. But what is relevant right now is that the phone call was received and the DA was focusing on the payments that were being made.

And that is what the DA tells Bradley, they're coming after us, you don't need to talk to them about anything about us. Darrell Bock That's very disturbing if true. And I think what you're – Darrell Bock By the way, she had the right to pay him.

I mean, so we're not questioning that. Darrell Bock I'm not saying that she didn't have the right to pay a contract employee. Judge McAfee said if he's got a bar card and breathing, you can hire him.

I'm not going to look at his entitlement, his qualifications. But the concern that I have is that you've got an article that appears, it talks about the money that was being paid, and DA Fannie Willis tells Mr. Bradley, they're coming after us, you don't need to – of course you need to talk to them about what's going on. You're the district attorney, you shouldn't be telling a witness not to do what justice requires to be done in the case.

And if that in fact turned out to be the case, then something needs to be done about it. Darrell Bock So the motion that's pending is to open up basically – it's a proffer – open up the evidence again. He'll probably let the other side – we'll let Fannie Willis respond, which he needs to, and then set another hearing. So this evidence portion's not closed. Like I said, the ACLJ – I want to get – I want to find out what I can about all these agreements and side agreements and whatever these things were.

I think we need to know that. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island on Line 1. Hi, Jerry, welcome, broadcaster on the air.

Jerry Hello, team. Good discussion. Yeager, in her capacity, hearing this statement inadvertently, hearsay statement, but once she sees the testimony, she then becomes aware that there's fraud on the court. Is it her incumbent upon her, under professional responsibility, to bring this forward in case she gets attacked?

Darrell Bock Let's break this down. This is not hearsay. Jerry No, it's not, because Fannie Willis is the respondent in the motion. She is present in court and can be cross-examined, and therefore, there's an exception to the hearsay rule, and it's an admission of a respondent, and it's against interest, and it's admissible. Darrell Bock Yeah, so it's admissible.

It's not hearsay. That's number one. Number two, with regard to Yeager's responsibility, well, you know, I don't know what took this – remember, the case only closed out a week – less than a week ago. Jerry Right. Darrell Bock In the beginning days, and it was Friday of last week, right? Okay, so today's Tuesday.

So this happened immediately. She sees the testimony. You don't know what negotiations were going on between her office and defense lawyers and her Cobb County office. You can't just run into court when you're a lawyer, as Fannie Willis did. Most lawyers can't do that, Harry.

Jerry I think that is correct. I would argue that Ms. Yeager had a responsibility to inform the court that she possessed evidence contrary to the claims made by a witness or a series of witnesses with respect to a public hearing. So Ms. Yeager had no affirmative obligation to contact Judge McAfee until the evidence was adduced in front of the court, and once – Darrell Bock Which was just Friday. Jerry Which was just Friday, and once that evidence was adduced, then I think it would be professional malpractice on the part of the attorneys for the defendants in the election interference case not to attempt to reopen the hearing and reopen the evidence.

Darrell Bock That's an important thing what Harry just said. So put yourself in the lawyer's standpoint, the lawyer that had the information. They need to then go to one of the defense lawyers and say, I possess evidence that is contrary to this. So then the defense lawyers would have to basically voir dire, I mean questioner, find out what that is, and then put it into motion.

So I don't think, you know, Jerry, there's a gap of time. It was Friday. She probably contacted them over the weekend.

They drafted the motion up and filed it yesterday. Jerry Yeager did what she was supposed to do. She heard testimony that she believed to be untruthful. She went to the defense counsel. She told them about it. They investigated it and they made their motion. That's what happened in the case.

And now it's up to Judge McAfee to decide whether he's going to hear the evidence or not. Darrell Bock We're getting calls on this. We're going to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. But let me tell you a couple of other things. We're in our life and liberty drive at the ACLJ and I need to say this. As you know, our work does not end.

This is why we launched this life and liberty drive right now, because the only way we can achieve the victories we've talked about over the last weeks are because of your dedicated support. And even with that win at the Supreme Court last week, 6-0, the challenges we continue to face are mounting. We've got the Nevada student case, which we're going to talk to coming up. Listen, that case is moving towards trial now, at least through heavy discovery. We've got a whistleblower case of one of the FBI agents, Agent O'Boyle, that is now at the D.C. Court of Appeals. That case is being fully litigated. We're preparing an immunity brief at the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of limited Presidential immunity for official acts.

And then on top of that, I just authorized our staff today to delve into the Fulton County matter to see what is of record that we could get through what's called an Open Records Act, similar to the Freedom of Information Act. So please support us now during our life and liberty drive. Your gifts will be double dollar for dollar. $25 becomes $50.

$50 becomes $100. You go to ACLJ.org. But if you can become an ACLJ champion at the same time, in other words, you come up with an amount you can donate that you could donate each and every month. And some of you can't do that. And that's totally great, I understand.

But if you can, you become an ACLJ champion. And that means you're standing with us each and every month. And that's very, very significant for our work at the American Center for Law and Justice as we build that base now going towards 20,000 ACLJ champions. We started this campaign out. We were at about 15,400. Right now we're at about 19,600. I would like to end the month at over 20,000. ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. Have your gift doubled.

We encourage you to do it on our life and liberty drive. Back with more in a moment. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast. So we've been talking about this latest revelation in the Fulton County fiasco, where now another assistant, actually a chief deputy assistant general and a deputy district attorney in a neighboring county, Cobb County, got information about the whole Fawnee Willis thing. And it was about the contract. And she's prepared to testify that Fawnee Willis told Wade do not testify, which would be obstruction of justice. That motion is now before the judge. I've asked our ACLJ team to look under the Georgia Open Records. What is that? Is that like the Freedom of Information Act request?

Yeah, the Georgia Open Records Act is basically the FOIA in the federal level. Yeah. So we've got a team looking at that right now to see where we can go. We have a lot of calls coming in. C.C.

Hiles joined us in the studio. Let's go ahead and take Sandy's call out of California. Some are about the immunity case, some are about Fawnee Willis and others.

Go ahead, Sandy, you're on the air. This is on Presidential immunity. And I believe that a President must have immunity for his official acts. And I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of that. But the other day you were talking with Jordan and you said that it would be sent back to the lower courts for the lower courts to decide if President Trump's acts on January 6 were Presidential acts. And Jordan asked you, well, were they?

And you said immediately yes. But I don't trust the lower court. Yeah, but here's what happened. The Supreme Court is not a trier of fact. The Supreme Court gets a record from what was put together to trial court and the district court level. That's the trial court and the court of appeals.

And really at the district court, you put in the facts. So I think instead of this absolute Presidential immunity that President Trump's lawyer is talking about, what I think is asking for way too, it's not necessarily asking for way too much in my view, what should be happening here is the Supreme Court, this is how I view it, should be issuing a decision with limited Presidential immunity for official acts. It's a extension of an existing precedent, Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which said President Nixon was immune from civil suits that involved his official acts, even if it was on the peripheries of the official acts. So the question here is, if the court says yes, there is this limited immunity, the court of appeals said there is none, I think that's going to get reversed.

What are those official acts? That's what I think that would go back down to a district court for that determination, then go to the court of appeals and go back up to the Supreme Court. It's cumbersome, but that's just the way the process works because the trier of fact here is the district court. Yeah, I would go back to Judge Chutkin and Judge Chutkin would make a determination as to whether Nixon v. Fitzgerald applied, what is the extent to which what President Trump did constitute official acts, and if they didn't, and how do you define it and whether they are there or not. And that's the way you do it, and you establish a record there, and then, as Jay said, it would go back to the D.C. Circuit and possibly again to the Supreme Court of the United States. This case, the trip to the Supreme Court for the January 6th indictment case, Cece, I think are far from over. Yeah, that's right, and I think the caller, you know, she was concerned that the lower court wouldn't get it right, but again, as you've pointed out, there is the appellate process on that as well, and the Supreme Court will make sure that they do get it right on what official acts are.

Yeah, because that's the actual determination that has to be made here. Let's go ahead and take Jeff's call out of Texas. He's got a question on immunity as well.

Hi, Jeff, welcome broadcaster on the air. You know, in the recent past, you've discussed that these government employees and officers of the case in particular, like this instance, that they're typically immune from civil suits and whatnot, but what if, I mean, isn't there exceptions particularly like in this instance where there seems to be massive improprietary acts, there seems to be maybe perjury, there seems to be a breach of ethics, and they're paying somebody... Are you talking about in the Fulton County case? Well, it should have been a 90,000... I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Are you talking about the Fulton County case, Jeff? Yes, Ms. Willis. Okay, well, let me tell you her liability. The last thing on her list right now is the issue of some type of immunity, although she would certainly assert it. What she's got to be concerned with right now, in my view, is her bar license committing perjury to the court, that's making false statements under oath, and obstruction of justice. This has become the Fawnee Willis trial.

Yes, it has. Instead of trying the defendants in the case, what has happened is the defense attorneys have very adeptly and adroitly made it a trial of the prosecution, and a prosecutor appears to be liable for many bad acts that they have committed, some of which may indeed be criminal in nature. That remains to be seen in a hearing before Judge McAfee. An official act cannot be obstruction of justice.

That cannot be, Cece, an official act. Right, and I think that's what the caller, you know, what he was getting to is, are they ever going to be held accountable for these bad acts that they've done? And yes, because Fawnee Willis is the one that's basically under trial right now for her bad acts and criminal actions. I tell you what they need to do is they need to stop this, and they need to close this Fulton County prosecution down.

Fawnee Willis and Wade need to resign. The whole office needs to go. If they need to appoint a new DA, look at the case and then close it. It's a fiasco in Fulton County. It's embarrassing, and it's not fair to the lawyers.

Listen to what Jonathan Turley said on Fox News. What is very clear is that the continuation of Wade and Willis is undermining their case, undermining their office, and they have put their interests before that of the public. I am quite astonished that they have not stepped aside. They have an independent professional obligation towards their office, obviously to the people of the county. I don't believe that they're shouldering that responsibility regardless of what the court is doing or will do. So the question really becomes is, what does the judge do next, Andy, on this? Well, the judge has got a dilemma. He's got to, first of all, determine whether he's going to reopen the evidence to hear this additional testimony from Assistant DA Yeager in Cobb County, because that's number one. And then the judge is going to have to give Fawnee Willis' side, the state, the opportunity to respond as to whether the evidence should be reopened. And then a possible hearing. And then no doubt a hearing in which Yeager would be called as a witness, put on the witness stand, and examined and cross-examined as to what she heard Fawnee Willis say or not say in her conversations with Mr. Bradley. I see this thing dragging out a long time before Judge McAfee makes a decision. Because he would probably have to have Yeager come in and testify.

Oh, absolutely. And she would be subject to cross-examination. That's right, because you have the right to confront your accuser. This is a criminal trial after all.

So this is going to be another mini-trial that we had last week. And by the way, this morning I authorized our team in our D.C. office to start putting together what is similar to a Freedom of Information Act request. It's under Georgia's open records law.

And what it does is say, hey, we want access to documents. The focus of this, interestingly, is not on the relationship so much as it is on the contract that was given to Wade. And that's what she instructed Wade and Bradley not to testify about. They're coming for us.

You don't need to talk to them about anything about us. And that was a conversation that Bradley had with Willis. So we're going to get information on that. You know how we get this information?

We have lawyers and our teams put this information together, file documents with the court. That doesn't happen without the support of our ACLJ members around the country. And we're in our life and liberty drive, which means right now any amount you donate is going to be doubled at ACLJ.org slash life and liberty. And I want to encourage you to do that today.

And whether it is now this Fawnee Willis situation that we're looking at, whether it's the immunity case at the Supreme Court in the United States, whether it's the Nevada student case, whether it's the whistleblowers we talked about yesterday, we're fighting back, folks. Please support us now during this life and liberty drive. Your gifts will be doubled dollar for dollar.

$25 becomes $50, $50 becomes $100. Go to ACLJ.org forward slash life and liberty. You could also use the dot org.

You could also use the QR code that's on the screen. And if you can get monthly, you become an ACLJ champion, which means your gift will be doubled again and will be each time you give. But it really helps us establish a firm foundation going forward that the ACLJ.org you become an ACLJ champion with your monthly gift. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever, this is Sekulow and now your host Jay Sekulow. So we talked to you about the really new development in the Fawnee Willis matter with this new evidence coming forward by a county district attorney in a neighboring county, a chief DA assistant saying basically she overheard the conversation with Fawnee Willis telling Bradley do not testify. And that raises the whole specter of not just lying under oath or a witness tampering because he depends on when the witness was sworn, Yeager wasn't sworn as a witness. That's the DA that's reporting this, but it does go right to the heart of obstruction of justice, Annie.

Well, that's exactly what it is. If in fact the evidence turns out to be after Judge McAfee, should he decide to do so holds a hearing in the case. If the evidence... You think he will? Yes, I think he will. I definitely, I don't think he can not. When you have an allegation, think about this, that the district attorney, not just an officer of the court, which she is, not just a private citizen, but the sworn law enforcement officer, the chief law enforcement officer of Fulton County, when you have an allegation from somebody who is themselves a deputy chief assistant DA in Cobb County right north of Atlanta, heard Willis tell Bradley, quote, they are coming after us.

You don't need to talk to them about anything about us. That is obstruction of justice. That is telling... A felony. It is a felony.

It is telling a citizen who may certainly be a witness, and he turned out to be a witness, don't talk to law enforcement authorities about anything with respect to the money that was being paid to Wade. That is a serious allegation that's got to be fleshed out. So we've got that going on. And then we also would kind of pivot here a little bit, we'll be taking more of your calls today. Well, let's go ahead and take Kristen's call. Kristen is calling in Maryland on line one.

You're on the air. Hi Kristen. Oh, hi. Thank you for taking my call. And I don't know if it's Fannie or Fannie. I keep hearing, but it's a big issue. Fannie?

Yeah, Fannie. Okay. I wanted to know, I hear obstruction of justice, but would bribery come into play?

I understand, you know, all that you've said and everything. There's been some testimony about money going back and forth between Wade and Willis that could try to make a bribery obligation. Nothing goes forward, though, until someone indicts. Because one thing the judge did say, and this is, he can remove her from the case without criminally accusing her of anything.

You could say it avoids, your office has not avoided the appearance of impropriety. That's true. And then leave it to the state bar to determine what there is, what issues are. And then if a district attorney wants to look at the criminal aspect of it, look at that. He doesn't have to, Andy, make a criminal determination.

No, he doesn't. And shouldn't, in fact. That shouldn't be the judge's responsibility. Look, the only thing before Judge McAfee is this, and this is the only thing he needs to rule on.

Do I disqualify the district attorney's office in Fulton County from prosecuting this case? That's the only decision he has to make. And he can make it on the grounds of an actual impropriety, or he can say the appearance of impropriety and the undermining of the criminal justice system. Anything else, whether Fannie Willis is going to be charged criminally for witness tampering or obstruction of justice or bribery or any other crime, is not Judge McAfee's province. That's not his responsibility.

The bar does that, or another DA pro tem that's appointed by the governor will have the opportunity to do that and present it before a grand jury. All right, we'll be back in just a minute. If you're watching right now, we do want you to know that the ACLJ never stops working, whether that's our legal or our media work, and that is why we have launched, once again, our Life and Liberty Drive, because it's the only way we achieve victories is through your dedicated support. So I encourage you right now, go to ACLJ.org, ACLJ.org, all donations made, your gift will be doubled, dollar for dollar, 25 becomes 50, 50 becomes 100. Support us now during this Life and Liberty Drive.

We really would appreciate it. We got a lot of cases going on right now, even with the landmark victory from this week the Supreme Court, the challenges that we face continue to build and they are monumental. So obviously you've heard about our cases in the Nevada student case. It's moving to trial, the whistleblower case is on appeal, moving to merits panels, the immunity case preparing, we're going to prepare to file an amicus brief at Supreme Court of the United States.

So right now, all I encourage you to do is go to ACLJ.org, support however you can during this Life and Liberty Drive. We'll be right back with more on Secula. Welcome back to Secula.

We will take your phone calls right now, 1-800-684-3110, coming off of Super Tuesday here on a Wednesday and then tomorrow we'll have the State of the Union as well. So a pretty packed week. The primaries went, I guess, really as expected. It's over. Other than Vermont, you saw a sweep by Donald Trump, he did lose Vermont though, interesting enough, to Nikki Haley.

Well, there you go. Never won Vermont, but won a lot of states. So obviously you had Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and then losing Vermont.

Most of them by very, very significant numbers. I mean, you're looking at Virginia, he won 63, they thought Virginia was going to be close. The smallest was 57% that he won. Yeah, they thought Virginia was going to be close and it wasn't, it was 63-35, Utah, which again they thought would be close, it wasn't 57-40, Tennessee, 77 for Trump, 20 for Haley, Trump 82 in Oklahoma, 16 for Haley, on and on it goes. Here's the bottom line. I'm curious, voter turnout too in some of these states.

I'd be interested in finding out some of those numbers because here locally it did not seem like there was really any buzz. I walked right into the voting bay. I walked in and out, you know, some of the people here, not calling out the crew, but some of y'all may have said, man, not worth it, didn't make it to the polls. Something in the voting though, situation in our state, I don't like, can I be blunt? Okay.

You go in and you verbally say to them, whether you want a Republican or a Democratic ballot. Yeah. See, you were down the street from me, I had to point in a picture, like a PBS special.

I was like, all right, point here. The way they used to do it was they'd have Republican ballots and Democratic ballots and you just picked up one. Yeah.

They don't do that anymore. There's a lot going on. Again, I felt like my ballot was read by the person feeding it into the machine. It was odd, but it was what it is.

It is what it is, but it was fine. So Nikki Haley is now officially suspended her campaign, which means that's the big news. Yeah. She's not running. So the general election has now started.

It is Trump versus Biden. I do want to clarify because people always talk about the suspended language. A lot of that is because they got accounting to do. They have things they got to wrap up. There's money still floating around.

There's people on staff. So suspending really just means we're done working, but we do have to wind down the business essentially. Yesterday we knew that Nikki Haley had no events scheduled past yesterday. Yeah. And I think it was told- No ads by. ... to members of the press. I believe the Washington Post was told late last night to embargo it, but at 6 a.m. they could announce it.

Yeah. And she did not make an announcement last night. Nobody that has run, Tim Scott, excuse me, it's Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, and the others have all suspended their campaign. So technically campaigns are operating and they're doing what you said, Logan, is the administrative cleanup on all of this. But what you do now have now, which is really unheard of in our lifetime, is you've got an eight month Presidential cycle for the general election. And normally it's from July, August through November, really August, September, October, and then vote in November.

Here it's going to be eight months of this. Yeah. And you're seeing the Biden campaign really start ramping up their specific... They've been specifically targeting President Trump for most of the time, but now you're seeing that happening right now. I just got an ad from President Biden on our YouTube video. So that's how active they are to try to siphon off. And you saw that.

Yeah. President Biden said this morning, there may be a place for you, Nikki Haley voters, as a Biden supporter. You may not be a Trump supporter. But we should probably listen to Nikki Haley, Byte 24.

She specifically kind of discussed where she's currently at. I have always been a conservative Republican and always supported the Republican nominee. But on this question, as she did on so many others, Margaret Thatcher provided some good advice when she said, quote, never just follow the crowd, always make up your own mind. Always make your mind a bit of Ted Cruz flashbacks of Vote Your Conscience.

That's sort of how it feels like a... I'm not going to tell you, now of course, Ted Cruz maybe fell in line, maybe more than anyone. But when it comes to Nikki Haley, certainly not.

And look, it got very personal towards the end there with President Trump. So maybe a little harder pivot than it would be for Ron DeSantis, who really was just kind of policy issues. They weren't getting as aggressive. So it could take some time. The interesting part of this is people are... And I think there's two things to be looking at right now politically. You have in the Democratic side, they're very concerned about the RFKs, the Marian Williamsons, and the Cornel West.

Because you start peeling off 3%, 4%, 5% in a given state. Yeah, but you actually looked at some of these... Some of them, they were double digits. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Williamson did double digits in some.

So you got that issue. And on the Republican side, you've got the issue of will the Nikki Haley voter come back to the fold, so to speak, and endorse Trump? They were adamantly against Donald Trump running. And if you look at the states that she... Just look at the numbers.

While he won the primaries easily, she was getting generally around 20% of the vote. Now do I think most of those people are still going to vote Republican? Yes, if they vote. So there does need to be a little bit of healing of the party, and that's part of the process here. They need to get it in themselves to go vote for Donald Trump.

They need to vote for Biden. Nikki Haley has not yet endorsed Donald Trump. Right. She used the Margaret Thatcher quote, is vote your... Go with your conscience. So I don't think that has been... I don't think that's been adjudicated yet.

So I think we're going to have to watch that. I think the former President needs to work on that to get everybody together. His speech was very forward looking yesterday. I don't think he even mentioned Nikki Haley's name one time. Her speech today, she mentioned Donald Trump, and I'll play what she said. Let's go ahead and play the statement she made about congratulating Donald Trump.

I think that is worth playing. I think that's bite number four. In all likelihood, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee when our party convention meets in July. I congratulate him and wish him well. I wish anyone well who would be America's President. Our country is too precious to let our differences divide us.

I got to tell you this. I thought Nikki Haley was a really good UN ambassador, and I thought she did a really good job as the governor of South Carolina. Here was her problem on this one.

You were running against Donald Trump. Yeah, I think until the last six months, I don't think anyone really had that negative of a feeling towards Nikki Haley. She decided to go with decisively negative imaging on Trump. I mean, she decided to go after the... She was the one who created, and I think it stuck a little bit.

Wherever he goes, he creates chaos. Yeah, I think you're right, and that majorly seems to have backfired. With that, it is that question because she did come... Everyone else has kind of come out of this. They've endorsed President Trump, and they kind of could move on with their career, their life. This one will be tougher because it did... She overstayed her welcome, and I like Nikki Haley. She's been on this broadcast many times.

She's been on many of our documentaries. I've always been good to us, so I'm not the one person sitting there throwing stones because you disagree with someone on who you voted for or who you're not. She's been good to us, and her family serves our country, so I have massive respect. But I do think you have to look towards the future, and where does Nikki Haley go from here? She already said, I'm going to be a private citizen. That to me says, I'm wrapping up this kind of career. Maybe I'll get a contributorship on one of the news networks. Maybe I'll show up somewhere else because if you've been in her career trajectory, the next stop was the presidency.

That doesn't even go your way, so now you have to kind of figure out what to do with the rest of your life. Obviously- And also politics. Yeah. Politics brings strange bedfellows, and those strange bedfellows can include Nikki Haley with a position in the administration- 100%. At a very senior level. So don't let any... That's why it's politics, folks. You can't get too wrapped up in it because that's kind of the way this all plays out at the end of the day. So I think in the next 24 hours, you'll see some... Let's go ahead and take Mario's call out of Virginia.

Yeah, Mario of Virginia. You're on the air. Hey. How y'all going?

How are you guys doing? Great. Excellent.

So I'm here, and with a little sarcasm, I would say this is round two. So how we're going to... Do we wipe the slate clean? But I doubt if it's going to wipe the slate clean, considering the fact that everyone remembered it's the last election.

So how are we going to do this this time? You know, it's interesting to say wipe the slate clean. I think the biggest criticism on both of these candidates is going to be, you got to be... They're not forward-looking enough. Policies that you're going to implement, things have changed.

Not vengeance and grieving. It's got to be forward-looking policies. I saw one of the DNC commentators yesterday saying, you know, Biden's got to get to where he's putting out plans, not just, I don't like Trump and he's the threat to democracy. So I think it's going to be a policy election. It also, I think, is going to be very close.

The country is very divided. So it's going to be who gets their candidates out. Yeah. At the end of the day, it's going to be a couple of percentage one way or the other. Absolutely. At most. So we're not talking about these big sweeping victories like we used to have, even in an Obama era, we're not talking about that anymore.

No. You're more talking about a George W. Bush second turn coming out of 55%, 52%. Now it's even sometimes less than that because of these third parties that could throw a whole ridge into it because if you have an RFK, go at it and be there. There are a lot of people, they're just going to see them on the ballot and they're going to vote for them. It could be a big chunk of people that just walk in and go, I don't even think he'll win, but defiantly I don't want these two people that we've had already once again. I think there's going to be a large percentage of people, I would not be shocked, if a large percentage of people do that.

If they can't figure out a way to win over RFK and he continues his presidency and he makes the ballot in all these states, I know a lot of people that will walk in and make that decision. So what's interesting folks is that the ACLJ, we're bringing you this broadcast five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and we don't charge for the broadcast. You get the content for free. But we have to put it together and it's because of our ACLJ friends and members that are supporting our work at the ACLJ that lets us bring you this broadcast with this kind of analysis. Coming up, you're going to hear from our colleague, Mike Pompeo. These are part of our teams here at the ACLJ. You know about the cases we're involved in, we've talked about those.

You know we're in a match right now, our life and liberty drive. So any amount you donate is doubled at ACLJ.org. We encourage you to do that if you're able to do it. It really helps us out. And then if you can make it a monthly gift, you become an ACLJ champion.

And that radically changes our ability to have a base of operation. We encourage you to do that if you can do a monthly gift at ACLJ.org. Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Secula. To wrap up this broadcast, we are joined by Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Mike Pompeo. Dad, we have a lot going on right now, but it's great to have you on. And I want to, Mike, I want to turn to politics a little bit.

We don't do a lot of that with you on here, but I think obviously the GOP primary is now effectively over with. So what should the focus be for the former President, your former colleague when you were serving in office as well, as he eyes the general election now? What should he be focusing on and saying?

This is really easy. He should articulate his vision for America for the four years that he will be the President of the United States. He should articulate why that matters to every American, whether you're working as an accountant in Milwaukee or you're working as a young FBI officer in L.A., whatever, whatever your walk of life, your student, wherever you find yourself, whatever gender, whatever race, why America is better off with President Trump as opposed to four more years of President Biden. And, you know, Jay, he can do that in the context of demonstrated, demonstrated history.

We know the things that happened during the four years he was there. You can stare at them. They are factual. They are indisputable. And if he if he uses this forward look and I think President Trump is already beginning to see talks about these things that that will be better for every American will be more secure. Our border will be sovereign again if he talks about those things and then says, oh, by the way, these aren't a pipe dream. These aren't a wish list. This is not just a policy proposal.

I have proven that I can achieve that. I think you will see an enormous amount of Americans give us a tidal wave victory in just now. Goodness. What are we now?

Nine months off. This is the last election of our lifetime. That's for sure.

Let me ask you this. You know, looking back at your run at the CIA, also, of course, as secretary of state and so so heavily involved in the administration, what would you say if you were to focus on two or three major victory points that the President could point to and then build off of for the future? I mean, I think of the Abraham Accords as one, but I'm sure there's others. What would those be that he could say, look, I've done this with my team.

I am now going to do this going forward. You bet. I think the Abraham Accords is a good place to start because they are the follow on from the destruction of ISIS. It seems like a long time ago. But when we came into office, the ISIS folks were cutting people's heads off in the Middle East on the beaches.

We pushed back. We built up peace and prosperity in the region. And there were no wars in the Middle East. We can certainly talk about that in Europe as well. We made NATO stronger and better.

There were no wars in Europe. And then finally, a deep national security issue is that our southern border, it often gets talked about as a domestic political matter, because it's certainly that too. But Jay, you've seen this, right? Not only is it a crime problem, but we've not got thousands of Chinese nationals coming across our border. Who knows what that's setting the seeds for in the years ahead.

We've got to get that back under control. And he's proven that it is possible to do it is not a dream. It's not a fantasy. It's not about some fictional idea. It's about the reality of using America's power to keep Americans safe. We had North Korea in a better spot. We had the Chinese in a better spot.

Those are five tangible places where if you go, like your optometrist, Jay, better here or here. Yeah. This one or this one. Right. Unmistakably, we were better with President Trump than we are today under President Biden. You know, I think about your tenure and I hope that going forward that you, if you so desire play a key role in the administration because you were such a valuable asset to the United States. The question that I think is on everybody's mind after yesterday, Nikki Haley made her concession speech. If you want to call it that, it was her, you know, I'm suspending my campaign.

She did not endorse the President yet, but I suspect that's coming. But it was, we've got to, you know, the party needs to build back. Do you think that, you know, you and I both know this former President very well, reaching out to people that he's opposed to, he did it before, but people like Nikki Haley that were running against him hard at the end, how important do you think it is to unify that 20% of the votes she was getting in the primaries?

Yeah, Jay, look, we all can do math, right? It's incredibly important that those folks realize that President Trump is the right leader for the future. And that includes Ambassador Haley herself, but more importantly, the folks who, for one reason or another, decided that they preferred her to him in a primary battle. Now that that's behind us, we all have to just recognize that whatever there may be, and I campaigned too when I was in Congress, there can be hard feelings. It is time for us all to recognize that we have to do the right thing for America, and that is to support President Trump come this November.

You know, I saw this morning, Nikki put it up on Truth. He talked about the folks who'd supported Ambassador Haley coming to join, that he invited them in. I'm glad that he has done that, and I'm convinced not only will he continue to invite them in, but logic will prevail as well.

They will see that this is a better solution, and we often in life find that we don't get our first choice in everything, Jay. We shouldn't for a moment think that because of that we should do something that is not in our best interest, and I think the best interest for every Republican, and I think large swaths of them will come to see this, is President Trump as opposed to another four years of President Biden. So let me switch to the President Biden side of this. He's got the State of the Union tomorrow night. What message do you think that the President picks now that the general election is basically set?

Does he play to that? You know, I imagine he will. There'll probably be less politics than we'll see in the days that follow, but he won't be able to help himself, right? He talks about mega extremists. He talks about the fact that the problems at the border are a result of the four years of the Trump administration. You know, that dog's not going to hunt, Jay. The American people are smarter than that.

I hear them oftentimes say, gosh, if the Americans just appreciated what we've done for them, the truth is I think Americans can see what has been done to them. And so I am hopeful tomorrow night he will be in the spirit of unity. That has not been his model in his four years, but there's not much that he can talk about with inflation running rapid at wide open southern border and two wars. It's a pretty narrow field for him to try and run through at a State of the Union address to tell a story about why people are better off.

I just don't, I don't see how he's going to pull that off. I appreciate it. Mike, we appreciate your comments on this and I look forward to having you back on. And thanks for your hard work and working with us. It means so much to us. Thanks, Jay. Yep, absolutely.

All right. That's going to do it for today's broadcast. We want you to support the work of the ACLJ by going to ACLJ.org during our life and liberty drive.

This is a very important time. All donations are doubled right now. That means if you give $25, it becomes $50 so on and so on. You know the drill, but we have launched specifically this life and liberty drive because that is how we continue the work here without you. None of this happens because we are supported exclusively by our ACLJ donors and ACLJ champions.

So you can go to ACLJ.org right now. Again, all donations are matched and we really appreciate it throughout this month, throughout this life and liberty drive. And we're going to be back again as we always are tomorrow because we're talking about what's headed up. We got the state of the union coming up. We got the GOP response to that. So it's going to be a lot of fun to watch over the next 24, 48 hours what's going on.

We couldn't provide this analysis though. We couldn't provide the work that we're doing and obviously the legal work as well without all of you. Yeah. And we've got the case in Nevada for the students going forward into discovery in federal court, the whistleblower case of the DC court of appeals for full briefing and a brief through to the Supreme court of the United States on the immunity issue. We've got a brand new case where we're filing a huge case against the United Nations relief agencies 501c3. More about that probably next month, but support our work now during our life and liberty drive. Any amount you donate, as Logan said, is going to be double dollar for dollar.

So $25 becomes 50 and 50 becomes a hundred. And then look, the fact of the matter is your support also keeps this broadcast on the air and all of these, we get, what is it Logan? We've had weeks with millions of views of our social media content.

Yeah, absolutely. Due to the fact that we have an amazing team who really knows what they're doing to make sure our content gets seen by not just the echo chamber, see that a lot, not just behind a paywall. So the way we do things here, we make sure our content's available, whether it's on YouTube or rumble, whether it's on Facebook or Instagram, we are everywhere because we want to make sure our message is heard and you can't do that by just throwing yourself behind a paywall and create the little echo chamber. We gotta be out there, but without that, we need your support.

So you go to ACLJ.org. You make that donation today. We appreciate it. During this life and liberty drive. We'll be back tomorrow though. Yeah. To donate monthly, become an ACLJ champion that makes a huge impact too at ACLJ.org.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-03-06 14:31:56 / 2024-03-06 14:53:59 / 22

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