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

LIVE COVERAGE: Special Counsel Robert Hur Grilled on Biden Classified Documents

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
March 12, 2024 1:21 pm

LIVE COVERAGE: Special Counsel Robert Hur Grilled on Biden Classified Documents

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1045 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


March 12, 2024 1:21 pm

We have a NEW update on President Joe Biden’s classified documents investigation as Special Counsel Robert Hur is back in the spotlight. He is testifying today before the House Judiciary Committee – will he downplay the Biden Report’s finding on President Biden’s mental acuity? The Sekulow team addresses four key questions regarding Hur’s testimony, the likely response of Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-4) and other Members of Congress to the Biden Report, how Biden’s “red line” for Rafah puts him at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and much more.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

This is Jay Sekulow. We've got live coverage of Special Counsel Robert Herr's appearance on Capitol Hill. 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. Hi, everybody. Welcome to the broadcast. We're giving you live coverage while we're on the air live as to what's going on on Capitol Hill right now. Now, Robert Herr, the Special Counsel that was looking into then Vice President, but now President Biden's possession of classified documents. Let me get a couple of points out of the way right in the beginning. You're going to hear from myself, Harry Hutchison, and Andy.

Jordan's going to be joining us from Strasburg a little bit later. Our position is this. Neither one of these cases should have been brought. The case against President Trump certainly should not have been brought because he was President of the United States and had the authority to declassify. Joe Biden was Vice President of the United States, did not have the authority to declassify. But he's the sitting President of the United States, so you cannot be indicted while you're President of the United States.

But I think the biggest issue that has come up on all of this, and we'll get into what the memory issue means and how it plays out. But I think it's important to play for you a question from Darrell Issa to Robert Herr about the status of guilt or innocence of Joe Biden. I'm going to presume that you would never prosecute someone you thought was outright innocent. Correct. In this case, did you reach a conclusion that this man was outright innocent? That conclusion is not reflected in my report, sir.

Right. So you did not reach that conclusion or it would have been in your report. I viewed my task of explaining my decision to the Attorney General as being, based on my judgment and my assessment of the evidence, would a conviction at trial be the probable outcome?

And I just want to make sure the record is complete in that because I think it's extremely important. You did not reach an idea that he had committed no wrong. You reached a conclusion that you would not prevail at trial and therefore did not take it forward. Is that correct? Correct, Congressman.

Okay, so I'm going to go to Andy first. So what is he saying there? What he's saying is this. I looked at the evidence in the case. I interviewed Biden. I made a decision that his memory was of such bad quality that it is unlikely I could have gotten a conviction at trial because a jury would not believe that he, this man Biden, had the intent to commit an act intentionally, willfully, and knowingly. And therefore, because I didn't think I could get a conviction at trial, I declined prosecuting him.

That's what he said. And I think that's, by the way, we're going to give you the legal analysis here and really break this down for you. I don't think either one of these cases should go forward. City Presidents cannot be prosecuted. We've argued that for President Trump. Same would apply to President Biden.

How do you read the takeaway right there on the innocence issue? Well, I would first state, consistent with Mr. Issa, that Biden did indeed mishandle the documents. He knowingly and intentionally did so, and that Biden was possibly guilty of a criminal charge. And clearly, he was not innocent. But instead of bringing the charge, or at least positing that he might be chargeable, the special counsel, Mr. Herr, suggested that Biden put his own memory at issue, and therefore a conviction would be difficult under the circumstances, even though he may have had the intent at the time the misconduct occurred.

If you hit somebody with your car, vehicular homicide, and five years later when you're prosecuted, you're diminished mental capacity, doesn't mean you didn't have the capacity at the time to commit the trial. We'll get into all that. Hey folks, support the work of the ACLJ. Our legal work never ends, you know that. I encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We've launched our Life and Liberty Drive. Any amount you give will be doubled today. We're back battling against the two-tiered system of justice, and we're going after these bureaucracies with 18 lawsuits against the Biden deep state. Go to ACLJ.org. Have your gift doubled now. If you become an ACLJ champion, you give a monthly gift.

We are 303 away from 20,000 champions. ACLJ.org. Let me be clear at the outset here. We're talking about the Robert Herr, the special counsel that was investigating President Biden on the classified document issue. But let me be clear about this, and I really think it's important that you understand exactly what our position is. Our position is this, that neither one of these cases should have been brought in the first place. Not against Trump, not against Biden, but especially not against Trump. And the fact that they did bring that against Trump shows you the two-tiered system of justice. And that's especially so when you listen to what Congressman Jim Jordan said, the chairman of the committee.

Take a listen. I think this is interesting, because here's the scary part. Page 200.

I said this earlier in my opening statement. Page 200. Joe Biden, this is a quote, Joe Biden risked serious damage to America's national security when he shared information with his ghost writer. Shared it with his ghost writer, the guy who was helping Joe Biden get $8 million. You know, by the way, Mr. Herr, what did that ghost writer do with the information Joe Biden shared with him on his laptop? What did he do after you were named special counsel? Chairman, if you're referring to the audio recordings that Mr. Zwaanenzer created of his conversations with Biden. That's exactly what I'm referring to.

He slid, if I remember correctly, he slid those files into his recycle bin on his computer. Tried to destroy the evidence, didn't he? Correct. Okay. Which should have resulted in a separate charge by the special counsel against that individual who was working with the vice President then on his memoir.

Andy? Yes, absolutely. Destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice. Here's a person who got classified information given to him by Mr. Biden in exchange for a wedding and paid him a substantial amount of money to write these memoirs. So he gave it to them, he shared it with them, he put it on his laptop, and what did he do after he got the stuff? He destroyed it. He destroyed evidence. That is indictable conduct and her should have said that.

What I don't understand is why they didn't. Now maybe there's some kind of, within the scope of his mandate, maybe it was outside of it, but it sounds like you usually have that provision that says, are all matters related there too. Right.

Usually you have a catch-all paragraph. Bob Mueller had that and we dealt with that. Yes, he did. So, Harry, this is just another example of the two-tier system of justice at play here.

Absolutely. And so if you look at the ghostwriter in particular, it also implicates another very, very important issue, which is Joe Biden's motivation at the time he mishandled the documents. So at the time he mishandled the documents, he had 8 million reasons to ignore the guardrails governing the handling of classified documents.

So Joe Biden was scheduled to earn up to $8 million as an advance on a book that he was writing with the ghostwriter. So he had a motivation and that suggests to me that he had the requisite intent to violate the law. Having said that, I agree with you that no charges should be brought against Biden or Donald Trump.

Biden because he's a sitting President, Donald Trump because he had the authority to declassify. So I think both of these, but the two-tier system of justice here is outrageous. Now, Robert Herr addressed the whole memory issue and I'm going to play you that soundbite in a minute. What I'm concerned about though is, Andy, and we'll play the bite in a minute, is this idea that he's got diminished memory now. What does that have to do with the time of the commission of the alleged crime? Well, that's a good point and I think Professor Hutcheson mentioned that when you commit the crime or the alleged crime, he had the capacity at that time to understand, excuse me, the willfulness element was present. The knowing and intentional and willfulness element was present. But at the time that he would be charged with the offenses, which is when Herr's investigation has taken place, Herr concluded that he would come across with a bad memory and therefore a jury would find that he was unable to form the intent at that time. And when you're prosecuting a criminal case, your duty is to find intent willfulness at the time of the commission of the events, but if the jury will infer that he couldn't have formed that intent to be willfully destructive of documents, then he probably wouldn't get a conviction. And Herr said, I declined to prosecute him because of that. I probably wouldn't get a conviction in the eyes of a jury.

Was that the right call? We know he can't be prosecuted because he's a sitting President. That I get.

Right. Assume he wasn't. Assume that he could be prosecuted.

I would probably do what Herr did. I would say, look, he did it at the time. He knew what he was doing at the time.

He turned him over. But sitting before that jury, he's going to come across as an old man who doesn't know what he's talking about. He can't remember dates, events, and situations like that. Why would I prosecute him? Because they're going to probably come back with a verdict of not guilty. Because they'd be sympathetic to him.

Yes, and I'd have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So they fasten on his mental memory loss and memory inability and come back with a not guilty verdict. Let's hear what Herr had to say. There has been a lot of attention paid to language in the report about the President's memory, so let me say a few words about that. My task was to determine whether the President retained or disclosed national defense information willfully.

That means knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids. I could not make that determination without assessing the President's state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the President's memory, an overall mental state, and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial.

These are the types of issues that prosecutors analyze every day, and because these issues were important to my ultimate decision, I had to include a discussion of them in my report to the attorney general. Okay, so what does that mean for the case, Andy? Well, there's no case. I mean, it means that the case would not go to trial with a successful conviction possibility because of the fact that the President's mental capacity at that time to form the intent, not his capacity to commit a crime. That's the only standard there is knowing the difference between right and wrong.

That's not the point. He didn't say he didn't have mental capacity to commit the crime. What he said is his memory was so bad when I interviewed him that he would be sympathetic, a jury would be sympathetic to him on the basis that he couldn't form willfulness.

And you have to show bad intent when you're prosecuting a crime. Her made the right call, I think. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Any questions you have on this, this is complicated. Harry, I said earlier there's a two-tier system of justice going on here because her says I want to prosecute him even if the policy against not prosecuting Presidents wasn't in fact the policy. He wouldn't have prosecuted it anyways. Then you've got the actual prosecution of President Trump for the exact same issues, retention of documents, although he was President and had the ability to declassify.

How do you read that situation? Well, I read that essentially as a basis for concluding that there is a two-tiered system of justice in the United States and it is grounded in a political calculus. So if we focus initially on the Biden case, in my judgment there is clear and unmistakable evidence that Joe Biden willfully and intentionally violated the law with respect to classified documents. That's number one and I think we can show that by at least a preponderance of the evidence, certainly with respect to the time at which the misconduct initiated. Secondly, I would agree with her that it would be difficult to prosecute Biden were he simply a regular American citizen and not President because his memory is so deficient now that that would probably undermine the claim that he willfully and intentionally violated the law when indeed it occurred. But third, I would suggest with respect to the Trump case that with respect to Donald Trump, he had classification authority and a political calculus was made that we need to bring a lawsuit against Donald Trump now in order to basically paralyze the potential possibility that he could run for office successfully in 2024.

Exactly what the Justice Department is not supposed to do. So I think that's the calculus and again I go back to a point I said I made earlier, I agree with you, no case should have been brought against either of these individuals but we are where we are. We are but I think they shouldn't have been brought against either of them for different reasons.

We'll get into that in the next segment of the broadcast. 303 away from 20,000 ACLJ champions. Your support of the ACLJ though is really critical right now. We're in our life and liberty drive. You've seen the cases. We just had the win at the Supreme Court. We're back up on another one right now. We've got a case that we're going to be bringing against the United Nations Relief Agency who's funding Hamas basically, at least through their C3.

So we've got all of this going on. Your support of the ACLJ is absolutely critical. I want to encourage you to go to ACLJ.org.

Any amount you donate will be doubled. You go to ACLJ.org Life and Liberty and if you can make it a monthly gift you become an ACLJ champion. It means become a champion for life, for liberty and for freedom. And that's what we're talking about here. That's the issues we're dealing with.

Is the fight for freedom, the fight for life and the fight for a constitutional republic. We're going to be joined again by our panel here in studio. Support the work of the ACLJ.

Go to ACLJ.org. And again, your donations will be doubled through our Life and Liberty drive. Back with more in a moment.

Welcome back to the broadcast everyone. Jordan is joining us from our offices of the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg, France. He's been following the proceedings of the special counsel's hearing. But also, I want to give an update. Have you given an update, Jordan, on the work that you've been doing both in Paris and Strasbourg with our team?

Sure. Well, we've never stopped working, of course, with the European Center for Law and Justice even during COVID. And the times we've been so busy with the Trump administration and the legal battles we've been fighting inside the United States. But we really wanted to reengage because we see in Europe, and I think it's been reported in the United States with the visit from the Hungarian President, of this new rise in the political right, not just in Hungary, in central Europe. It's happening right here where I am in France today at the Council of Europe where we met with Nicolas Bay of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group. He's also part of France Reconcuit. And there's also a meeting tomorrow with Francis Bellamy from what is effectively the Republican Party in France, which is a little more center-right party, the former party of Sarkozy.

It was very close with our ECLJ team. And again, it's also been great to see what the ECLJ has done inside the Council of Europe on so many of the issues that we care about at the ECLJ. What would you say is the biggest issue? I mean, I know they've been working very tirelessly on the Israel hostage issue and did a fantastic job on that. What do you see as the major issue you're dealing with right now there?

Would you be surprised? Immigration is number one. Number one issue in all of Europe to the Conservatives. And of course, the left, what do they want to do?

Ignore. Now, it's a different kind of immigration. It's coming from different parts of the world. But it's having the same kind of effects. It's changing the nature of these countries. And it's changing the makeup of the countries, the crime in the streets, again, the schools.

All of the same issues that we hear about from our southern border being wide open. The drugs, the human trafficking, sex trafficking, all of those same issues become the number one issue not just in the United States but in Europe. And these European leaders are asking for President Trump to return. I mean, it's kind of surprising as a Conservative to be in Europe after the Trump years and some Biden years to hear. You know, I hope President Trump is able to get reelected from these Council of Europe members who are themselves politicians representing both political coalitions with inside Europe and then also political parties inside France who we met with today. And so to remind yourself that when you're talking about these countries that we have a lot of support. And that's why the ECLJ has continued to grow and our work here has continued to grow to the point where these political parties have significant power and are right on the cusp of leading these nations in Europe.

So overall, and I know the team has been working tirelessly on this, you've also been following the H.E.R. testimony. What's your sense so far? Are any of these trials and tribulations facing President Trump making, are the politicians you're talking to there, is this a topic, a conversation for them? The amount of money New York tried to find President Trump is a major topic, the $500 million.

The amount of lawsuits President Trump is facing, certainly. The second impeachment, the first impeachment, they know us from that. They know us from Mueller. I mean, they say those words. Even if they're speaking in French, you'll hear those words come out and then we're going through a translator. But the second part is they acknowledge that Ukraine, I mean, they will say it to your face as an American, we believe President Trump.

Nicholas Bay said this today, and I think he'd say it to you right now, that the war in Ukraine would not be happening if President Trump was in office. Let me play for you the bite of Representative Kelly Armstrong to her about where the documents in the Biden investigation were found. This is, it's pretty startling when you hear it.

Mr. H.E.R., classified documents were found at the Penn Biden Center? That's correct. They were found in President Biden's garage? In Wilmington, Delaware, yes. And in his basement den? Also in the same home, yes. In his main floor office? Correct.

And his third floor den? Correct. At the University of Delaware? Correct. And at the Biden Institute?

Correct. And no prosecution to him, but a prosecution of Donald Trump. Our position is neither one of them, first of all, you can't prosecute a sitting President.

And second of all, Donald Trump had the authority to declassify documents, he shouldn't have been prosecuted either. But that gives you a little taste of what we're dealing with right now here domestically. And they're watching that.

I mean, that's the difference between now and maybe ten years ago. I've been watching that hearing since I got back from meetings, because it was about the end of the day here, and so I turned on the hearings. And I can go right to YouTube and watch the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

And right away, just as clear as I can, watch it at home, or we'd be watching it together in our studios. I could watch those hearings and be ready to do this broadcast, as well as also get a sense of what people are talking about here. But the fact remains that they understand this is the same attacks that conservatives are facing in Europe. They're seeing President Trump under attack.

But a lot of them would actually like to see what it's like to be on the campaign trail with President Trump. We get that request a lot. We may be working on some of that. But also the idea, again, that the same issues, life, that's a huge issue. Obviously immigration, nationality, borders, schools, education, and of course the economy.

But here, national security takes a little different tone when you've got the Ukraine war just not so far away. Yeah, so Jordan, by the way, is coming to you from our offices in our radio studios that we have in our offices in Strasbourg, France. Let's go ahead and take Dave's call from California on Line 1. Dave, go ahead, you're on the air. Hey, huge supporter of ACLJ.

Great, thank you. I just wanted to let you guys know, you know, I believe in the American public. I am very disappointed to hear you guys support her and the special counsel's recommendation not to file charges or not to go forward.

Why are you disappointed? Our position for President Trump is that a sitting President cannot be charged and prosecuted. That was our position that I advocated before the special counsel against him, Bob Mueller, and ultimately prevailed on that. That you cannot indict a sitting President according to the Department of Justice skyline. So, Dave, do you disagree with our position on that?

No, I agree with your position on that. But once they took that forward, and we've spent millions of dollars to do this, and to sit here and think that because Biden and his attorneys probably played a little game and said, oh, boy, we don't have a, we can't remember that. We can't, you know, let it go to trial. But you can't try a sitting President.

You cannot bring an indictment against a sitting President. That's Department of Justice guidelines, and it's based on the separation of powers in the Constitution. So I appreciate what you're saying, Dave, and I understand the frustration, but we have to be consistent, Jordan, with the constitutional position.

We do. I mean, I've heard that throughout the hearing today, too, and I know it is frustrating for people when you hear, I mean, how many different places he had classified information. And, Dad, when her, I think that line, when her said that recording that he had of Joe Biden telling his biographer that he made, you know, that wrote the book for him, The Ghost Writer, $8 million he made, he said, hey, I found the classified documents.

I've got them for us. I mean, that is, that's $8 million worth of crime right there that can't be prosecuted. But you don't indict- And I know that it is frustrating.

Yeah, I understand Dave's frustration, but you don't indict a sitting President of the United States. Folks, we are busy at work on going after the Biden administration where we can. And the only way we can fight and win is with your support of the ACLJ. We've lost our life in Liberty Drive and any amount you give will be doubled. So we're battling against this two-tiered system of justice and the partisan bureaucracy with 18 ongoing lawsuits against the Biden deep state. Eighteen cases against the deep state right now. And your gifts allow us to mobilize our offices in the United States, Europe where Jordan is, and Jerusalem in defense of Israel, including a new lawsuit over the funding of the pro-Hamas UNRWA organization, which is part of the UN.

Please support us now during our Life in Liberty campaign. How many amount is doubled? And we're 303 away from becoming 20,000 ACLJ champions. We started at 15,000. My goal was to add about 1,000 a month. If we can get those 300, we will be at 20,000, which is about 1,000 a month.

So go to ACLJ.org for that. And if you can make a monthly gift, that will really help us out as an ACLJ champion. We've got a whole half hour of the broadcast coming up. You're not going to want to miss it. We're going to have more analysis.

We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jay Sekulow. We're giving you a live analysis of the Robert Herr hearing that's going on right now on Capitol Hill. Robert Herr is a special counsel who was appointed to look into the Biden handling of classified documents. He recommended no prosecution, but the reason that he recommended no prosecution here is very interesting, Andy. Let's lay that out again at the beginning of this segment for people. The reason that Herr recommended that Biden not be prosecuted, apart from the fact that you can't prosecute a sitting President, but assuming under an argument that you could prosecute him, he said that he would come across to a jury as a well-meaning, sympathetic, elderly man with a bad memory.

Why is that important? In a criminal case, the government has to prove the elements of the crime, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, possession of classified materials illegally, all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And these crimes are what we call specific intent crimes. You've got to show that the person who allegedly committed the offenses, had intent to do so, was knowingly acting, had willfulness in his conduct. And because of Biden's memory incapacity, let's keep it that way, memory incapacity, memory diminution, a jury would find that he was not guilty because he didn't have the mental intent to form the specific intent that you have to have to commit a crime, Jay. That's simply what he said.

So, which, you know, it brings up, of course, the point. And let's go ahead and take, we're getting a lot of calls at 800-684-3110. Let's take Scotty's call in Missouri on Line 2.

If you want to talk to us, 1-800-684-3110. Scotty, go ahead. Yeah, so if President Biden's mental capacity is so bad, you know, should he be reelected as Commander in Chief of the United States? That's the $64 million question. His memory is so bad, he's a nice old man, but he's got this really bad memory.

Do you want him running your country? And Robert Herr is dancing around that issue, but it's not so easy. I mean, and Andy mentioned the legal standard, but Harry, from a policy standpoint, it's a really good question. It's absolutely a great question. And the question is amplified because many people have similar doubts about the Vice President's capacity to operate as President. So I think this is a judgment ultimately that has to be made by the American people. And they have to decide between two, perhaps even three candidates for President this fall, which of those candidates is most qualified. But at the end of the day, the caller's question also underscores the work of the ACLJ in trying to assure the American people, or ensure that the American people have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. And we have been active in making sure that Donald Trump was not unjustly disqualified from the ballot. So I think ultimately the decision will be up to the American people.

And no doubt about that. And that's another reason why you should be supporting the work of the ACLJ. We've got 18 cases against the Biden deep state right now.

18. But we also, as Harry just mentioned, were counsel of record for the Colorado GOP after the attempt by the left to remove Trump from the ballot. We were successful in that case, 9 to 0. We're working on a brief on the immunity issue right now. That is also at the Supreme Court. We filed a brief on the issue of what is the First Amendment implications of an overly broad interpretation of interference with Congress. Judge Katzas at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with our position.

And that is now at the Supreme Court of the United States too. So when you support the work of the ACLJ, your gift will be doubled and you're allowing us to do this important work. Again, that's ACLJ.org slash life and liberty.

Now let me ask you something else. We are, and I'll get an exact number in a few minutes, but we are three, we were, we started the broadcast, 303 ACLJ members away from reaching 20,000 ACLJ champions. If you could be one of those 303 members that can support the work of the ACLJ monthly, I encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org to have us reach that goal of 20,000.

We'll be back with more, including your calls at 800-684-3110. Welcome back to the broadcast. When Jeff Valoban, who heads up our office in Jerusalem, is joining us. Jeff, there is a new call by senators led by Bernie Sanders to urge President Biden to stop arming Israel, citing violation of U.S. aid law, basically trying to say that Israel is acting like a terrorist organization. And then at the same time, you've got Biden saying there's this red line for Rafa, that if they go into Rafa, that could be a red line. And then he goes back and says, as Andy pointed out, there is no red line.

You were just there. You should return from our office in Israel. What's kind of the temperature on the street there? A lot of frustration, a lot of anger that President Biden and his entire administration seems dedicated to making sure that Israel cannot defend itself. This is seen as an existential war.

These are atrocities against innocent civilians. Israel's trying to wage a war, and Biden himself and his administration is using, literally using Hamas's own ridiculous disproven statistics to essentially accuse Israel in what's just a massive modern blood libel. And it seems to be, you know, the joke I heard, and it's a bitter joke, is, yeah, there is a two-state solution here. It's a solution for Michigan and Minnesota. It's he's got domestic political concerns on the extreme pro-Hamas side, pro-terrorist side, and he's bending to them.

You know, it's interesting you said that because, Harry, you have said something very similar. And you look at this from a policy perspective, and the United States telling Israel where they should go fight next, to me is very dangerous. Absolutely. So one of the things to keep in mind is we should have utmost respect for Israeli sovereignty. This is part and parcel of the right to self-determination. So I think the Israeli people ought to decide what their policy objectives are without intervention from the globalist bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. And keep in mind that the globalist bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. have an undistinguished record. If you look at the collapse of our policy in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, and elsewhere, everywhere the globalists in the State Department have gone, the policy generally has backfired. So I think it should be up to the Israeli government and the Israeli people to decide their future going forward.

Jeff, I agree with Harry. What is your sense of kind of the appetite right now? I mean, this war is going on almost 150 days, so we're going to be, you know, it's October 7th, we're going to be at six months next month. It doesn't seem there's an end in sight, and then they're talking about a major engagement in Rafah, and there's a serious concern about what's going to happen out of Lebanon. What's your sense of that? And in addition to that, what's happening alongside, you know, Israel's biggest border, which is with Jordan and the land that the world likes to refer to as the West Bank, which has been Judea and Samaria since time immemorial, where there's more and more violence beginning again.

The concern is, look, as America goes, so the world goes. America, when American administrations support Israel, then the world knows that they have to sort of back off. But as soon as the American administration suggests and demonstrates that it's not really supporting Israel, bloodshed occurs. And it's not just the Jews who get killed.

It's just massive bloodshed. The appetite in Israel, there's no question about it. This is not, you know, a Bibi or Benjamin Netanyahu or a Likud party situation.

This is across the board. The vast, overwhelming consensus in the state of Israel is that there's a long way to go here. They still don't have their hostages back, many of them, as we know. They still have not yet done enough damage to Hamas and not just Hamas, but the other terrorist organizations that are based in Gaza.

And you know what? America, instead of supporting Israel in the way that Harry and you just mentioned, America, for example, is allowing the Egyptians to keep the Gazans bottled up, thus creating a situation where they're forcing Israel to wage war in areas where more and more noncombatants will be killed, and then they will blame Israel and, of course, refer to as genocide. So it is America teaming up with literally the same people who committed October 7th. You know, Andy, we are looking at right now, we filed a Freedom of Information Act request as it relates to the United States and the UN Relief Agency, UNRWA. We now have plaintiffs for, and there that is, we're even up on the screen for people right now, we are working on a lawsuit that will be filed in the next week or so for individual plaintiffs against the United Nation Relief Agency's 501c3, their nonprofit, for aiding and supporting Hamas terrorists. The fact of the matter, and the United States has labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, but yet, and we're not giving money to the UN Relief Agency right now, which is good, the United States isn't. But the corruption within these agencies is so deep that the only way to get to this is through litigation. And that's what we are- Because they're not going to self-police. No, no, they're not, and that's what we've started basically laying the groundwork for doing by these lawsuits and by these Freedom of Information Act requests. We know what UNRWA is, it's a cover for the terrorists.

They pay them, they take care of them, they harbor them, they do everything that they possibly can to promote their interests. The thing that I really abhor is the fact that an organization, the United Nations, which was supposedly established in order to prevent wars, to prevent insecure happenings throughout the world, and to prevent these things from occurring after World War II, the United Nations formulated, is now really being used as an organization that is promoting the kind of unrest, and the kind of dissension that we see in the Holy Land, and especially in Israel, that Jeff Balabon mentioned and talked about. Jeff, there's a lot of talk that the Netanyahu government is very fragile right now, and the coalition is fraying.

You were just there, what's your sense on that one? They're still in a war footing, but there's no question that what's also seen is this administration in America trying to undermine that fragile coalition, trying to push forces who are, by the way, making claims that they know the Israeli people does not, the people there do not support nationally, to sort of appease the Biden administration to try to oust Bibi, because it is well understood that Israel does care about the relationship between the White House and Jerusalem. However, and by the way, and Bibi, of course, is weak because this attack happened on his watch, however, the policies across the board are supported by Israel, which is to say, no matter who the prime minister is, they have to go into Rafah, they have to get the hostages back, they have to do more damage to Hamas and the other terrorist organizations, and frankly, America is being a hindrance now to that, and they're trying to invade for domestic political concerns, they're trying to destroy Israel's own political system. And Jeff, the reality is, I mean, every report I read, and I monitor the Israeli news also, and of course talking to you when you're over there for our office, the fact of the matter is Hamas has not been eliminated. I think they've been significantly decimated, but they've not been totally decimated, and until they're totally decimated, there's no victory to declare. They've been certainly impaired, there's a lot of damage to command and control, but you know what, even in areas that Israel is, as they move south, has secured areas, and they put more force further south in Gaza, well, militants show up again, terrorists show up again in the north, and they fill that vacuum.

So the truth of it is that there really is no solution here other than completely destroying not just Hamas, but the other organizations there, because remember, Jay, as you well know, Hamas is one of many groups, they all have one mission publicly, proudly, genocide. They all say it, and that's what controls Hamas. And they are all proxies for Iran.

Yes. Every one of them are proxies for Iran. Harry, what do you think, from a policy perspective, should be the U.S. position on this? How should they be responding in this situation right now with Israel as this war actually intensifies? Well, first, I think the United States should not actively attempt to undermine Israeli democracy. The U.S. government is actively at work undermining democracy in a number of countries, including Israel, including Hungary, including many African countries, largely to satisfy domestic policy and political considerations. So I think at the end of the day, we should go back to one bedrock principle. It's up to the Israelis to decide.

That's number one. Number two, Israel faces an existential threat from both Hamas and Hezbollah. And essentially, Israel faces an existential threat from Iran.

And so at the end of the day, let the Israelis decide and simply get out of the way. Jeff, 30 seconds. What do you think is the next big move? What are we going to see next?

Literally 30 seconds here. Well, everyone's waiting to see what happens in the north, in Israel, which changes the entire dynamic, because as terrible as the situation was in the south of Israel, what could happen from up north dwarfs it. People need to realize that there are still tens of thousands of families who have lived as evacuees now for months from the north, even as they try to get back to normal in some parts of the south of Israel.

And remember, we're talking about a very small country. The next situation is going to be, really, what I'm hoping is that Joe Biden and the Democrats realize, and I hope they realize that it's not popular in America to be anti-Israel. And they have now become pretty clearly anti-Israel.

Yeah, no doubt about it. Jeff Balbon, who heads up our Jerusalem office, we appreciate so much you being with us. Very, very important updates on the situation in Israel. Folks, as I said earlier, abandoning Israel is not an option here. In their greatest time of need, we need to support them more than ever.

What President Biden is proposing, in our view, from a policy standpoint and a legal standpoint, is unacceptable. Israel is our ally, and its fight for survival is paramount. I've mobilized our offices in the United States, in Europe, and in Jerusalem to meet this critical need, and we are, depending on your support, able to do that.

We're defending Israel, even as President Biden orders military to create this floating disaster, as we call it, off of Gaza and draws his so-called red line, which he won't define. We've already filed FOIAs against the United Nations Relief Agency, lawsuits coming in the next few days. We just filed a legal submission to the UN Human Rights Council, and C.C. Howe from our office is going over to make an oral intervention in Geneva later this month.

We're also fighting, of course, domestically on this attempt by President Biden, as he mentioned, to codify Roe. Please support us now during our Life and Liberty Drive. Any amount is doubled at ACLJ.org. If you're becoming an ACLJ champion, you fight alongside us each and every month.

Join the fight at ACLJ.org, and if you become a monthly gift, you become an ACLJ champion. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. We're going right to our phones. We have a lot of calls that have come in.

1-800-684-3110. You heard from the head of our Jerusalem office. You heard from Jordan, who was in our office in Strasbourg, France. And now you're going to hear from James, one of our listeners on Line 3 from Virginia. James, welcome to the broadcast. You're on the air.

Thanks, Jay. You know, there's a frustration with this lack of accountability of Biden. My question is, it sounds like the only avenue is either after he's successfully impeached or he's out of office, is it an option to indict him at that time? Because this doesn't seem to be something within the immunity realm, something related to his official duties. Yeah, so again, you bring up that.

It's a very good question. So our position is that if it's within the official acts of the President, you cannot be charged with a crime. And that's an extension of the case of Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which was saying no civil liability.

We think that it should apply to official acts in criminal matters. These were not official acts. And he also was not the President. He was the vice President at the time. So technically, Andy, if the charges could be brought, charges could be brought, but you're still concerned about the capacity to get a conviction here.

Yeah, I think definitely you're right. These are not official acts. He was not the President.

He was the vice President. So those two hurdles, I think, are met. But the reality remains, what will a jury think of him? What will a jury say?

Will they see a person who is elderly, sympathetic, well-meaning, but has a very bad memory and can't recall things? And will that cause a prosecutor not to be able to carry his or her burden beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue of specific intent? And these are specific intent crimes. You have to have taken the classified documents.

You have to have misused them knowingly, willfully, and with specific intent. And that's still a hurdle that has to be crossed, no matter if you can cross them. And I think it'd be very difficult. Harry?

I think Andy is correct. Certainly, perhaps because I'm a little bit more ambitious with respect to these issues, I would be willing to try the case, particularly if I could get the jury of my choice. That doesn't happen, but go ahead. So I think the other problem is, which basically supports Andy's position, is more likely than not, you would have to try this case in either Delaware or Washington, D.C., and I don't think you are going to win your case.

You can have very sympathetic juries to the President. Absolutely. No doubt about it. Let's go right back to the phones. We are taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Bob is calling from Washington. He's on Line 2. Bob, welcome to the broadcast. You're on the air. Thank you very much.

Hey, I just wanted to ask a question. If the President is not mentally able to go to court and answer for his crimes because he can't remember anything, why in the world is he not a perfect candidate to invoke the 25th Amendment? He's certainly not able to even finish out his last year here. The 25th Amendment should be invoked if he cannot stand trial because of his memory situation. The question is going to be who invokes the 25th Amendment. The cabinet normally is where you would kind of let authority lies, although it can go elsewhere.

Not likely you're going to have that at all, so you're not. I also think we've got to be very careful about, because remember, they tried to do that against Trump. There was all that discussion about the 25th Amendment and what does it mean, and is he capable of serving?

I think the 25th Amendment is very dangerous. That, to me, is really incapacitated. I think that is correct, and in addition, the question becomes what happens next. So if indeed we decide under the 25th Amendment that President Biden is incapacitated, then who becomes President or who acts as President? That's Kamala Harris. And the question then becomes are the American people better off? I think the answer is possibly no.

So at the end of the day, I think it's going to be up to the voters to decide who is the next President, and that means we will probably have to muddle through with President Biden for at least another 10 or 12 months. All right, let's go to Kathy, who's calling from Kentucky on Line 4. Hi, Kathy.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. I cannot help but wonder what the goal of having her make this evaluation is for, because this seems to be that it could set a really questionable precedent. So you raised a really good question. It's supposed to determine criminal culpability. That's what a special counsel does, Andy. Yes, it does, and I see the caller's concern. I mean, she says there's not any elderly person who says, I've got a bad memory, just set himself up with a perfect defense at that point and say, I can't remember. I don't remember.

I don't remember what I did. Therefore, you can't prosecute me because my mental capacity is to recall and to form specific intent has been so diminished that I can't recall. Bad precedent, very dangerous thing to do. Prosecutors are important.

Make sure you know who your prosecutors are and make sure your elected officials appoint prosecutors to the positions of U.S. attorney who have good judgment. All right, let's go to – I'm going to play Congressman McClintock's statements. I think this is really helpful here, folks. Take a listen to this. So the answer to my earlier question is correct. All I have to do when I'm caught taking home classified materials is to say, I'm sorry, Mr. Herbert, but I'm getting old.

My memory's not so great. Congressman, I – This is the doctrine that you've established in our laws now, and it's frightening. Congressman, my intent is certainly not to establish any sort of doctrine. I had a particular task, I have a particular set of evidence to consider and make a judgment with respect to one particular set of evidence, and that is what I did.

Here's the problem with what Robert Herr said. If someone's – and I use the example of vehicular homicide. Five years ago they committed vehicular homicide, they're being prosecuted. At the time that they committed the act, they had criminal intent, they were negligent or whatever the standard is in the state for vehicular homicide.

The fact that five years later, Andy, they don't have a really good memory doesn't negate the intent that they had at the time the trial was committed if there is evidence to show specific intent. That's exactly right. So Herr is wrong on that point. He's right. He is incorrect.

If you have the specific intent at the time of the commission of the offense, I would say prosecute the case. But what he is saying is now with the passage of time and after they've interviewed him and after he's made his statement, that's a luxury you don't get if you're a prosecutor to interview a defendant in making that decision. But he says, I just can't see a jury convicting this guy. Herr brought up another point, and Herr really quickly here, and that was the fact is Delaware or Washington, D.C., the jury's going to be very pro-Joe Biden. Absolutely.

And so it's the sympathy of the jurors, or put a different way, the prejudice of the jurors that works in Biden's favor. Yeah. All right, folks, we are about 300, a little bit less, members away, ACLJ champions, from reaching our first major goal, which was 20,000. And we believe we can do it this month. And I want to be able to announce, if possible, at the end of the month that we have, in fact, reached our first goal, which is 20,000. Our ultimate goal over the next 12 to 16, 18 months is to get over 30,000. But 20,000 would be the next goal, which would mean since October we've added 5,000 ACLJ champions.

These are people that are giving each and every month. Now, we're in an ACLJ life and liberty drive, which means any amount you give will be doubled. We told you about all the cases we're handling, 18 cases against the Biden deep state. All those cases go forward because of your support of the ACLJ. So if you could support us, we appreciate it.

If it's a one-time gift, that's great, too. ACLJ.org forward slash life and liberty. Now, if you can give monthly, I want to be able to announce at the end of this month, a little over two weeks, that we have, in fact, reached our goal.

And this would be fantastic. And that goal, of course, would be 20,000 ACLJ champions. And we are less than 297 away from hitting that goal. If you could be one of those 297, we would appreciate it at ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-03-12 14:26:31 / 2024-03-12 14:46:36 / 20

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