BREAKING: Major Trump Immunity Case Update

We've got breaking news, a major update in the Trump immunity 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, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We're going to be taking your calls 1-800-684-3110. My dad's here as well, so take care of yourself. Get your calls in right now.

1-800-684-3110. We do have a major update in the Trump immunity case and also some fun verbiage from our favorite Adam Schiff. Maybe your next senator from California, by the way.

Probably likely. Let me put up on the screen, though, and I'll describe for a radio audience what we've got. This is our brief that's going in tomorrow to the Supreme Court of the United States in Trump versus the United States of America. It is an amicus brief in support of the former President.

It is on the issue of immunity. And in our view, the way the court should look at the case is there's a case called Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which allowed for immunity in civil cases for official acts. Acts the President takes as President cannot then later, when he's out of office, be subject to a lawsuit where every President's going to be surrounded by lawyers. Believe me, and they're surrounded by a lot of lawyers already.

And it'll impact their decision making. That should extend, of course, to criminal cases when it's an official act involved. An official act by nature shouldn't be deemed criminal. So what the Supreme Court needs to, and I think the left is now coming to the realization that the Supreme Court took the case to say that the district court and the DC Court of Appeals got it wrong when they said that there was no immunity for criminal acts here. To determine what are official acts and then be litigated again. Meaning Jack Smith's case there isn't going to trial before the election. And it's not going to trial before the election also because the day before that case is argued, you've got a January 6th protester case being argued. And in that case, the defendant is arguing that the interference with Congress statute, which is two of the four counts against Trump, was interpreted so broadly as to infringe on First Amendment rights. Judge Katzas, speaking for the dissent in that case at the DC Circuit, said that the petitioner was right, that the case was, the statute was being interpreted overbroad. The Supreme Court took it. My view is they took it to overturn it.

So Jack Smith, I think, is about to be hit with a second defeat in those cases. And then, of course, we won the 14th Amendment case in Colorado. Those cases all are over with now and all those cases are in the process of being dismissed. So our brief on the immunity is going into the court.

There it is on the screen. Tomorrow we reviewed it over the weekend, made more changes to it. But it's a solid document and really, I think, sets forth the law really clearly. And I think it will be influential as our briefs are read by the court when this comes up. Yeah, we'll get back from a break. We'll tell you and play for you what Adam Schiff had to say, why he is not thrilled with the Supreme Court.

And again, as you said, a guy likely to be a senator, someone who is likely to be one of the people who is voting to confirm or not the next Supreme Court justices. So we'll discuss that coming up in the next segment. Before we do, though, we are in the final two weeks of our life and liberty drive. And I want you right now to understand that the threats to our life and liberty are growing more intense each and every day. We urgently need your support to meet this critical challenge. So right now, go to ACLJ.org because any donation you give is doubled right now.

That's right. We're filing a lawsuit today to defend a teacher at the public schools in Texas who was banned from praying outside the school because students could see and join in. We've also filed a lawsuit defending students at another school who were banned by their coach from praying before a track meet.

This along with the fact that we have filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the State Department over the issue of funds from the State Department being given to UNRRA with the knowledge that UNRRA has been aiding Hamas. So right now, I encourage you, go to ACLJ.org. Our goal is 20,000 ACLJ champions. That is monthly supporters.

People who have said, I am dedicating to give monthly to the ACLJ. And we are almost there. We are only at 116 people short.

116 champions. You can be one of those today. Help us hit that goal. Go to ACLJ.org. Not only support the ACLJ if you can with a single donation, but click that box. Become a champion today and have your gifts doubled again. Help fight alongside of us each and every day.

Go to ACLJ.org. We get back. Play that clip from Adam Schiff.

Welcome back to Secula. We weren't teasing it before. We want to get straight to what Adam Schiff had to say along with everybody else. Let me put this in context. The left has come to the realization, I think it really took place over this weekend, that the immunity case, which they pooh-pooh, they said the court would never hear. Then they said, well, when they did take it, they're going to affirm. Now they're all saying, oh, they're going to take it. They're probably going to reverse. So now you're seeing this concerted effort to attack the Supreme Court's credibility. That's what the left's doing. You're going to see that with comments we're going to play.

But we're going to play in this segment all the comments from the Democratic leadership since President Obama and their attacks on the court. All right. Where should we start? Let's start with Adam Schiff. All right. Let's move on.

Adam Schiff, take a listen. The Supreme Court moved with great speed when it came to ruling that Trump could appear on the ballot. The question is, will it also move with great speed in rejecting this bogus immunity claim? If it doesn't, it's making a deliberate decision, essentially, to push the trial past the election. And I think that would be a terrible decision, both for the interest of justice. It would be a terrible decision in depriving American voters of the information they would learn during the course of that trial. But it would also just further discredit this partisan and reactionary court.

Here's the ridiculous nature of what he said. First of all, the Supreme Court had to get the case involving the one we did as the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment done before Super Tuesday. So, of course, they expedited it. Here they've taken it.

They haven't expedited it. They're going to reverse Adam Schiff because the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals was so absurd. Immunity stops the moment you leave the White House.

Well, that's not immunity at all. And it doesn't extend to criminal cases, but it applies to civil cases for official acts. So they're going to reverse, in my humble opinion. But what you're going to see, and you're going to see it during this segment of the broadcast, is this now concentrated attack on the Supreme Court. They're not getting what they want in these decisions. And they're going to attack the Supreme Court.

Harry, what's your take on this? Well, my take number one is no one has done a better job of discrediting himself than Adam Schiff. He has consistently attacked the court on a partisan basis. And Adam Schiff is better known as Mr. Disinformation. So he's now warning the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that Adam Schiff claimed that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

He said he had the proof of that, which he did. And then he claimed that the Hunter Biden story in 2020 was bogus and it was Republican disinformation. Now he's attacking the Supreme Court.

In attacking the Supreme Court and in attacking the separation of powers, Adam Schiff, in my opinion, has trampled on the Constitution like the Vandals trampled on Rome during the 5th century. Let's walk it back now. You heard from Adam Schiff. You heard what he just said. Now let's take you a little bit back. Here's President Biden from just, what, 10 days ago?

Yeah, about two weeks ago. At the State of the Union. It's a decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court majority wrote the following, and with all due respect, justices. Women are not without electoral power. Excuse me, electoral or political power.

You're about to realize just how much you've arrived at. You know, the last one that did this was Chuck Schumer, who plays his in a moment, where they attacked the Supreme Court and then someone tried to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh. They don't realize the words they're saying. An independent judiciary is just that. It means they don't give you decisions you always like. Listen, I've argued, I think we've calculated enough, I've had 25 cases of the Supreme Court, argued like 16 of them, but we've had others that were summarily disposed of. You know, and we've generally won, but there's been a couple we lost, and you know what?

That happens. And I don't say the court's illegitimate, I say, you know, I disagree with the court's opinion. They cannot help themselves. But it goes past Joe Biden go all the way back to President Obama. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests. Including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests. Or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.

And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems. So there you go, another attack on a Supreme Court opinion, by the way. Was this the famous one where Justice Alito said, without saying the words, not true.

And by the way, President Obama was totally wrong on the analysis of that case. The First Amendment implications were very important here. First Amendment rights apply in the political context. Democrats don't always like that, Harry, but that is what the law is. Absolutely. And the Democrats have taken advantage of that particular law.

Keep in mind that if you look at the structure of the Democratic Party itself, it is indeed a corporation. So if the Democrats are going to be consistent, they ought to deprive themselves of their own First Amendment rights first and set an example for the rest of us. Let's take it away.

You can't do this without hearing from Chuck Schumer. I think he's been obviously the worst last one. This was a classic back from 2020. You remember it. We've all heard it. We've all remember it. Almost exactly four years ago. This was the worst one of all, my thing.

Kind of a week before the world shut down. This was Chuck Schumer. Go ahead. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. The decision hadn't been made yet. That was the leaked threat. Yeah, that was the leaked decision.

And of course, somebody in one of the chambers, I guess I know who, but I think, but leaked it out. But Chuck Schumer threatened justices that if they didn't get the decision right, according to Chuck Schumer, they would release a, quote, hairy whirlwind. Let's do it. It's Israel now.

Absolutely. This is part of the Democratic playbook. They demand that the Supreme Court adhere to the Democratic ideology. If not, they will then claim that the Supreme Court is illegitimate. They will then attempt to discredit the United States Supreme Court. And if we focus, for instance, on the current prosecutions of Donald Trump, even Adam Schiff was forced to admit that some of the issues that have come up that have delayed the Donald Trump trials are basically a function of the Department of Justice delaying bringing the lawsuits in the first place.

So they could have had these prosecutions in 2021 or 2022, but they decided to wait until 2023 and 2024. That is a mistake of their own making. They ought to pay the price. You know, this actually came up, Harry, this past weekend in some of the Sunday shows, that it was the Department of Justice that waited to do this all right before the election. It's blowing up on them. Every time they do it, Trump gets stronger.

But the fact is, they're really, their timing on this is what they said. We've got an interesting call which ties into the Trump litigation thing. I think we should take, we'll take phone calls, by the way, at 800-684-3110. Yeah, this was some breaking news that just came out.

Let's go to Karen in North Carolina. Hi, thank you for taking my call. I was watching Bannon and it said on the ticker tape that Trump's lawyers said that Trump cannot secure the $455 million. My question is, does he have, is he able to still appeal? What is his recourse and are they going to take his property?

You make a motion to reduce the, you file a motion to reduce the bond. Because if $400 million is, $200 million would be fine. It depends on what he can actually come up with. He's a real estate developer and a lot of their assets are tied up in buildings.

Now he's got, they have significant cash reserves, but half a billion dollars would blow the cash flow of any business. I think this is, this was such an overreach to begin with. This was a valuation case with no victim. You're talking about a victimless crime. So I think if the court was wise, they would reduce the bail amount so that they could go on a normal appeal process.

But nothing in these cases is happening normally. Believe me, I was working on a brief. Let's put it up on the Supreme Court in the United States. I'll put it back up. This brief is being filed tomorrow, going to the printer today.

We were working on this over the weekend and as I was redrafting some of the, they did it, Martim did a great job tightening up a little bit. I realized, this is ridiculous. That we're even having to have arguments on cases like this, Logan. It's absurd.

Let me tell you what's not absurd. The 4,600 people that are watching just on YouTube right now. Thousands of people are watching right now on all cross platforms. Yeah, if you're brand new to this broadcast, we do this each and every day, we encourage you to subscribe. Even if you're not brand new and you just haven't hit that button, hit that subscribe button. It really does matter for us. If you're on YouTube, if you're on Rumble, follow the channel.

You know the drill if you're on any of the other outlets. But we encourage you, if you're right now, if you're brand new or if you haven't subscribed, to do that. We are in the last two weeks of our Life and Liberty Drive. So if you want to support this broadcast and the legal work that we do as well, media work and the legal work, you can do that right now. As all donations are doubled in the middle of the Life and Liberty Drive, which again, all donations are matched. And we are really pushing for ACLJ Champions right now.

Those are people that have stayed up and said, I will support the ACLJ at a monthly basis. So you can do that. Our goal is 20,000 by the end of this month. And we are so close. We're only 116 short. We may have an update number. I wonder if we can even get since we've been on the air.

116, we started this broadcast down. We want to get that up to 20,000 in the next couple of weeks. You can be a part of that right now.

Go to ACLJ.org. We have so much more coming up. Live reports of Jeff Balibon joining us later on, as well as Rick Grenell.

It's going to be a jam packed show, so don't go anywhere. Again, ACLJ.org right now, Life and Liberty Drive. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to the broadcast. We want to spend some more time on this situation with these courts. And we got the immunity case up there, which everybody on the left said first they would never agree to hear it. Then they did. Then they said, well, Harry, if they're going to hear it, you know they're going to say there's no immunity. It can't be immunity for criminal acts. Except what they deem a criminal act are official acts of a President while he's President. And there's already a precedent called Nixon versus Fitzgerald.

I noticed over the weekend they're saying, look, let's be realistic here. They're going to probably reverse and send it back down to the district court, which is exactly put it on the screen. This is the brief we're filing with the Supreme Court, and that will be bound and printed. And that will be done today. This is the brief we're submitting to the Supreme Court on that issue.

We took a very narrow and very specific approach. You know, sometimes you just need to get the ball in the basket. You don't need a three-point play here. You just need to get the ball. Actually, you just need one point. This could be a penalty shot, a foul shot. It's an easy decision in my view. They say that there's official immunity for – so it's limited to official acts.

It applies past when the President comes out of office and – excuse me – and also, I think this is important, it continues while he's out of office or else it's no immunity at all. But Harry, the left was convinced this was going to go the other way. Totally convinced.

I think that's correct. I think the left has been consistently wrong. First, they suggested that all of the litigation, all of the trials, all of the prosecutions would harm Donald Trump's candidacy.

That, of course, has backfired and blown up in their face. Then the left has been consistently wrong with respect to the immunity case. Then they said that the immunity claims by Trump were bogus. Second, they said the court and courts wouldn't take it. Now they're of the opinion that the Supreme Court may indeed issue an opinion that favors Donald Trump.

So at the end of the day, the American people should do one thing and one thing only. They should not listen to the left. The left has basically been taken over by bad forecasters who really don't know very much about the law. They are animated by one thing, animus toward Donald Trump, which blinds them to the merits of many of these legal claims. And so here we have the Georgia case, which is almost blowing up in the face of Fannie Willis, and we have other cases that are likely to blow up as well.

Actually interesting. We've got calls coming in. By the way, if you want to talk to us, 800-684-3110. Logan, we have a call on the Fannie Willis Atlanta case. Let's go ahead and take it. Let's go to Jeff in North Carolina. You're on the air. Hey, Jeff.

Hey, guys. I hadn't heard anyone bring this up or talk about it. But concerning the money that was given to Nathan Wade and his firm, is he going to have to pay that back or give that back? Or does he get it as a parting gift or how's that going to work? Now, they will not get the money back because he billed for it. It was paid by Fulton County.

He sent in bills, authorized services were rendered. That's it. So the money's here's the fiasco in Fulton's problem. And this is when you have the odor of mendacity still surrounding the case. I mean, I even saw the liberal commentators on CNN and MSNBC say she's been severely wounded in this, Fannie Willis, even if she tries it. It just kind of reeks now of total impropriety. And I think the next move here is going to be a whole series of motions to dismiss and motions to exclude and motions for I mean, they're just an evidentiary suppression here. I mean, it's going to be dramatic on her.

She may fight back, but the case is ridiculous to begin with on Rico. But I think, Harry, in that, you know, the money doesn't come back, but the damage has been done. Absolutely. So if you look at the liberal commentariat, if you look at Jeffrey Toobin, who is formerly on CNN, if you look at Eli Honig, who's currently on CNN. By the way, Jeff Toobin's back on CNN.

Is he back? He is. Okay. Wow. I didn't realize that. I haven't been following him personally.

He's a friend of mine, so. But anyways, these commentators are in agreement now that the Fannie Willis case is likely to blow up if it is not already blown and deservedly so. And so there will be motion after motion by the defendants, which will inevitably delay the trial, likely past November, in addition to which the Fannie Willis case may indeed be handicapped because the case was initiated, grounded on an illegal phone call in Florida, according to news reports.

And so then there's a doctrine, a legal doctrine called the fruit of the poisonous tree, which may come into play, which will prevent any additional prosecutions and provide grounds for individuals who have already pled guilty to seek the removal of their guilty plea. There are so many motions coming in this case, Logan, after that ruling. First of all, the judge was wrong. They both should have been thrown off the case.

I mean, it was ridiculous. But putting that aside, there are going to be so many motions coming in this case. Because these are really good lawyers, people like Steve Sadow, Jennifer Little. They're really competent lawyers. They haven't seen anything yet.

It's that bad. We take another call. Yeah, let's go to Tommy, who's calling in Alabama on Line 1. You're on the air.

Hey, Tommy. Thanks for taking my call. I just want to let y'all know I really appreciate the work you're doing, and I've donated in the past, but I want to step that up and make it monthly. Oh, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. And down to 115. That's great.

A couple of people have done that so far during this hour. We appreciate it. Again, to become ACLJ Champion today, go to ACLJ.org and make sure you do that.

It makes a big difference. And if you are watching online, if you're one of the new people watching, maybe you've just served this on YouTube or Rumble, and you've never seen our broadcast. We do this each and every day, as well as our legal work.

I'm going to ask you a question, and I'm going to ask you to do something for me. Hit that subscribe button. Also, hit that thumbs up if you're on YouTube right now, because that means more people will see this. This point of view will be heard and seen by more people. We thank all the people who watch us each and every day through all the different platforms, and we try to make sure our content is available for you for free.

We can't do that without your support, so we appreciate that. Logan, for our people that are watching, because I'm looking at the numbers, and they're significant, they need to understand the amount of content they may not know, the amount of content we produce every day. Oh yeah, we do this show every day, and then there's tons of pieces that come up each and every day, whether that's on ACLJ.org, our website, which has written pieces, blogs, news articles from all the people you've heard on this broadcast today, and top leading voices in our sphere.

So go to ACLJ.org, not just to make a donation, but also to check out the great content we provide. And if you're watching on Rumble, if you're watching on YouTube, you can get so much amazing content each and every day, not just this broadcast. The broadcast is great, though. It's every day.

It's an hour. And then beyond that, we produce a lot of great content, an amazing team here, and of course, our legal work that goes on 24-7. We appreciate also everything that you're doing to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice.

We're in our life and liberty drive. Tomorrow we're filing our brief at the Supreme Court of the United States involving Presidential immunity. And this is a limited immunity to official acts while the President was in office, that he should be immune from criminal prosecution. It's an extension of the case called Nixon v. Fitzgerald. At the same time, we're filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of students in Texas, a rather teacher in Texas, who was reprimanded because she had the nerve to show up at a S.E.U.

at the poll event and bow her head and pray. And in light of the Coach Kennedy case of the Supreme Court, we think that case is an absolute win. We're fighting back on that one aggressively as well. We had a victory on a senior housing complex that threatened to evict Christian residents for having a Bible study as if it were some kind of unlawful meeting. The ACLJ fought back and one of our new lawyers, Garrett Taylor, worked on that case. And we got a brand new victory in that case. We've had a lot of these lately.

And by the way, there's some FHA rules on that that help. So whether it's fighting for prayer, fighting the deep state, fighting for Israel, American Center for Law and Justice is there. And we're how many short of 20,000 on our? I'm guessing somewhere around 114, 113. 114. We need 114 of you to step up and say, I can support the ACLJ monthly. If you do that, we reach 20,000, which is our goal for this month, of ACLJ champions. Champions of life, liberty, and freedom. If you can give monthly.

If it's a one-time gift, that's great too. ACLJ.org. Back in a minute. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. A lot of new people joining us right now. So welcome if you're watching online. We encourage you to subscribe, like this channel.

The ACLJ is a nonprofit law firm and media organization. So if you're brand new to us, we want to give you a bit of an understanding of what you're dealing with here. We don't just talk about what we're doing. We're actually taking action.

So we do encourage you to share it with your friends, subscribe on all of our social media apps. Let's go ahead and take Bill's call coming out of this whole what Supreme Court is being attacked by Schumer. He's already been attacked by Biden. Yeah, let's go to Bill who is calling from Wyoming on Line 3. Watch it on ACLJ.org, which we appreciate. Bill, welcome. Hi, Bill. Hi.

Hi, thanks for taking my call out. I think these guys are suffering from tunnel vision because of the myopia is they're going to open up a whole Pandora's box if the Supreme Court goes their way because it's going to bounce back on Biden. It's going to bounce back on Obama. And it's ridiculous. You know, I said, you know, Bill, I said to our radio audience that if I was Joe Biden and they were saying there's no immunity for official acts of the President from criminal prosecution after he's out of office, if I was Joe Biden, I'd be picking up the phone, calling Merrick Garland, Harry and saying, what are you doing?

This hamstrings me. I'm the President. It affects every President.

I think you're right. However, one of the issues with respect to the Democrats, even though they're very consistent in terms of their opposition to Donald Trump, is that they refuse to take a long term perspective. In the long run, Biden would be helped with an immunity decision that favored Donald Trump. But the Biden folks, they are so focused on the next election, they basically forget about the long term consequences if the President no longer enjoys immunity for official acts. The President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, should enjoy immunity with respect to their official acts.

Otherwise, the presidency would be hamstrung. Let's go ahead and take Sandra's call. This is on the phone. All of these put, you know, kind of run together in one sense. Sandra, you're on the air in California.

Hi. I'd like to know if there's, because all our taxpayers' money is going to be wasted. And if there's at any point, can we take action against Wade for getting our money back? Well, it's money from the, they did get some federal money, by the way, they did get some federal money. They also, of course, have the state of Georgia taxpayers were really putting this bill predominantly. There are, look, the state of Georgia Senate is looking at this.

Maybe the state bar of Georgia. We don't know that yet. So there are other avenues. The Congress is looking at this. I do not think it's likely that money is going to come back, though.

Just to be honest. But look, the issue is for real and it is taxpayer money. It just may not be worth the trouble, if you will. It's tough to spend the kind of money you would need to spend to get it back.

You'd spend more trying to get it back than you actually spent. That's right. We are, as you said, in the middle, right? We're halfway through the life and liberty drive for the month of March. And we are only under 115 people away from having 20,000 ACLJ champions.

I mean, there's thousands of you watching right now. You can make a difference, not only make an individual donation, which has doubled, matched right now, which is really great. But you can be a part of us each and every month. It gives us a great baseline. It really helps support the work of the ACLJ. Whether we are defending a teacher, whether we're defending students, or whether we're defending world leaders when necessary, we are there on all scales. I think that's important to know.

We're here for you. If you need legal help, absolutely at no cost. Yeah, for those students that we're representing and the teacher we're representing. Yeah, ACLJ.org slash help to get legal help. We provide all of that here at no cost, but obviously we can't do that without financial support. Financial support from you, ACLJ donors, and of course, ACLJ champions, which is what we're asking for today. Which is those who are going to step up and say they'd like to become a monthly ACLJ supporter.

Phone lines are lighting up. We're going to take more calls coming up at 1-800-684-3110. Jeff Balaban is joining us. Rick Grenell is joining us.

It's going to be a packed second half hour of this broadcast. If you are new, hit that subscribe button. If you're watching on YouTube, hit that follow button. If you're watching on Rumble, if you're listening on radio, find us on all your favorite social media platforms after you're done listening. We appreciate it. Again, 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. Our colleague, Jeff Balaban, who runs our office in Jerusalem, is with us. And he's with us because, obviously, the work we do over in Israel. But there's been a lot of discussion about the UN's relief and welfare agency. We are – we filed a FOIA request against – and now FOIA lawsuit against the State Department because of money that's going from the United States. There it is, United – American Center for Law and Justice versus U.S. Department of the State on money going from the United States to UNRWA. We are looking at a – and are pretty close to getting a lawsuit filed against the UN's relief agency's nonprofit arm.

That is going to probably be filed in the next week or two. But then you had Chris Van Hollen, the senator from Maryland, rip into Israel. Take a listen to this. You said last week, senators need to read the classified report prepared by the director of national intelligence about the Netanyahu government claims about that agency. You seem to be implying that the links to terror groups are unfounded. Oh, there's no doubt that the claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu and others are making that somehow UNRWA is a proxy for Hamas are just flat-out lies. That's a flat-out lie. Actually, the flat-out lie was Senator Van Hollen because we know for a fact that employees of UNRWA were holding hostages, Israeli hostages. It's a fact, senator. A fact. Hostages held by the UN's relief agency. That's the fact. So, of course, they're in cahoots with Hamas.

Jeff? That's right, Jay. We know for a fact, in addition to the atrocities of October 7th and the ongoing hostage situation which UNRWA's employees are directly involved in, we know for a fact that UNRWA facilities have been used now for years and years to house terrorist operations, to house the arsenals used by Hamas and other terrorist groups to attack Israeli civilians. We know for a fact that UNRWA has for decades been teaching, I mean, raising generations to jihad, to genocide, to the destruction of the state of Israel. UNRWA could not be more interwoven, interlaced with October 7th and the atrocities committed then than any other terrorist organization.

And that's what they are, I believe. They are certainly supporting terror and apparently some of the people on their payroll are committing actual acts of violent terror. We also know that UNRWA gets its aid and then distributes it via Hamas. I mean, this is just fact. I mean, it's horrible for the people of the Gaza Strip, but it's fact. And, Jeff, they act like these facts are hard to uncover.

They're not. I would like to put, you know, this particular senator and his own background, just want to highlight his own background, Jay, which is, as you know, we've worked hard on this. There is an internationally accepted definition of what defines anti-Semitism and Israel's enemies and the enemies of the Jewish people have fought long and hard against it. Even though it was accepted by the UN, by both the Obama administration and the Trump administration and put into law in various ways by Israel. And yet Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the Labour Party in the UK, tried to destroy it and he was knocked down for being an anti-Semite.

Well, this same Senator Van Halen declared his intention to undermine this definition of anti-Semitism because he is so profoundly, profoundly committed to his own personal hostility against the state of Israel. You know, Jeff, the thing that concerns me the most on all of this, frankly, is we have, and this makes our job a little bit more difficult, and that is legally taking action in the international tribunals is one thing. We've already filed in the International Court of Justice. We filed at the ICC.

We've done those, as you know, with us for two decades. But affirmatively filing a lawsuit first against the State Department here to find out what the heck we are funding, you know we're going to get stonewalled. Well, that's why we're in federal court. But then this lawsuit we're working on against the nonprofit arm of UNRRA is going to unravel a whole host of things. Because we know that agents of Hamas were employed by UNRRA, worked for Hamas as well, were part of the Hamas terrorist organization, and they were, I go back to this point, holding hostages, including, by the way, the reports that it could be US hostages as well. It is my hope, Jay. We don't need to forget that there are 10 US hostages, we don't know if they're all alive, but 10 US citizens still being held hostage by Hamas or some of their colleagues, if you want to call it that.

That's right. And yet we have an administration that could care less about them, that has completely thrown them under the bus in its own war in Israel. But I will say this, Jay, it is my profound hope that the work that ACLJ is doing with these FOIA requests will lead to the kind of discovery of information that I really believe that UNRRA and some of its personnel should be prosecuted. For their own contributions to war crimes, to genocide, to terror, and breaking through this wall of silence, this blockade that happens.

And you know, this is difficult. The guy like Senator Van Hollen, listen, he's got immunity. He can say this kind of garbage about the state of Israel. He can support Hamas, which is really what he's doing here.

He's standing in support of the atrocities of October 7th by denying that they were committed by the people who committed them. And yet he knows he's immune because he's a US senator. Well, we've got to break through this, Jay, and that's why these legal efforts are necessary to pierce this veil. And everybody needs to remember that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis are all proxies of Iran. And Logan, we have reports now that an illegal entrant from Lebanon was caught at the border, admitted to be a Hezbollah terrorist, hoping to make a bomb, and was headed for New York. So this is, we know that wherever we are porous, they are trying to get in. Yeah, it's sadly becoming a bit of a common story. It's not like this is the first time we've heard of someone on the terror watch list or someone who is a terrorist making their way across the border.

We've heard this over and over again. Again, it's painted in a way that you wouldn't expect who is coming over this porous border. It's not necessarily always what you think of, obviously what the mainstream media wants you to think of, which is people seeking asylum, people coming for a better life.

A lot of times, or often now, we are hearing the story over and over again that there are a lot of terrorists, there's a lot of people who are coming to America to commit crime, making their way across that border. You know, Jeff, I am in contact with our colleagues in Israel, as you are when you're there. And we had Congresswoman Tenneon from New York who has got the proposal to call Judea and Samaria what they're supposed to be called, which is Judea and Samaria. Which land grant goes back to the Bible. And I've written a book about this called Jerusalem. And folks, if you just follow the law and the archeological evidence, it's the Jewish people's land. You could call it, well, you could call it the West Bank, you could call it the East Bank, you could call it Texas.

It's Judea and Samaria. And the fact that you have to have an act of Congress to do that, I will say this, under President Trump, I was there for the Golan Heights Declaration. Of course, we all worked on the Abraham Accords. But we're seeing this shift right now in Congress, starting with Schumer. And we haven't really talked to you much about the Schumer statement of interfering with the internal elections of an ally, which to me is unbelievable.

Yeah. Chuck Schumer, you know, they put him out there obviously because of the position he holds in the Senate, but also because he's Jewish and he proclaims that he speaks for Jews. No, he does not. He speaks for left. He speaks for the progressives.

He speaks for the Democrats. And where the Democrats have gone on this is very dark and very dangerous. And as you point out, Jay, you know, this is not just a war on Israel. This is, you know, our enemies are very, very clear. They say Israel is the little Satan.

America is the great Satan. And the fact that, as Logan points out, this is not the first case we know of, that we have jihadis who have crossed over our nonexistent border. We don't know how many hundreds of thousands there are in our country, but there are many, many, many thousands. I've heard reports it's possibly in the millions, but certainly hundreds of thousands of people who have come here to wreak the kind of terror and destruction and mayhem that we just saw a glimpse of on one day in Israel in October. And our country is not prepared for this.

And our country needs to look at this very clearly and understand the threat is already here. You're absolutely right. Jeff, we appreciate you being with us.

Thanks for your insight. As always, Jeff Balaban, by the way, Senior Counsel for the ACLJ, been a friend of mine for 35 years or so, and of course, runs our office in Jerusalem. And the ACLJ has an office in Jerusalem. We're active there throughout all of Israel. And we have people like Jeff Balaban and Rick Grenell and Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Pompeo.

I mean, think about this. We still do work with John Ashcroft in our institute. I mean, three former members of the cabinet and these experts around the country, Logan, and that only happens because of the support of our ACLJ members. Now, we're in the middle, smack dab in the middle of our life and liberty drive.

And we're a little bit ahead of last year, which is good, but we really want to be significantly ahead to build a cushion. So if you can support the work of the ACLJ, any amount of donations you make, we're getting a match for. And if you look at what we're filing, tomorrow is the immunity brief at the Supreme Court of the United States. We filed a case in Texas against a school district there for violating a teacher's right to bow and pray. Whether it is the Supreme Court of the United States or a teacher in Texas, we're there. We're representing another group of students in Indiana that were told to stop praying.

Let me never see you do that again, said the coach. All of this happens because of your support of the ACLJ. And that's whether it's a one-time gift or a monthly gift. So participate in our life and liberty drive. Your donations will be doubled at ACLJ.org slash life and liberty. And if you can stand with us monthly, you become an ACLJ champion. And Logan, those people are the individuals that stand with us monthly. And we are really close, I mean, really close to getting into our 20,000 goal to have 20,000 members.

That's right. We are only 106 away. That means quite a few of you have joined on with us in the last hour, and we appreciate that. Let's try to get that under 100 here in the next 15 minutes. If you want to become an ACLJ champion, we'll give you a report right before the end. We'd love to get, in the next 12 minutes, 13 minutes, a brand new group of ACLJ champions. Help us get under 100 in that 20,000 goal. We'll be right back with the last segment of Secular with Rick Grenell.

Welcome back to Secular. We're going to kick it off real quick with a phone call coming in. Jensen, who's calling from Texas on Line 5.

Jensen, you're on the air. Thank you. Appreciate your work.

I'm a monthly financial supporter and believe in your work. I have a question regarding the Fannie Willis case in Georgia. There are legal commentators all across the nation, both from the left and from the right, criticizing the judge's decision in some way, shape, or form. My question is, does that criticism influence how the judge handles the case going forward? After all, he's also reading and listening to these commentaries, I presume. And does it play a role in the court of appeals if they take it to the appeal to us?

I think the order, I've got Rick Grenell joining us. I think the order of, the order of mendacity, which is the judge's word, make this case stink all the way up the appellate system. Here's the problem. This judge tried to do, Rick, a wisdom of Solomon. I'm going to give a little to this and a little to this. But nobody called out and said, the mother didn't call out and say, no, don't kill the baby. And that's the problem with his order.

He gave a little to each side. The problem is Fannie Willis's fawny is totally tainted, but yet she gets to stay into a case. So if you think there was, you know, some corruption, or if you think this kind of has an odor of mendacity, as the judge likes to say, or there's irregularities in a prosecution of a former President of the United States, for goodness sake, you take a look at what happened here and you say to yourself, how in the world is, I call it the fiasco in Fulton, it looks ridiculous, Rick.

Yeah, for people who have common sense, I think that's the biggest thing is they look at this and they say, we saw the evidence. Why aren't we just having both of them go? Why do we have to just pick one or the other?

What are you trying to save? If there's a problem with the affair, if there's a problem with the money, they're both at fault. It's not just one. And, you know, I don't understand why we think we clean up the situation and that we have pure justice and we're back to being unbiased by just getting one, getting rid of one of these individuals. Interestingly, you know, this could be appeal. Now, it's a discretionary appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals. But I think if the Georgia Court of Appeals took an honest look at this, if they decide to take the case, I think they're going to say, nope, she had to go, her office had to go, then it goes to this prosecutorial counsel, which is how it should be. But if you look at a series of these cases, I pointed out the irregularities over the last week of each one of these cases. The New York valuation case, $18 million for Mar-a-Lago, that was ridiculous, OK? The parking lot's worth more than that.

Then you take a look at Jack Smith. Well, he's getting hit from every side. He's got the January 6th protester case about the interpretation of interfering with an act of Congress. Judge Katzas, very good Court of Appeals judge, said that in a dissent, way overbroad, chilled First Amendment free speech. If they win at the Supreme Court, and I think they're going to, that is going to be, I mean, realistically, two of the four counts are out. Then you got the immunity issue, which I'm filing our brief, put it on the screen, folks. We're filing our brief on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice, supporting the former President's position.

That is going to the printer today, filed tomorrow. They're going to grant limited immunity for official acts under Nixon versus Fitzgerald, or else the President's going to have to have even more lawyers than they already do. And Rick, this goes to the point of the irregularities in every one of these cases.

You go to the documents case, Joe Biden had documents in like 19 different locations. So it's ridiculous. And it makes us look like a third world country. Yeah, that's the problem that I have is just the strategy to go after President Trump through the courts, through the manipulation of the law by Democrats, the partisan nature of this. That's what makes me sad about this because it damages the United States of America and our brand. You know, we tell countries all the time to clean up their court system. We train their judges. I'm not sure that we're going to be able to keep the moral high ground here unless we clean up our own court systems. We can't have this.

But what you see is all of these cases falling apart. Thank God we do have lawyers like the ACLJ and our legal team fighting this. But we shouldn't have to spend all of this money and go through all of this distraction just simply to try to prove that what the Democrats are doing is partisan in nature and weaponizing the court. Rick, you were the director of national intelligence. You were also our ambassador to Germany. Chuck Schumer goes to the Florida Senate to chastise Israel and to interfere with the domestic politics of an ally. What's your reaction to that? Well, first of all, I don't think that it's wrong for any politician in America to criticize a foreign leader, including Bibi Netanyahu. If they don't like a policy, they should be able to criticize. So I want to make sure that we always protect that ability to criticize.

Certainly Donald Trump has criticized Bibi Netanyahu. But you cannot jump as the United States as a leader, a political leader in the United States. You can't jump into election interference and demanding elections in another country.

I think that that's dangerous. It's a slippery slope. And let's be clear about one thing when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian issue. The last election for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, was in 2005. That was his last election. He didn't have a five-year term in 2005. He's currently in his 18th year of his five-year term. Contrary to that, the Israelis have had more elections in the last five years than I think any country in the world.

So if you're going to focus on a country that needs elections, I'd start with the Palestinians. You know, it's interesting. We, in one of our FOIA requests that ended up being litigated, we were able to uncover that a million dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars came from the State Department directly to Mahmoud Abbas's son through his peace initiative.

I mean, this was total nonsense. But I'd be remiss here, though, folks, if I didn't ask you to pray for Rick's family. Because I know, Rick, your mom's been ill, and I know you believe in the power of prayer.

And we've got a lot of people, millions of people watching and listening to this broadcast. So pray for Rick's family. And, you know, Rick, keep us posted. But we are praying for you and your family. We do know that. Thank you.

As you know, my mom has raised four kids to be very pro-Israel, evangelical Christians, to think about how politics and policy and faith all interact. And so I thank you. I covet those prayers. Yes, thank you very much, Rick.

We'll be in touch. All right, folks, I got to say this also. People like Rick Rinnell, people like Mike Pompeo, people like Tulsi Gabbard, people like Jeff Balibon, John Asher. I go through the list of our people.

And then, of course, the people that appear on this broadcast every day. None of this happens without you. And I am happy to say that we are getting, our goal was today, if we could get under 100 away from our 20,000 goal for our ACLJ champions. I don't know if we're quite there yet. I don't know if we've got an update yet. 101 away.

101. Okay, okay. Well, Logan, go ahead. So there's two people we need in the next minute and a half. You can do that right now.

We'll report to you tomorrow. All you got to do is go to ACLJ.org, become an ACLJ champion right now in the middle of our life and liberty drive. We are halfway through, and this would be a perfect time to go on there. And all ACLJ champion is, all we're asking you to do is to make a donation and make it recurring. So make it happen to each and every month at any level, any level that you feel comfortable at. Just go to ACLJ.org when you're making your donation, join us as an ACLJ champion.

You could do that right now. As we said, our goal was 20,000 by the end of the month. We are almost there. We are just almost, maybe hopefully right now, just under 100.

We'll say we are 101. And that means a lot of you joined on in just this last hour. So we appreciate that. Yeah, it really makes a big difference too because our monthly donors, we get to set our special projects based on this. And then you're automatically in our matching challenge program.

It's great all the way around. But if you can only give a one-time gift, that's great too. If you could just pray for us, that's fine. We have our ACLJ prayer guides. Don't forget about that. 140,000 people have downloaded those prayer guides since we started that, which is really amazing. But if you can give monthly, become an ACLJ champion for life, liberty, and freedom.

Or if you can give a one-time gift, just go to ACLJ.org. We'll get an update. All right, folks, we'll know tomorrow. We'll announce that we're under 100. That's the plan. Come on in tomorrow. ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.