DANGER IN TEXAS: Court Chaos Denies Illegal Arrests

Today on Sekulow, danger in Texas. Court chaos denies enforcement of immigration law, 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, Jordan Sekulow. Courts. First, you know, as you saw the tease in Texas, you have a court chaos denying enforcement of the Texas ability to enforce immigration laws.

They tried to do something unique by utilizing their own law enforcement. Of course, you have to remember back to the Arizona case on SB 1070 where the Supreme Court said no. Unless the federal government basically gives you the green light, deputizes your local authorities to do these jobs. Even if it's a horrendous situation, you as the state are not able to utilize your resources. And so I think as this case makes its way up through the court system, they're going to have to look at SB 1070 and you might get another review by the U.S. Supreme Court of whether or not that was the right interpretation of Article 1. There's another, I think, interesting issue here, though, that in the law, it does allow for more state action if you can qualify what's happening as an invasion.

Correct. And right now, when you think about how many Americans have been killed by Fentanyl, the amount of people who are crossing the border illegally into Texas, I mean, that to me is kind of like the definition of an invasion because it actually is killing people. People are losing their lives.

They're not killing with guns, they're killing with drugs. No, you're right. I think there's a couple things we need to clarify. Number one, yesterday the Supreme Court issued a denial of a stay request that came from the federal government. And what they were trying to do, the Biden administration was saying, listen, the Fifth Circuit put in place an administrative stay which allowed the law of Texas to be enforced. That law makes it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person will be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries punishment up to six months in jail.

For subsequent offenses, the person will be charged with second-degree felonies facing up to 20 years in prison. If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, the judge will require the police to transfer them back to the point of entry. So as of yesterday, that law was still in place. As of today, it's not. Because while the Supreme Court denied the request of the Biden administration for a stay, what happened today was the Fifth Circuit, before oral argument, this is unheard of, this morning issued an order dissolving the administrative stay that they had put in place. Different panel and included a dissent from a judge appointed by President Trump. Another judge was appointed by Obama and Bush, and those two voted that the stay be lifted. So this is going to end up right back at the Supreme Court of the United States, and it's creating chaos at the border. More legal chaos in all of this. Yes, I mean, so again, you've got the appeals court putting the Texas immigration law back on hold. They will then want to appeal this to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court initially halted the law. So I mean, you've got here again another major constitutional case potentially heading to the Supreme Court, and a chance for them to look at SB 1070 in light of the illegal immigration we are facing today, and the consequences not just of the amount of people coming and of the resources where these towns and the crime, but also the amount of Americans that have died that you can directly tie to illegal immigration. Well, that's because there is a provision in the Constitution that says if a state is being invaded, which this constitutes an invasion. Article I, Section 10. Right.

If the state is being invaded, then they can take action to protect their citizens. We'll talk more about that coming up, but support the work of the ACLJ. By the way, we crossed 20,000 ACLJ champions.

Thank you. We have a stretch goal to add 350 more between now and the end of the month. Folks, you can help us do that by going to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Again, it's so important because those ACLJ champions, whether you say, you know what, I can donate $25 a month or $50 a month automatically, we are able to plan for next month, but also we're ready to go with all these issues that come up that you can't plan for at the ACLJ. So it's a dual, really a dual gift to the ACLJ so we can continue to do our work and expand our work.

Become an ACLJ champion today at ACLJ.org slash champions. Your gift will be doubled. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secular. Now we got to go to some breaking news as well. We'll continue to talk about, again, what is happening with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, obviously, but we do want to go to what's happened in Georgia and that the judge in Georgia is presiding over the election interference case announced Wednesday that he will allow President Trump and his co-defendants to appeal the order that denied the disqualification of Fannie Willis. Yeah, so it was discretionary.

He didn't have to because it's an interlocutory order. He is allowing that appeal. The appeal, though, goes to the Georgia Court of Appeals. There's a two-tier system in Georgia. There's the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court. Review by the Georgia Court of Appeals is not mandatory.

They have to accept it. So I've asked our team, I'm a bar member of the Georgia and the Georgia, I've argued in the Georgia Court of Appeals many times, that we could file a brief in that as well urging them to take it because I think once you have a classification that there's an appearance of impropriety on a criminal case and then the odor of mendacity as we talked about yesterday, I just don't see how that case can move forward with those same players, Harry. It makes no sense when you have an appearance of impropriety in a criminal matter. It's not a civil case.

This is a criminal case. Particularly, this case is a case of national importance and so I think the Court of Appeals should exercise its power to review the lower court's opinion even though it's discretionary and I also think that the lower court judge, Judge McAfee, issued an opinion which at various points was contradictory. On one hand, he suggests that Fannie Willis should maintain her job so long as Nathan Wade resigns, but then on the other hand, the judge suggests that there is indeed an appearance of impropriety and the odor of mendacity. So I think the Court of Appeals needs to resolve the apparent conflict in Judge McAfee's order. So again, it's discretionary review by the Court of Appeals. We're going to file a brief urging them to take it and then we'll file a merits brief if they do. And I think it's very important for the fair administration of justice. You cannot have the fair administration of justice if you are allowing a criminal case to proceed against anyone, including especially a former President, but really anyone, if you have an appearance of impropriety.

This is absurd. Judge McAfee got it wrong, in my opinion, and I think the Georgia Court of Appeals can correct it. Now, if the Georgia Court of Appeals rules the other way, you could still seek review, but it's again discretionary to the Georgia Supreme Court. Georgia has a very sophisticated bench, by the way. I mean, these are really smart lawyers.

One of the presiding judges on the Court of Appeals, Yvette Miller, was a classmate of mine at Mercer. I mean, he's very, very smart. It feels like he was trying to thread some needle for his own political career because, like you said, Dad, he hits the line, which you say, in a criminal matter, if there's that appearance of impropriety, that's it.

That would be it. And then yet he pegs that on Wade, but not the actual DA. Who is the one who is responsible for it. So she doesn't have a person handling the RICO side, which could slow things down considerably, but as of this time, she's still running the show. It's ridiculous. We also have, of course...

Even though she was at the heart of that. We're getting calls on a lot of illegal questions. If you've got a question on all these legal cases, any of them, call us at 1-800-684-3110. Let's take Don's call out of California. A little bit off what we've been talking about, but it's one we should be talking about.

They all tie together. The war on Trump. Don in California on Line 1. Hey, Don. Hey, how are you doing?

How are you guys doing? My question is quite simple. Now that Trish thinks that she can go into Trump Tower and take it over, does she have to go through some judge in order to get the ability to do that? And if so, does Donald Trump have the ability to challenge that? Well, I think the former President would file some kind of motion to stop the seizure, but technically, on Monday, she's allowed to seize the property. And that is to satisfy the judgment. Now, it's complicated because we're talking about real estate that has mortgages and have tenants or residents or office buildings.

So it's not so simple as just do it. But as of Monday, she said she is going... Do we ever find the sound from her? She is going to seize the property, she said. She's going to enforce the order. I think that's going to raise another level of angst. Listen, if you're doing business in New York, you've got to be really worried about this.

I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or independent. The idea that your property could be levied because you can't post an appeal bond is pretty scary. Yeah, I mean, we're learning a lot about this New York legal system, which is very different than a lot of other people's legal systems. So you can be charged with a crime even though there was no injury to the people who provided the loan. They weren't saying you acted criminally. In fact, they did their own due diligence and provided you the loan and you paid the loan back. But New York feels like you shouldn't have gotten the loan based off what you provided. And Donald Trump says business entry provision of their law, which most states don't have, where even if someone's, again, not defrauded, but there's an entry put into the record, the accounting error, that could either be a civil fraud or a criminal case.

And then, as we've seen, bond requirements are normally 10% of the judgment, so it would be $40 million. If you go and request a loan, do you think they're just taking your information at 100% like, oh, that's the Bible on it? No. They take that and they do their own research to decide. Listen, it's the same attorney general that went after the NRA?

Yep. She's doing this for political career purposes, obviously. And that makes it very dangerous when the weaponization of the state attorney general lawfare, is exactly right, is used to close businesses down or harass businesses in the state that they don't want there.

Yes, and it sets a very bad precedent. So what we have in New York is the exercise of raw political power by the attorney general of New York. She ran her political campaign on precisely this strategy, and the people of New York elected her. And essentially what they've done is they've elected her to destroy the economy of New York.

And at the end of the day, they will bear the cost and pay the consequences. Meanwhile, however, we can argue, I think successfully, that she has deprived citizens of New York and participants in the economy of New York of their due process rights, and I hope that the courts in New York at some point intervene. The problem is the New York courts probably won't.

I mean, honestly, you're right on what it should be. This is really a straight due process question, Jordan, and equal administration of justice. But he's not going to get a friendly reception in the New York Court of Appeals. And the way the New York Court of Appeals, I know this is confusing, folks, so I'm trying to break all of this down. New York's Court of Appeals system is different than the Georgia system.

They have an appellate division, then a Court of Appeals is actually their Supreme Court. I don't see him getting a fair shake in either venue. I think he needs to follow Chapter 11 reorganization to stop all this to catch his breath here. The only way I think he gets a fair shake if they realize they're running out the rest of the businesses that they like, their friends, because of this action, that people get so worried that it's going to have a bigger impact on New York. But that requires him to think past Donald Trump, and Trump's arrangement syndrome doesn't usually allow people to do that.

It's all about get Trump, and they're not thinking big picture. But let me tell you something where I am. Major banks, major companies, I will tell you, they are telling their folks you want to leave New York, go do it absolutely, set up an office here, set up an office there. Oh, you're seeing people, big investment firms moving to Nashville, Miami's becoming a huge financial center. New York's in serious, serious trouble.

We've got a lot of questions coming in on cases. Now, we do need to say this, Texas, that situation in Texas is unbelievably confusing now because what has happened is a request to vacate the stay to the Supreme Court yesterday by the Biden administration was denied. Everybody was celebrating a win until the Fifth Circuit last night, late or even this morning, vacated that and said, no, no more stay. We're dissolving the stay, and the case is being argued today, which indicates to me that Texas is going to lose. And what's interesting, and Don Parsons from our team found this, in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, it talks about no state shall, without the consent of Congress, basically control the border. And it talks about compacts with other states, foreign powers. But there's a provision that says unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay, I think Texas needs to argue that provision of the Constitution. It is an invasion.

Now, Don said, based on the research he's done, the invasion has to have a set of where there's actual harm or hostility. I think the fentanyl aspect of this and their sex trafficking is that, but the fentanyl particularly is harm because that's murder and death. I think the state of Texas needs to modify their arguments, if they haven't already, and include that provision. Maybe they have, but that's headed back to the Supreme Court of the United States as well. It's not just economic harm, it's physical harm.

Yeah. You've got the number one killer of Americans between 18 and 45 because of fentanyl. Fentanyl that is coming primarily across the southern border. You have the gang violence coming across the southern border.

You have the economic toll in the cities, but you also have, again, the resources of these cities being completely depleted. We are fighting, we're facing an increasing challenge, and that's why we're in our Life and Liberty campaign. We need your support. We've got 18 cases, 19 now, against the Biden administration, several over the crisis at the border. We now have got this Georgia situation, which we're going to enter a brief on. We filed a federal lawsuit last week against the State Department on UNRWA being given money, which is aiding Hamas. We have a team at the UN right now delivering key interventions on persecution, and next week the intervention will be on Israel. And we've just filed an amicus brief on the Supreme Court on Presidential immunity. Your tax-deductible gifts will be doubled in our Life and Liberty campaign. We have reached 20,000 ACLJ champions. We have a stretch goal to add 350 more. That's what the goal is here.

ACLJ.org, if you can make a monthly gift, ACLJ.org, become a champion. All right, welcome back to Secchia with all these legal issues. I'm going to be on Newsmax later today talking about it as well because it's just a flood of issues on President Trump and a lot of moving parts happening, just trying to explain it to those of you who follow the news closely. We know that you're someone who listens to this broadcast or tunes into our broadcast or watches this broadcast. You're following the news closely, and yet it's still a lot to keep in your head because it's not just two cases or even three cases.

We've got multiple cases, state courts, federal courts weighing in, the Supreme Court's weighing in, stays here, stays overruled here. We want to go to the phones, 1-800-684-3110, Joaquin and Florida on Line 2. Joaquin, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Thank you, Jay. Listen, I have a quick question. On Trump's New York case where they're literally not allowing him to appeal because of his bond, there was a ruling by Judge Ginsburg, wasn't there a Supreme Court President on the Eighth Amendment where can Donald – my question basically is can Donald – An improper taking. That's like an improper taking. Go ahead and finish your question.

Oh, I'm sorry. Well, anyway, my question is can Donald Trump go straight to the Supreme Court and just bypass what's going on? Joaquin, he can't. He has to go through the Court of Appeals in New York and, Harry, I'm not optimistic. First of all, he's got to post a bond before he can get there.

Absolutely. So he would have to go through the state structure first, get a final judgment from the highest court in the state of New York, and then he might be able to go to the United States Supreme Court, but arguably that would take years as opposed to days. If he can't post the bond, he can't appeal? But he could appeal on the bond being too high? He could appeal, but they could seize the assets. In other words, the bond stops the seizure of the asset. Doesn't prevent the appeal. Doesn't prevent the appeal.

He's still filing the appeal, but the assets, it doesn't stay the asset forfeiture. The problem that he has is it's such a big number and it's adding $150,000 of interest a day. So you're adding, in a course of a week, you're adding a million dollars. Ten more weeks is ten more million dollars here.

So the numbers are staggering. That's why I know he's not going to want to do it and you say politically it'd be very risky. If this was a normal client, you'd file a Chapter 11 reorganization, Harry, to stop the proceedings so you could reorganize. Absolutely. That's what you would, if it was a normal client.

Right. And I've had limited experience in bankruptcy court and this would be the clear and unmistakable strategy that you would offer. And it's important to keep in mind that many large corporations, some of the auto companies, Chrysler Corporation and others, they've done this.

And it's a successful, it can be a successful strategy. And so it is a way of blocking the Attorney General of New York, but politically there are issues with respect to declaring bankruptcy. So Jordan, what would the politics of that be? I think the politics are you'd rather have them bolting the door and showing that imagery that they're trying to lock Donald Trump out of what he's done in New York. And this is what they're going to do to you too and your businesses if you let these DAs continue to thrive across the country, these Soros DAs, they're going to lock you out of your business too. I think declaring bankruptcy is it would only, he should only do that if he absolutely has to, to preserve what he has built and to protect him and his family.

And I would understand that if that's the case and that's the best route. But if you can survive this without doing that and politically turn that imagery into an imagery of this is how the left treats a former President, this is how a left treats a successful business which has paid back all of their loans. For so many years he's been operating in New York that has so many regulations, so many things you can get wrong in New York and has had no issues whatsoever. And if he has, they've handled them, no criminal issues, no civil issues, they've all been taken care of. It's because he's run into these radical AGs, they did not exist before. And again, I think his message would be is just like how he left New York, which I think could be very dangerous to New York especially if he became President, if he said New York is not a safe place to do business anymore and maybe we should even think about having the UN there anymore.

Think about all these things we could throw out. Maybe the UN should be in Miami, it's a more international city, it's got a lot more space to host it and a lot more people would want to be there. If you think about this for a moment, if you're opening up a business in New York right now and you are conservative and have assets, see the problem is Harry, once you're there, even if you just have one asset in there, then they've got jurisdiction over your entire business, wherever it's located. Technically, she has extra jurisdictional reach. She could seize assets in other states. Absolutely. And that is the danger of locating your business in New York.

That's number one. Number two, building on Jordan's argument politically, I think President Trump ought to argue that if they're coming after him, next the people in New York will come after you. There was a recent case in New York involving an individual who owned a million dollar house in New York and took action to remove a squatter. What happened in New York?

They arrested the owner of the house. And so one of the things to keep in mind is that if you have assets in New York, you indeed are a target for the left and increasingly that's true for many of the so-called blue states. Let's go to Susan who's calling from Maryland. We are taking your call. I know this is confusing. We're trying to break it down for you and give you an understanding of each of these moving parts that are also at the same time affecting a Presidential election. This is uncharted territory in U.S. history and we're giving you the breakdown of this. Susan, go ahead. You're on Line 1. Watching on YouTube, go ahead.

Okay. With ACLJ's help, the Colorado of Trump not getting on the ballot was immediately addressed as election interference and he should be put on the ballot. But obviously the other three charges, the first run that Trump made and the woman accused him of sexual misconduct did not occur until he was a candidate. When she knew he was a candidate, then this all started with the Fannie Willis. Clearly she did not want to do a recount for him and her behavior is showing questionable paths of what she has done. She ran on getting rid of Trump. That was her campaign motto as was, by the way, Fannie Willis. Go ahead, Susan. They should all be launched together as election interference.

There should be no question. They all are leaving trails. It's obvious even with Letitia James. An outrageous bond is a direct trail to her not wanting him to ever run. The greatest election interference we're seeing is the weaponization of lawfare through the legal systems. It's through district attorneys. It's through state attorney generals and they're doing it. And right now they're successful because Trump, the former President, is looking at an asset forfeiture. And that's what we're talking about. Asset forfeiture here.

That could be devastating to his business and his enterprise. So, look, in this Georgia case now, you know, the judge is saying that there is an appearance of impropriety and he's letting the DA stay in the case. Now that hopefully the Georgia Court of Appeals will take it. We're filing a brief on that. Folks, that's why you need to support the work of the ACLJ.

Because you know what? We're defending democracy here in the constitutional republic. So in our life and liberty drive, any amount you give will be doubled. And if you can become an ACLJ champion, and again, thank you to the over 20,000 of you that now have, we have decided that we believe that it's possible for us to add 350 more members of our ACLJ champions group between now and the end of the year.

So if you can give, that'll make a huge difference. ACLJ.org for that. ACLJ.org and you can become an ACLJ champion.

That's right. And again, ACLJ champions are at the tip of the spear because you're getting us prepared for those issues that we don't know are coming so we can jump on them and fight right away. So if you can become an ACLJ champion, do it today at ACLJ.org slash champions and your gift today will be double, double the impact. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So you've got some major legal movements in different cases going on around the country right now. So you've got, let's start with what's going on in Georgia. In Georgia, dad, the judge there who people are still kind of scratching their head about getting rid of Wade as the special counsel. Because again, you had this idea that there was the, again, the appearance of impropriety, which in the criminal case standard would usually be that if he had it, then the person who hired him and paid him the $700,000, the DA would also have it too.

But that's not how he saw it. But he has agreed to allow the President, the other defendants to appeal this to the Georgia court of appeals. It's called an interlocutory order. It's not a final judgment. So it's discretionary with the Georgia court of appeals.

They don't have to take it. We're going to submit a brief encouraging them to take it on the grounds that the appearance of impropriety standard is the right standard, number one. But once that threshold has been met, which it was in this case, the judge said it was, that you cannot allow for the efficient and equal protection and due process, allow a prosecution to go forward when you have, Harry, this appearance of impropriety. And the judge acknowledging this, what he calls odor of man varsity. That's his words. That that's in and of itself prima facie that those agents, those lawyers should be out of the case.

Absolutely. And so the argument made on appeal by Trump and his co-defendants ought to be based primarily on the decision by Judge McAfee. Judge McAfee implicated Fannie Willis in misconduct. And that misconduct violates Donald Trump's right to due process and equal protection under the law.

Why? Because there is indeed an appearance of impropriety and the judge acknowledged it, but yet the judge refused to disqualify. Now, maybe he was motivated, at least in part, by political considerations, but that is insufficient with respect to justice under the law. You know, we used to say that there was this abortion distortion factor that whenever the issue was abortion, the rules changed. Now you've got this Trump derangement so that all of the due process rules change. So that's Georgia. So that's going to now go to the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Georgia. Right. Discretionary review. Fannie Willis is talking about actually seizing assets Monday of the Trump organization because the President has not been, the former President has not been able to post an appeal bond. Right.

That's proceeding. You have now this very complex situation on the January 6th case where you've got two Supreme Court cases, one involving the interference with the Act of Congress where Judge Katz and the Court of Appeals said it was overbroad the way it was interpreted and interfering with First Amendment rights. That is now up, the Supreme Court granted review on that.

I think they're going to reverse and say it was too broad of an interpretation. That's two of the four counts in the Trump January 6th case. And then you've got the immunity issue, which is, it's a limited immunity in the sense that it's only for official acts. That's the position that should be being argued here, that the immunity that is being granted is an immunity while the President was President for official acts.

And of course that would carry over and keep him immune from criminal prosecution for official acts after he leaves office. That's the brief we filed. That oral arguments in April? They're both in April. One's on the 22nd, one's on the 23rd.

End of June for those. And then the civil case in New York. Right now, I'm not optimistic that he's going to get that bond reduced. It sure doesn't sound like it. Are they waiting for another court order or they lost that one so they appealed it again?

They did appeal something, but those are not likely to succeed. I mean, let's just wait. Let's take some more questions.

Yeah. And again, when we come back, because I think this is what people want to know, so if you can't meet this bond yet, but what if you can meet it in two weeks? He could still appeal, but the enforcement can start as early as Monday and she will go after assets. And what if you meet it in like two weeks?

Does it not matter? Then you could stay the enforcement. You could stay or get back the enforcement.

Interesting. We'll talk about all of that when we come back from the break. We encourage you all who are listening during this Life and Liberty Challenge to become an ACLJ champion. Of course, if you've got a number that you're comfortable with donating each month automatically to the ACLJ, go to ACLJ.org slash champions. And again, this month, that donation will be effectively doubled for whatever amount you choose. So it's a great time to both donate to the ACLJ and become an ACLJ champion.

Be right at the tip of the spear at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. Again, we are talking a lot about these different cases that we've got going on around the country, primarily, of course, involving President Trump, but on very different matters. Unbelievable election interference going on here. The weaponization of the justice system at a level we haven't seen. Tulsi Gabbard, who's part of our team here, is joining us.

And Tulsi, I wanted to start with that. This weaponization of the justice system, whether it's a finding by a court in Fulton County, Georgia, that there's an appearance of impropriety and an odor of mendacity surrounding the case, yet letting the DA to stay on, or whether it's a $490 million bond requirement before you can successfully appeal or stop at least the enforcement of this. You got the January 6 issues, which are both, you know, was the interference with Congress Act law interpreted so broadly that it interfered with First Amendment rights, which was the position of Judge Katz's.

He was in the dissent. Supreme Court's granted review likely overturning that decision. And then the Presidential immunity case, which are also likely to overturn. You know, I think just let it go to the voters at this point. To me, it seems the weaponization of that, we call it lawfare, but it is at an unprecedented level.

It is, Jay, and we cannot overstate the dangerous effects of this. I mean, the increasing use of the Department of Justice and law enforcement, not only at the federal level, but at the state level, is increasingly becoming more like the thing of banana republics and autocracies, the very thing the Biden-Harris administration claims to be dedicating their time and energy against. They are undermining our own democratic process and democracy right here at home. They should have left it to voters from the very beginning.

If they had any confidence in their record or themselves for that matter, they would go out and spend every day making their case to the American people about why their policies, the policies in the Biden-Harris administration, are good for the American people, are good for the country, are good for the cause of peace, prosperity, and security. But they can't do that because they know that if they did, they would lose, which is why they are doing all they can using every facet and tool and, you know, institution of the federal government, practically speaking, to try to both remove Donald Trump from the ballot, destroy him through this lawfare, drain him of money, drain him of resources, doing everything they can to try to stop the American people from even having the option to vote for him. And this is the most, probably one of the most insidious things about this that we as Americans should take note of, which is they think so little of us, they think so little of our ability to live free, make our own choices for ourselves.

They do not care for our Constitution or the right of us as citizens to decide who we want to serve in our government that they see leaving it to, quote, unquote, the people to decide, which is what our elections are supposed to be about as kind of the, oh, well, I guess we have to leave it to the people now to save our democracy. What is a democratic society without the voices and votes of the people? It's not a democracy at all. It's an autocracy. It's a banana republic.

And so they're revealing themselves who they really are and how anti-American their mindset principles and actions are. You know, Tulsi, we have a Supreme Court case that came out of Arizona back in the early 2000s on SB 1070, which was a way for Arizona to allow and to deputize its local law enforcement to begin implementing and utilizing immigration laws because of another time when they were being flooded with illegal immigrants. And this even predates the problems with fentanyl killing so many Americans, the number one killer of 18 to 45-year-old Americans, both men and women. But we then saw Texas. The Supreme Court said if you don't get the federal government can either stop this or they can give you a green light. Texas tried to do this on their own and the Biden administration came in based on that Supreme Court case and said, even if it's working, we're telling you right now, Texas, you must stop. Now, Texas can appeal it.

Supreme Court could look at their decision making back then and say whether or not they got it right or wrong based off the constitutional provision. But the Biden administration did not have to stop it. The Supreme Court didn't say, Tulsi, that the Biden administration, that Texas can't do this. They only cannot do it if the Biden administration tells them to stop. So even when it's working and a state is willing to put up its own resources, this administration is willing to tell them, no, you can't help.

You've got to let the people flow into your state with the crime, with the drugs and with the people overwhelming your hospitals, your schools and your economies. And that's really where we the people should be asking questions and demanding answers from the Biden-Harris administration on why that is. They are clearly failing to fulfill their responsibility of securing our country. And the fact that they are getting in the way of and demanding a cease and desist from states who are dealing with this mass illegal immigration. People unvetted from all parts of the world streaming across our borders by the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions. Why is it that the Biden-Harris administration is actively they're not even just saying, hey, guys, we need you to stop. They are actively getting in the way of Governor Abbott and his efforts to secure Texas. For example, they are actively turning a blind eye and even facilitating this illegal immigration occurring.

I'm going to be headed to California in a few days to go and check out the southern border because there is a lot happening there that is not that's not getting the attention that it deserves. It's a much more condensed area. They don't have big open spaces like Texas and Arizona have. But this makes it very possible. And what's actually happening is people can step across the border and within a five minute walk, get lost in a neighborhood where they are not able to be apprehended for illegally entering our country.

This is such a huge problem. There are political motives behind this on the Biden-Harris administration's part, and we we cannot allow them to continue to make our country less secure, put us at risk and incur the kind of hardship and damage that that we are incurring because of their open border policy. You know, we pointed this out earlier, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which does require a state to have consent of Congress for various things like what they're trying to do in Texas. But it says unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. And Tulsi, to me, they are being invaded. And the invasion also, the courts have said, has to include an element of either violence or death. And we've got this fentanyl deaths that are unprecedented. So we have an invasion going on on our border and the states are just trying to protect their citizens.

Yes. And there are unfortunately so many cases of imminent danger, both to people and their property as a direct result of these open borders. I think the recent ruling stating that those who break our laws by illegally entering our country are now afforded some kind of Second Amendment right to own firearms is egregious and offensive, even as many state governments and the federal government continue to crack down on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in this country, turning us into felons. And yet my home state of Hawaii right now, unfortunately, the state legislature is pushing a bill that would do just that, that would turn my husband and I and many other law-abiding gun owners into felons.

And yet someone who's entered our country illegally, committed that crime is now allowed to be armed. It's so bizarre. You can't even put it in any kind of context where it makes sense. Tulsi, we appreciate it. Thanks for being with us. Go ahead and take Jim from Kansas on Line 5. Jim, go ahead.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. I have a question, actually two parts. First of all, if James takes over Trump Towers, who controls the rent money or any financial resources coming in from that? And does she control who gets to stay in Trump Towers and who doesn't? Okay, so in the Trump Tower, if you own a condominium, you have a title, so she can't dispossess you.

But the rents, the common area fees, the rents from the commercial businesses that are there, which are millions and millions of dollars a month, that would go to the state right now as part of the judgment. So it puts the economic risk of the Trump Organization front and center, Harry. I mean, it's real.

This is a real problem, folks. Absolutely. And that is Letitia James' objective.

She wants to first embarrass Trump, B, perhaps force him into bankruptcy, and C, suffer an electoral loss in the fall. Exactly right. Yeah, I mean, some of these businesses, I think it was Gucci pays $8 or $9 million a year for that location, Trump Tower. Of course, this will make them rethink all of those businesses. Yeah.

Do they want to be there anymore and be associated with that brand anymore or have their brand associated with that brand? Folks, we hit our goal of 20,000 ACLJ champions, people that are donating each and every month. We've got a stretch goal here. We think it's possible that we could add 350 more of you between now and the end of the year. If you can make a monthly gift, go to ACLJ.org and become an ACLJ champion for life, liberty, and freedom. If you could do a one-time gift, it's going to be tripled. So we appreciate that as well as ACLJ.org.

Back in a moment. Al-Abadi oversees our office at ACLJ Jerusalem. And Jeff, some of this information that we are seeing being reported in different news outlets across the country and world is that the United States has tapped a Hamas ally with its inside cutter to build the port in Gaza, and they're actually using a construction company that is owned by Hamas.

Yes, Jordan, it's almost surreal. The reports are coming out of Israel based on Arab sources, and it's that the USAID, using our taxpayer dollars, and apparently cutting Israel out of this discussion, because Israel found out about it through Arab sources, is handing over control of this to a Hamas-controlled Qatari company. This is obviously devastating for Israel's security, and it's yet another strike against Israel's survival. Jeff, it's not just devastating for Israeli security. It's devastating for the Army Corps of Engineers, the United States military, who's actually building the pier.

So the pier's going to have to be connected to this port. So you're putting our troops—this is my concern the entire time with American troops—right next to Hamas-controlled entities. The Qataris are funding Hamas. We know that. And while we have a base in Qatar, that's fine.

It's a very difficult nine-dimensional chess game there. But this is a very dangerous move. What are you hearing from our people on the ground and the people we represent? Well, there's tremendous concern on multiple levels. One level is, as we've seen already with the aid that's supposed to go with the so-called humanitarian aid, which is going straight to Hamas and straight to other terrorist groups and not going to people that it's supposed to go to, what happens when we start sending massive construction material?

This is an army. Hamas is an army that has built 400 miles of tunnels so that Israel cannot penetrate them. And now we're going to send them new material to continue their growth as we protect them, as we stop Israel from going to Rafah, which is their last holdout. It's a multi-level war against Israel's survival.

You know, I mean, Jeff, when you think about that, again, that these deals would be made. I mean, a deal like this where the U.S. could only build this port to provide the humanitarian aid to Gazans if you use this construction company, which has to be tied to and owned by Hamas and Hamas entity. And it seems like we've acquiesced to that at the United States, which sends a very dangerous message to supporters of Israel and to the world that it's okay to bow down to Hamas demands.

Listen, let's go back to Jay's comment about non-dimensional chess. The warlords, the overlords of Hamas and Hezbollah and the others, the Iranians understood exactly what the state of play was when they launched this attack against Israel. They understood that we have a White House that would fold, a White House that would actually become Israel's enemy, even though publicly they're using nice words. They're stopping Israel from waging the war it needs to wage, which is an existential survival war against not a terrorist attack. This was an armed invasion by an actual fully functional army into a democracy, into our ally.

And we are siding with that armed invasion terrorist force. Jeff's in our office, by the way, in Washington, D.C. today. He's not in Jerusalem.

If you're saying that background looks familiar, let's put Jeff's in our D.C. office. Jeff said that, you know, the next question, of course, is you've got the situation still with 10 American hostages. Don't know if they're alive. We don't know. Then you've got another 120 Israeli hostages. Don't know how many of those are alive. And you got this port being established and this pier, which to me is totally nonsensical.

You just go to Ashdod, four miles up the coast and enter there. But that's not what the Biden administration wants to do. But what everybody needs to remember is all of this is being funded by this war on their side, by one group. It's called the Iranians, the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's who's the funding agency here. And we, this administration, our tax, not just our tax dollars, but we've lifted sanctions. We are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran to conduct this war, not just against Israel, but we see it now regionally against American interests all over that region of the world. Jeff, you're right now in our DC office.

People might notice that studio. So you're not in Israel today. Tell people why you're in DC. I mean, we have seen, I was just in Europe and with some conservative political parties, how concerned they are about Israel losing all support from European elected officials. That's not so much the people, but it's the elected officials who are so quick to turn their backs on Israel.

Yes. So Jordan, I'm here in DC now for a series of meetings, both in terms of advising policymakers on what's been happening on the ground in Israel, because obviously there's a huge difference between being there and living and daily dealing with the people on the ground and what we're hearing here. And obviously you can't trust the media.

And so it's important to have people they trust. And also, unfortunately, in parallel, there are meetings about the growing anti-Semitism problem, not just in Israel, but in America and also around the world. So it's both things are happening simultaneously because the attack on against the attack against Jewish civilians in Israel has unleashed a global sense of war against the Jews.

And the fact is it's come here to America. We're representing students. We are representing college professors that have been subject to these anti-Semitic outrages.

Yet most of the universities are not doing much, but we're pressing very hard to get justice for our clients. Jeff, thanks for being with us. We really appreciate it so much.

Thank you. You just got a good overview, folks, in this broadcast today, the complexities of what we're dealing with at the American Center for Law and Justice. These issues on making sure that you, the American people, us, we, the people, can have a vote that actually counts is at stake, whether it's in Fulton County, whether it's in New York, whether it's in Washington, DC. Now, we broke down for you today the complexity of these cases because we've got a lot of legal experience on our teams.

We're entering all those. We won the Colorado case with a 9-0 Supreme Court decision. We'll see what happens on the Presidential immunity case. We'll see what happens on the January 6th case.

It's going to be the Georgia Court of Appeals is in the next stop for the Fawnee-Willis matter, the Fulton County fiasco. And all of these are happening while the President's major assets could be seized as early as Monday. And let me tell you something, even if you're Donald Trump, that's a chilling thing that's about to happen. Yeah, I mean, talking about how he's going to be doubling down on the campaign trail, I'll tell you that. Yeah, but I mean, it's his business is now at stake, which is hundreds of employees. Yeah, so the political campaigns becomes a political campaign to fight for his life. Yeah, I think this financial situation may be more damaging than the criminal cases that are pending because they're very archaic. This is real dollars and cents, and if it was a normal client, which he isn't, you would be getting a bankruptcy lawyer to file bankruptcy so you could protect the assets. You're saying politically he probably can't do that.

No, I think that's only if you have to do that. I think if he could use the imagery of a couple of these being bolted up the way she says. That is going to affect his being able to keep his business going.

I mean, people need to understand that. It also affects how people do business in the state of New York. Well, I think that's where he has to turn it around and kind of say, this is why New York is going to be destroyed.

Like, you push Donald Trump out, and he should start going through the other companies that have effectively left, even if they still have their name on some building there and some writ up there, that they have effectively moved their assets out of New York. Well, you're going to be getting an email from us if you haven't already on the situation in Israel. So we've got our teams working there. Obviously, Jeff's in our D.C. office working with lawmakers today, just coming back from Jerusalem. We are in our Life and Liberty Challenge. We're continuing our FOIA litigation against the Biden administration, especially the border issues.

We filed the lawsuit last week against the State Department over the unrefunding of Hamas, and we have teams at the U.N. right now. Your donations will be doubled at ACLJ.org. Special thank you to our now over 20,000 ACLJ champions. By becoming a recurring donor of the ACLJ, our ACLJ champions help us fight for life and liberty every month. We want to add another 350.

Between now and the end of the year, we believe we can. ACLJ.org.