MUST WATCH: LIVE Legal Breakdown on Trump Immunity

Today on Sekulow, we have a live legal breakdown of the Trump immunity case at the Supreme Court. 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. Hey, welcome to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. You may have seen as it continues this wall-to-wall coverage of the audio of the Supreme Court hearing on Presidential immunity. As you know, the ACLJ filed in this. We have argued three of these at the U.S. Supreme Court when President Trump was in office.

But this question is a little different. This is about when you are outside of office, what would constitute an act that you could not be prosecuted for, and what would constitute an act that you did as President that you could potentially be prosecuted for after you served as President. There were some interesting hypotheticals. What we argued at the ACLJ is, of course, there's never this full blanket immunity. It's not like the President can do whatever they want as President and claim that was an official act. We have criminal laws on the books that certainly apply. And one of the hypotheticals we'll get into later was, what if someone gave the President a million-dollar bribe to make them an ambassador?

My answer would be very simple. That is a crime. That is not an official act of the President, because the crime came before the official act and the crime outweighs the official act. So both the ambassador is compromised because they didn't – it looks like they didn't earn that position or didn't necessarily deserve that position. And at the same time, the billion dollars, if it really was considered a bribe – now, you could get into some gray area there, because a lot of major donors to campaigns do end up becoming ambassadors to some of the smaller countries. But I would say that's different than going to the President and giving him a billion dollars. That's not a donation to a campaign before he is President of the United States. So there I'd say, no, that's not an official act, and thus you could be prosecuted for that once you were outside the presidency. And I think that most Americans would agree with that, because you still then are, Logan, you're preserving what we need, which is Presidential immunity for official acts, so that every drone strike that may have gone wrong but was still done in an official way with military telling you this is what we need to do, but it may have not gone perfect. We still need that kind of protection for Presidents of the United States, whatever party they're part of. That's right. We'd love to hear from you. You can vote right now if you're on YouTube in our poll that talks about if you think he'll be granted Presidential immunity.

You could vote on that right now, but you can also give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. This obviously is happening at the same time that President Trump is also in court. So, no, he is not physically at the Supreme Court, as we're getting that wall-to-wall coverage right now. He is sitting there in court in New York.

That's right. So he's back in trial. The trial was off.

They take one day a week off from the Alvin Bragg case. We are waiting today to see if there will be a ruling on the gag orders, because the judge kind of takes a day to spend on those kind of issues that are separate. We will see them, and there are 10 separate issues there brought out.

Those will have to be answered fairly soon. But it's still the same people testifying. What's interesting, Logan, is how these cases feel like they're going to go really quick. And it's still the prosecution's first witness who's on the stand, David Pecker, again, from American Media Institute.

They used to do all the tabloids and everything like that. For people that don't know, obviously the Supreme Court case will be over in the next hour, probably. It will probably be over in the next hour or two. The other trial, because some people may not be familiar with the difference in how this trial works, those could go for weeks and weeks where you have a situation where the Supreme Court, they'll be ready. They'll be down in a couple of hours.

They'll actually vote very quickly, and the decisions will be made and things will be negotiated out. You can give us a call if you have any questions related to that. If you want to know how those court systems work, we can certainly answer that.

1-800-684-3110. We'll also give you an update a little bit later on the ACLJ's work protecting pro-life pregnancy centers. Very interesting update coming up, Jordan. We filed a critical amicus brief in the Trump immunity case at the Supreme Court to defend the constitutional rights of the President, especially when you see the attack on President Trump. We need you to stand with us. In five days, we're appealing our own case to the Supreme Court on pro-life counselors. These battles increase. We need your support, and your gifts will be doubled during the Life and Liberty Drive.

That ends in just five days. Donate. Double the impact at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Secio.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Of course, a lot of attention in the news right now. It is a major case, too, on Presidential immunity. You don't get these often, and especially when you're talking about post-Presidential immunity. I did want to point out something that's just unique in this case because there are four main charges against President Trump that have been brought by Jack Smith in the case. Two of those charges the Supreme Court heard arguments on last week to say that those charges were unconstitutional. And what that means is that at least four justices on the Supreme Court believed those charges were.

It was brought by another January 6th defendant. So right now, during this oral argument, President Trump is being charged with a conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Both, if the Fisher case throws out those obstruction charges, the conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and the obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, Jack Smith is only left with a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy against rights, which are much weaker to take to the U.S. Supreme Court, which they'll have to consider post-oral argument. I mean, this is why, Logan, this case can get very interesting and also take much longer than maybe predicted when it comes to this immunity question, and here's why. I think if you've listened to the oral argument, what you've seen is justices don't believe in blanket immunity for the most part, but they also don't believe in no immunity at all. And I think what they're going to ask is that lower courts come in, unless they want to make that decision on their own, that lower courts need to come in, and these charges against President Trump, whether it's the four that survive or the two, because the other two do not, and the lower courts need to determine, through a trial, what is an official act, okay, and then what's an official act that could be combined with a criminal act that would then negate its ability for the President to use that as a defense?

Does that be one? And the second, of course, would be is what are unofficial acts while you are President of the United States that could be criminal that you can then be prosecuted for after you're in office? So you see there, again, you've got to kind of splice this down to, and I think that that ambassador question, it got right to it.

Do we have the sound from that so we can play? Because I think this was the key, it was combining a very official act of a President appointing an ambassador with something that we all know is a serious crime, bribery. Take a listen. What if you have, let's say, the official act is appointing ambassadors and the President appoints a particular individual to a country, but it's in exchange for a bribe. Somebody says, I'll give you a million dollars if I made the ambassador to whatever.

How do you analyze that? That I think would fall under this court's discussion in Brewster, where the court held with respect to legislative acts that bribery is not an official act, which also matches the common law background. So the way that this court in Brewster kind of sliced at the joint was to say accepting the bribe and the agreement to sex the bribe are not official acts. That's private conduct. Okay. Some sort of an appointment would not be, would be essentially an unrestricted power of this court that Congress couldn't directly regulate.

Yeah. So, I mean, there again, I think in simple terms, what he was saying there that President Trump's attorney just clearly was that when you've got something that looks official, but that a very much criminal act came with it. And this would have to be bribery. It cannot be someone donated a lot to a campaign, you know, six months ago and suddenly became ambassador to Antigua.

That is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about you coming in and saying, here's a billion dollars or I'll wire you a billion dollars into your account. If you make me an ambassador somewhere after this is when you are President of the United States, because that's what we're talking about in this case. When can you be prosecuted for acts as President when you're no longer President?

Not acts you may have done before you were President. So again, just to kind of clarify that for people, I think that's where the Supreme Court would be on this fine line. I know we've got questions about it, 1-800-684-3110. If you go to ACLJ.org and you want to learn about this, we've got our brief there.

We filed that amicus brief and you'll follow exactly what I'm saying here is basically our argument within that brief. But Logan, let's get to the phones. Yeah, let's go to Todd in the state of Georgia. Todd, you're on the air. Hey, Todd.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. How would you compare and contrast the justice's hypothetical with the video of Joe Biden bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations about withholding foreign aid in order to get a prosecutor fired that was investigating his son? Yeah, I mean, listen, I think that one was borderline. I mean, remember, there was there were certainly investigations into that. Now, he was vice President, so that changes things a bit. It was also whether or not he had authorization to make that kind of threat, because providing U.S. aid to countries can come with strings attached, Logan. It didn't sound great. The reason it didn't sound great is because there was a dispute over whether or not that prosecutor was looking into Burisma, which his son was on the board of. So while it sounded like it was a kind of like a tit for tat moment, you certainly as I would not want to put the President or vice President in a position in the future, Logan, where there can't say to a country, if we're going to provide you with this billion dollars that you don't need to make these this A, B and C change before you receive it. Now, Joe Biden did it kind of a tough talking way, like a mini Trump kind of sounding way. But in a way that I think the real controversy there was, were you trying to fire the prosecutor because he was looking into a company your son was on the board of? Some of it's different when we've had situations like the hostage releases, releases like that, where you want to have to be able to play with what you got. And sometimes you have to be able to have these important negotiations and conversations.

And whether, like you said, whether they sound like they're on the up, up or not, sometimes they are in the best interest of the country. Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. Again, 1-800-684-3110. We also have a call. Let's go ahead and take it. Let's go to Tina, who's calling on line one, Pennsylvania.

Actually have an interesting update on the protests that are happening around the country. Tina, you're on the air. Hi. Thanks for taking my call this morning.

You know, I could sit and talk to you guys all day long. I called yesterday and unfortunately I didn't get the time, but the protests, can we talk about that for a moment? Absolutely. It's still going on. Yeah. And it's getting worse. Here's the thing. This is the way. Now, if this was my child out there, I guarantee you I'd lock him away forever and throw him in jail myself. But if they are holding a student visa, put them on a plane, send them home. Why are we not utilizing the technology that they used on January 6th to put people that weren't even inside the Capitol in jail for over a year? I want to know why that's not happening. What's the deal there?

I honestly think this is a setup. Well, one is different crimes. I mean, so it's different charges. But it's different crimes. One is, again, civil disobedience crimes, which in the United States, though we don't decriminalize, we certainly have a long history, Logan, of civil disobedience. Certainly at the ACLJ, we have represented a lot of individuals who have engaged in civil disobedience as their attorneys. We inform them, if you do this, this is what the judge is saying they're going to do to you. But we aren't your conscience.

We just tell you this is what will happen and what we'll have to defend in court. And there's also a difference between occupying a college campus' square and going into the Capitol uninvited and breaking windows. And again, I don't think that the two are that comparable. One of this is civil disobedience that should be handled by law enforcement, and the other was something much more serious. I do think some of those were over the top that were the sentences that were handed out.

But at the same time, it is not apples to apples. Here's what's happening right now. I did want to give you an update. In Atlanta, there was an encampment set up just this morning, just this morning at Emory University, and it was quickly dismantled. You had the cops come out, make arrests, take it all down. And this is what the statement was from Emory University. They said several dozen protesters trespassed into Emory University's campus early Thursday morning and set up tents to the quad. These individuals, and I think this is the key part, because this is sort of the part we've been saying this whole time, and you do have to be careful with if these actually are even students. This is what's from Emory. These individuals are not members of our community. They are activists attempting to disrupt our university as our students finish classes and prepare for finals. Emory does not tolerate vandalism or other criminal activity on campus. The Emory Police Department ordered the group to leave and contacted Atlanta Police and Georgia State Patrol for assistance.

Got it cleaned up pretty much immediately. Right now, there may be a few cops still on the ground, but it looks like all the protest is done. The set up, the encampment, all of the imagery they put up. They put up divest from death and all those kind of things. All gone because a college like Emory stepped in and said, no, we're not going to have that here. And not only that, these aren't our students. By the way, more and more, if you look at the videos you can kind of determine too, this doesn't seem like it's all Columbia University or Harvard University students. There might be a mix in there, but the fact that Emory, every arrest they made was of a non-student leads me to the next question. That if the DOJ and Biden administration is serious about, who is funding these protesters to go in there and cause chaos on these college campuses? These are fake protests. I think it's fair to say now that I think the more arrests you made like this, the more you'd find out that these are not students. These are professional protesters like Antifa types with their faces covered and somebody is providing them the resources, why they all had matching tents.

Did you notice that in Columbia? We're taking your calls. We want your support financially, of course, life and liberty, six days left. ACLJ.org, double the impact of your donation.

Welcome back to Seck Hill. We are taking your calls too. We'll continue to take your calls too on the Presidential immunity case.

Do we want to jump in for a second, Will, just so people can hear right now? Justice Barrett is questioning the special counsel here. One of those mistakes was Morrison versus Olson. I think that was a terrible decision for the presidency, for the country, and not because there were bad people who were independent counsels, but President Reagan's administration, President Bush's administration, President Clinton's administration were really hampered in their view, all three, by the independent counsel structure. As we've talked about a lot on the show is why we no longer have that independent counsel statute. It was because of exactly what, I don't agree with Drebin on his bigger argument here, he's the one trying to take down the President, but that we got rid of the independent counsel because, one, the Department of Justice should be able to do its job. I don't even love special counsels unless it's some very extreme matter because I think the DOJ has thousands of attorneys, why do they need to go to special counsels to prosecute cases even of high profile people when you've got that many attorneys highly trained inside your buildings and across the country.

But part two of that, of course, was that you had these independent counsels going on that did hamstring a lot of those former presidencies and why you had the unity between both Republican and Democrat presidencies on getting rid of the independent counsel. I do want to update people, Logan, though, on some battles for life as well. We have seen in the post-Dobbs era, of course, challenge after challenge, there was a case yesterday at the Supreme Court of any way to kind of knock back the Dobbs ruling.

We've seen most of, Logan, the fights, though, have been in the states and this is where this one is. This is in California targeting pro-life pregnancy centers with what amounts to almost a subpoena, it's like almost a subpoena, it's a step away in their latest effort to try and intimidate these pro-life pregnancy centers. We actually are representing one of those that got that California letter and, Logan, it just shows they are not giving up on trying to shut down pro-life pregnancy centers even after the Dobbs decision. If you've been to these pro-life pregnancy centers, you've been a part of them, you know what they're really offering here, which is hope for a lot of people. They're offering free resources, typically, they're offering a free ultrasound, anything like that. It is not somewhere you go in where they are preaching some sort of hate or they are preaching some sort of shame.

It's actually quite the opposite experience. But, of course, if you are simply pro-life, that is too much for a lot of these states and they're going to make sure, they're going to do their best here, but we're going to make sure the ACLJ that we're standing up for them and we're available to them in the pregnancy resources centers across the country, by the way. If you're a part of one or you need help or you need support in this, all you have to do is go to ACLJ.org slash help and just sign up and say, hey, I need some help. We've had some, you know, you've had threats.

Maybe you had some laws that you feel like are unconstitutional. We can be a part of that. ACLJ.org slash help will get you help for absolutely no cost. And, of course, we can't do it at no cost without your support. And we are in those final days of the Life and Liberty Drive.

Just five days are left and we are still short of our goal, so we really appreciate it. If you're watching right now, you can scan the QR code on your screen or just go to ACLJ.org. Because, Jordan, these pro-life cases, and I know a lot of people maybe got after Dobbs was over, you know, after Roe was overturned with Dobbs, they're sort of like, okay, we won, moving on, but this is happening each and every state.

No, it's actually even more battles, and we knew that at the ACLJ, so we were prepared. We kind of upped our staff ready to go inside the states, whether it was, and we also launched ACLJ Action to support if it was ballot initiatives or legislative initiatives or voter education on those issues, as well as preparing to represent these pregnancy centers in states across the country or sometimes testifying before, you know, you've got state houses, state senates, those kind of issues. And I do want to make it clear, in California, our client, one of our clients there, they were actually subpoenaed to get this information.

It was another case where there was not a subpoena yet out, and I'll explain that in a second that we also have a client in. But this law in California is to limit how ultrasounds can be performed. So they're very clear, Logan, about what they don't want people to see. They don't want people to see the baby in the womb because they know that is the most effective way to prevent abortion is for a woman who is trying to make that difficult decision, who may be in a very difficult spot, but is still saying, you know, I want to get a second opinion here before I go through with this. I don't feel totally comfortable with abortion if it is legal in their state still, like in a place like California.

And they go in and they see that ultrasound, and I think it's 90 plus percent effective. So they are trying to shut down by saying you've got to have it only performed by a licensed clinic, outpatient settings, a licensed health facility. So you have to have all these state licenses, and basically if you don't have those, you get shut down. Now, again, a lot of these pro-life pregnancy centers have gotten, as you said, much more sophisticated, so they do comply with these, but yet you see the battle against them continues. I mean, in another one, this is even getting more unique, the ACLJ we just had to file an amicus brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Pregnancy Wellness Collaborative, the PPWC, the New Jersey Right to Life, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. Those are all pro-life pregnancy centers because in New Jersey, they sent a pre-investigation document request, so it wasn't quite a subpoena, but here's the catch in New Jersey and why we are asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. When you get a pre-investigation document request in Pennsylvania, there is no way to challenge that request, so you can't say this request is an appropriate ABCD. You either answer or you are in violation then of, well, what's coming next is a full-on subpoena and serious potential legal jeopardy and cost to your organization.

What's it all about, Logan? They want data on these groups without having to go into court. They want data and they want them shut down and they're not going to stop until they've done it, but that's why here at the ACLJ, we are there for these crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, they're called now, just to make sure you know that's kind of what we're still talking about, just kind of a change in verbiage now because, like I said, they're not all crisis pregnancies. These are people going in who are just having these conversations. They're wanting another opinion.

They're wanting another place. And some of the rules are trying to put where only doctors can do ultrasounds and those kind of things. I mean, there are third-party ultrasound clinics. I mean, we used them when we had kids all the time.

I don't even know. I assume that they're like medical technicians or nothing against that, but I feel like this is not doctors we were going to see who were conducting these, so they're trying to shut down these pregnancy resource centers. But we are there for you. We are in that final days of our life at Liberty Drive. It ends in five days, but also in five days, we're appealing our own case to the Supreme Court to defend pro-life counselors. That is happening right now, and we are going to be a part of this issue for as long as the ACLJ is in existence, which if you want to be a part of it, you can be. All you have to do is go to ACLJ.org, make your donation.

All gifts during this month, which again is rapidly coming to a close, are doubled. That means there is somebody, another ACLJ supporter, ACLJ champion likely, that's someone who gives monthly, who has dedicated a portion of their donation to matching your donation. And again, if you care about the life issue, we are on the front lines of it.

So go to ACLJ.org and make your donation. Now, I also, I'm just going to tease this because I just saw a post come up, Jordan. We talked about what happened to Emory, Emory University. They came, they cleaned up. They got rid of the encampment very quickly, while another situation happened at Harvard overnight.

And I can't wait to share this one because this one is just, I mean, honestly, there's some fun in it. So if you're looking for something a little entertaining, just wait till you see what happened to some of the Harvard students overnight at this encampment, the pro Palestinian encampment that happened on campus. We'll talk about that coming up in the next segment. So you definitely want to stay with us for this break, but as Logan said, in just five days, we're appealing our own case to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's about those bubble zones and pro-life counselors, not pro-life protesters, pro-life counselors who want to approach those entering in and saying, hey, there are other options.

You can go to a pregnancy resource center before you make this decision. That is up at the Supreme Court. We're filing very soon. Double the impact of your donation. Be part of this challenge at ACLJ.org.

Donate today. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are talking, of course, about there's been a wall to wall coverage of the Trump immunity case at the U.S. Supreme Court. It does have huge ramifications, even bigger than President Trump, because it's about whether a President who is now a former President can be criminally charged for acts they took as President.

And then there's a dividing line. Can you be charged for official acts or do they have to be considered unofficial acts? And what is official and what is unofficial? Now, most acts, it's pretty easy to determine what's official and what's unofficial. But there are certainly areas when you're President of the United States where you are making decisions, like with the CIA and others, that are certainly right on the line between whether or not they're on the up and up completely under U.S. law or is it something that we, again, allow Presidents to do?

The hypotheticals and kind of where our position is on this, it kind of splits right down the middle. Listen, most Presidential official acts on their own cannot be prosecuted once a President is out of office, even if it was an official act that went wrong. So, like, a war was declared or shots were fired and everything wasn't perfect and there were civilians harmed. But, no, if the official way of going about that and initiating that combat or military decision was correct, which, of course, it would be inside the presidency, then you can't charge them for that. But if you got a million-dollar bribe before you launched that military act. And when we talk about the million-dollar bribe, we're not talking about a donation to some C-4. We're talking about, like, a million dollars to the President's hand.

A billion dollars or something like that. That criminal act would override the official act and then likely, when you are a former President, could be prosecuted for that instance because the criminal act was so extreme. Yeah, and as we're on right now, the oral argument right now is at two hours and 30 minutes. Like you said earlier in our meeting, a different court used to be one hour, very strict, one hour. That was your whole hearing now in the Roberts court in the sort of post-COVID era. They let them go on and on and on.

Until they're done with questions. Maybe for the best or not. I mean, that's up for you to decide.

But it certainly may be a little more thorough. I did want to give an update. Some of you guys spoiled it in the chat. I know you wouldn't look to see what happened at Harvard.

I've kept it so I can react on my own. So at Emory, we heard very quickly at Emory, they went in, they got rid of the encampments real quick for the pro-Palestinian encampments. Harvard last night was their first night doing it. Now, they did ID everyone.

So it was everyone that made it into the quad to protest was in fact a Harvard student or had a Harvard ID. However, at around 2 a.m. in 36 degree weather, the sprinkler system went off in the encampments and flooded them and froze them out. And they said, that is the biggest problem right now. It is not any sort of – that was the easiest way for them essentially to clear out this encampment pretty quick.

It's obviously still some people out there. But they said then later on, just two hours later, more sprinklers turned on at the edge of the encampment. And the sprinklers were getting to hit tents on the edge.

And they said they flooded out multiple of the tents that were there. So, you know, maybe do a little bit of better planning next time, Harvard students. You know, we think of you as the elite students in the country, but you couldn't figure out where the sprinkler system was.

Now, should the sprinkler system gone off at 36 degree weather? I don't know. Was there some shenanigans? Who knows? But you know what? It's pretty funny because you know what? It's a harmless thing and it's kind of hysterical. So the fact that you set up, you got there, you built your tent, maybe the first tent you've ever built in your life, you build a tent.

And then boom, the sprinklers come on like it's Happy Gilmore and they soak you and flood you out. I don't know. I love it. I love it.

I think it's just part of it. Did they check their student accounts there? They did. Harvard did check them. They made sure it's students, but everyone had to have a Harvard ID.

So everyone was involved. They said it was not that many people. It wasn't that many people to begin with once they did weed out who was not there that was actually a part of the campus. Oh, so they took out a lot of people who were not Harvard as well. I think they did. A lot of people did not make it through security.

That's what I'm saying. The big question here next is who is paying these professional protesters to go around the country and launch these anti-Semitic pro-Hamas protests. We want you to support our work. We're going to get to the bottom of that as well at ACLJ.org where you can double your impact. We have five days left in our Life and Liberty Drive. Again, double your impact, your donation and looking at ACLJ.org.

So many cases. We'll keep going through it as we are today on the show, but we need your financial support today. Welcome back to Secular. We are joined by our senior analyst for our broadcast, Tulsi Gabbard, a former member of Congress, a Presidential candidate, a member of our armed forces. Tulsi, I want to go right into a couple of issues with you involving these protests that we are seeing across college campuses and the more we're learning about these protests as well, which are not only extremely anti-Semitic, but also have crossed over the barrier into being pro-Palestinian to being pro-Hamas and actually calling for violence against Jews, violence against Jewish students on campus and the inability for some of our nation's top institutions to get these protests under control. We have not seen this kind of blatant anti-Semitism publicly in the streets, I mean, in decades in the United States. Jordan, you know, the fact that I've been talking with some of my Jewish friends over the Passover holidays, and one thing that just keeps coming through is this question is are Jewish people safe in America anymore? When I look at some of the accounts that I'm hearing coming from Columbia University specifically, some of those chants of the students, the pro-Hamas, or the students who identify as Hamas chanting phrases like, we don't want no Zionists here.

Oh Hamas, my beloved, strike Tel Aviv, another one October 7th will happen every day for you 10,000 times. And the problem is here that not only is this language that supports a known Islamist terrorist organization, but it is inciting violence against Jewish students and others, professors, faculty and others on campus there. There was an account that was shared of a Jewish student that was pinned to the wall and then told to keep effing running when he broke free. Others physically abusing, chasing, it has become a completely unsafe environment for Jewish students there. The fact that the university has failed to provide the basic level of law and order and ensure peace and safety for all students on their campus is one thing. But it's a whole other thing where the city of New York, as well as the President of the United States, Democrat leaders in our country are failing to address the seriousness of what we are seeing, not only at Columbia, but at universities and cities across the country and around the world, frankly. And all of this stems down to the greatest threat that we face as a freedom loving people in society, which comes from this radical Islamist ideology. Hamas is no different from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS and others who have been waging this radical Islamist warfare, ideological warfare for decades, hundreds of years even. And we can look at the impact of that ideological warfare on our young people on these college campuses who are not rooted in any kind of ideology, certainly not rooted in the principles enshrined in our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And so they're vulnerable and susceptible to this ideological warfare and we are seeing the results of that playing out before our very eyes.

And that's the real threat that we face. I also want to bring up, this is Logan, I want to say that we're looking at reports on all the protests that are happening. So you have a situation at Harvard where it's a very small group of people because they're IDing and they're actually checking who's showing up there. Of course, a lot of them got flooded out.

We've talked about that due to the sprinkler system. Very good planning there from the Harvard students. But at Emory in Atlanta, they had an encampment set up this morning. They went in, they took care of it, they said this was trespassing and they found out that there was no one, not a student, not a member of faculty, no one with an Emory ID that was actually involved in these protests. So we are not seeing necessarily in all of these, in your head you can kind of go and picture who these protesters are at some of these schools because we're used to student-led protests.

But that is not what we're seeing here. It's not, you bring up such an important point and this is, someone sent me a message this morning with pictures of some of these encampments at different universities and I think the one I saw was at Columbia where 90% of the tents that are set up on the lawn are exactly the same brand, size, shape and color. These protests are clearly not impromptu or grassroots organized protests happening from within. These appear to be extremely well organized, highly coordinated, very well funded protests, again, all pointing to the same message, the same ideology that is against freedom. You know, a lot of people don't know what radicalismism is but it is, their objective that they make very clear is for Islamic rule over all people in the world. They want to establish these caliphates once again around the world, they want Sharia law to be the law of the day that is abided by not only by Muslims but by everyone and if you refuse to abide by that, there will be very dire consequences for you. We're in this place because of a failure of our leadership, you know, ever since the attack on 9-11 to actually wage this ideological warfare.

They have never stopped waging it and we're seeing the results of that play out today. Tulsi, I want to get to your book but one more quick question that I think the Department of Justice and some of these state AGs can look at as well. When you talk about all the tents matching, the fact that Emory University found that none of the protesters were actually Emory students, that somebody has got to be financing this. Somebody is behind this organizationally and financing it and they are, while we do respect to an extent civil disobedience in the United States, when it's kind of phony civil disobedience, so you've got groups paying to do this. I think that's a legitimate investigation to find out who is behind getting these protesters there to not only protest for a free Palestine or something like that but to actually protest in favor of Hamas and their violence.

Yes, we and you and I talk about this on your show all the time. You guys focus on this. You spend your time defending freedom, not only in America but for people in different parts of the world. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and civil disobedience and peaceful protest are absolutely those things that we stand up to defend even if we don't agree with the message. What we're seeing here is not that.

Even though I disagree with their message wholeheartedly and I'm standing up and exercising my free speech to oppose it. What we're seeing is support for an Islamist terrorist organization that is taking people's lives and whose goal is to exterminate Jewish people in the world. What we're seeing is a violation of law and order. We are seeing people conduct their own acts of violence and inciting violence on these college campuses and leaders both in the city and the university and in the country who are so afraid of being labeled as Islamophobes. They're allowing this to go largely unhindered and forcing Jewish students and Jewish faculty and anyone else who is not pro-Hamas to go home and stay home saying, hey, the campus is not safe for you. So instead of actually enforcing the law and ensuring the peace, they are acquiescing to these radical Islamist organizations. Again, they should be finding out who is funding them and who is backing them, given their connections to these terrorist groups.

Their priorities are screwed up and it's because they're afraid of the radical Islamist pro-Hamas activists in our country. Tulsi, I want to give you just the last couple minutes here to talk also about your new book, which comes out. Congratulations on next week on April 30th, my wife's birthday. It's a good birthday present. I'll be getting that for her.

It's For Love of Country, Leave the Democrat Party Behind. If you're watching online, you'll see the cover art right now. For our listeners who are obviously used to having you on, hearing from you, tell us about this book and we're excited about it. Thank you so much.

I think you should give her my book, but also definitely take her out to a nice dinner and tell her happy birthday from me. No, I really appreciate it. For your listeners who I've gotten to know here now, for all the years you've had me on, what you'll find in this book is the personal experiences that I've had of over 20 years of being a Democrat, involved with politics at the state, local and federal level. And the transformation that the Democratic Party has gone under to go from what it once was, the party of the little guy, the party of free speech to what it is today is the party of the elite and the party that speaks to censor those who don't agree with them. We're facing a crisis in our country and I talk in the book about as dark as these times are and as easy as it is to feel hopeless, we do have hope. We must stand together as Americans to defend our freedom and save our country. Thank you, Tulsi.

That book is available wherever I believe books are sold, I'm sure, and we'll make sure we get our links set up in the description if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble. So make sure you check out Tulsi's book and we'll try to get her on next week and really kind of break that down as well. Big release day, so we're excited for her.

Also, obviously support the work of the ACLJ. I'm going to give you one question, one thought. I would love to hear from you.

You've heard about all of these encampments, you've heard from Tulsi about what's really happening in these college campuses, you even heard of the Democrat Party, what they've done to her. Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. We've got three lines open. It's the perfect time to call. 1-800-684-3110. But we are in the final days of our life in Liberty Drive.

It ends on the day Tulsi's book comes out, April 30th. That's right. In just five days, we're also appealing our own case to the Supreme Court to defend pro-life counselors.

That's, again, right at the end of the matching challenge. So double the impact of your donation. You've got five days to do it. Donate online at ACLJ.org. We've also got a letter to Secretary of State Blinken and members of Congress calling on them to sanction Iran for their attacks. Not just call out Iran, but sanction Iran. Donate today at ACLJ.org and double your impact.

Hey, welcome back to Sekio. We're going to take your calls. Before we do, let me just remind you, we've got a major deadline on our life in Liberty Drive. Just five days are left. Within those five days, we have filed a critical amicus brief in the Trump immunity case, which is just finished up.

It's still ongoing. Again, they're still covering that wall-to-wall. We filed there. We're defending pro-life centers.

We talked about that both in California. And we've just filed amicus brief at the Supreme Court to defend pro-life pregnancy centers in a number of states, those ones that were getting those pre-investigation letters that you can't even appeal before giving them all of the data. It's like giving them all the data without making them have to actually file and go to a court and get a subpoena on why they need this data. It's harassment of pro-life pregnancy centers. In just five days, you know we're appealing our own case to the Supreme Court defending pro-life counselors. And today, we are sending a demand letter to Secretary of State Blinken and those members of Congress, calling on them to both sanction Iran and defend Israel. That tough talk on Iran is not enough, that we've got to financially sanction them. And I think, Logan, again, with these battles, they're going to keep increasing. We've seen now the growth. We're seeing the dividing lines in the country between the pro-Israel movement, which we used to think was pretty much the majority of Republicans and Democrats and independents. And we're starting to see these dividing lines that we're sending letters to say, hey, these battles are going to keep increasing. We've got to engage these, and we need to find out who is behind these protests financially. Who has gotten these students to move from being, you know, free Palestine or a two-state solution to actually supporting the murder, the death, the killing of Jews in Israel and the harassment of Jews in the United States of America during this Passover week. I mean, it's always very planned out, which is why you realize, Logan, it's likely a group or organization behind it.

It's not like random that it happened on Passover week. That's right. Hey, we'd love to take some phone calls from you, 1-800-684-3110. We're going to do that.

Let's go ahead and start with that. Hey, I just want also breaking news. The case is over at the Supreme Court, two hours and 46 minutes on the clock. There you go. It's like longer than the Super Bowl.

It's crazy. All right, let's go ahead and take some calls. Let's go to Lynn who's calling in Nevada on line three.

Been a whole about 45 minutes, so I really appreciate it. Lynn, you're on the air. Thanks, Lynn. Oh, thank you.

We support you and thanks for taking the call. And I have been listening to this morning's proceedings in the court case with the immunity. And I think it's just absolutely absurd. The whole thing has driven me up the wall. It reminds me of an Elmer Fudd cartoon where he's switching his hat around.

So what happens in the future? We have to give the presidency two hats and every time he gets ready to speak, he decides, oh, I'm in my official capacity. Oh, I'm in my private capacity. It's just insanity.

I can't believe it. And then why not the whole Senate too? Or better than that, we'll just give them an easy button and we'll let AI make the determination of the status of their mind and their decision making. You get to the complicated part of this, right, which is when you are President, 90% or more of what you're doing is official. I mean, you're signing official documents, you're signing legislation, you're making decisions, you're doing orders, you're sending troops to locations, you're doing things that are part of your constitutional duty. It may be that there's a strong group of people who disagree with those policies, but it doesn't make them criminal and it certainly, they are official acts. I think what the Supreme Court is looking at here is very clear criminal acts that may be combined with an official act to make it appear as though it was only an official act and thus the President, after leaving office, couldn't be prosecuted. And I think the best example came from Chief Justice Roberts today. It's the bribery example, Logan. It's the, hey, I'm going to give you a billion dollars right now, Mr. President, you're going to appoint me later on today to ambassador to this country. That, again, very clear cut.

The crime would override the official act, but I think the court is going to end up sending this back, Logan. And again, I don't think we're going to have an answer on this one. Let's continue on. Let's go to David in West Virginia on line one. David, you're on the air. Hi, how are y'all doing today? Good.

Go ahead to your comment. Okay, so I actually have a question. First of all, I was in the military. So, you know, these Hamas terrorists, local terrorists, they are burning flags, holding up death to America signs.

Now, I know in the service, I probably would have been court-martialed and thrown in the brig. But why are these people not being charged with domestic terrorism? Because that is what they're doing. This is not freedom of speech anymore. It has crossed that red line into domestic terrorism. Well, I think we've got the Logan, the statistics on the arrest right here.

And so, I mean, it gives you some hope, David. Yes, some are violating the law. When you engage in civil disobedience, so you occupy a location which you don't have a permit to do, you're violating the law in America. Though I will say in the United States, because we favor free speech so much, even when you do that, the penalties are not so severe.

Now, then you go to the second point, though, which is what are you advocating for? When you're advocating for killing people, then you look at whether or not, okay, is this kind of hypothetical or can we directly tie this to an event that could occur like right now? Well, when you have Jewish students walking through those events being harassed or even told, go kill yourself, these kind of things, then you can take it up to a next level crime. So I think out of the arrests that have been made, I mean, Logan, there were 133 at NYU, over 100 at Columbia, Emerson College in Boston, 108, UCLA, 93, Yale, 50, University of Texas, 34, University of Minnesota, 9, that each of those are not going to be the same. I mean, if you were someone who, again, was advocating for direct violence at that moment, that's a different crime than just generally saying, I support the destruction of Israel, you know, hypothetically or generically. And again, so they're definitely going to get charged with, you know, obviously it's like trespassing. Some might get charged with the crime of making these physical violent threats like they have against some of these Jewish students. And some have even taken physical violent acts against those students.

That's why they're all covered up in their face masks. Yeah, but we are only a few days left in our life in Liberty Drive. Hey, Mike, I'm sorry we're not going to be able to get to you today.

So, Mike in Texas, thanks for calling. Hopefully we answered your question. But we are in those final days. It is over next Tuesday. So right now we've got a few days left for you to be a part of this. Jordan has talked about what we're doing. And we've got to see how we can get to the bottom of who is funding these protests.

And we can do that with your support. As we know what happened at Emory, none of the people arrested were part of the Emory community. That's in Atlanta, Georgia. So that is what's actually happening around the country.

Harvard, they had to ID everyone and it ended up being dozens, not hundreds, dozens of people there. And they got flooded by the sprinklers. Pretty fun. The battles are increasing, though, and we're not going to be able to engage without you and without your generosity. So we encourage you right now, because gifts are doubled.

This is one of our matching months in the Life and Liberty Drive right now. Donations are doubled only for the next five days. You can give at ACLJ.org. You can donate right now.

You can scan the QR code if you're watching online. There are a lot of different ways you can do it, but we encourage you to do it. Also, while you're there, if you can become a monthly recurring donor and ACLJ champion, we encourage that as well. But Jordan, we are in the fight on all of these topics. I mean, the reason why we have Rick Grenell as part of our team, Mike Pompeo and Tulsi Gabbard is because of your financial support. I always want to add that during these Life and Liberty challenges, because they are not just random commentators we asked to come on the show. They are part of the ACLJ team because of your financial support. So during this Life and Liberty Drive, it makes it that much easy for us to look to others who we might want to bring on the team like that if you donate. And again, double the impact of your donation today at ACLJ.org. Do it right now.