TRUMP LIVE UPDATE: New York Closing Arguments

Today on Sekulow, closing arguments in the New York Trump trial today. 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.

Alright, welcome to Sekulow. So this is it, the final closing arguments today in the President Trump's trial in New York City. This of course involving the hush money payments, the money. Was it a business expense? Was it a legal expense? And if so, it's about 35 counts that President Trump is facing. But really, I mean, you're talking about the jury having to decide one issue because the counts are similar. So if you believe that was illegal and you believe that it's connected to that federal election issue, which takes it from a misdemeanor to a felony, then you would vote that President Trump was guilty.

If you believe that one of those was, again, it was just a way to mark a business expense and it was nothing improper or illegal about that. Certainly wouldn't rise to a felony or prison time over something like an issue like this. Then you would vote against the prosecution and then you'd vote that President Trump, again, was not guilty. Remind yourself as bad as this went for the prosecution in the last week in the news with revelations about even stolen money from President Trump and some members of his past team. That the jury here is in New York City as a Manhattan jury. So whatever happens in these closing arguments, which could finish by the end of today, they hope they're trying to finish by evening. You can then, again, the jury gets its instructions. They go and sometimes you get decisions very quickly. Sometimes you get decisions a week later. I mean, they don't have a timeline. So again, I think because even though there's these 35 counts, Logan, really you only have to figure out one.

Yeah, I think we need to break that down. I'm seeing a lot in the chat right now, especially on Rumble. So to all our Rumble viewers, hello? On Rumble, a lot of people are saying, wait, wait, wait, 35 counts. I'm seeing that over again. Is this just one thing essentially extrapolated to 35 times? How does it work?

What does that mean? Each time the payment was made or each time the form was submitted as a business expense. So there wasn't one single payment here. They're saying there's multiple times.

I guess 34 counts total. So multiple times that that was the exact same thing was done in pieces. This piecemeal is up to the 130,000. And so each time you submitted to the state of New York that this was a business expense or a legal expense and it wasn't a campaign expense, that was when, again, you've passed the misdemeanor. And then because you're running for President and not considering it a campaign expense, they're somehow trying to tie it to an FEC violation, a federal election code violation, which would up it to a felony. So while that's complicated, you don't have to go through it 35 times to get to the verdict. You go through it the first time and say, okay, if the first time was wrong, the 34th time was just as wrong.

Or if the first time was not illegal, neither was the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, that goes on. So I don't think it's as complicated for the jury as it might sound when you hear 34 counts. That sounds like a jury that's going to be... In theory, it could be over at any moment. It could be over tonight. So by the time we're broadcasting you tomorrow, there's a chance we have a verdict.

Now it could go on and on. There is a chance that they just can't finish the closing arguments today because, again... Any kind of delay. Any delays like someone's got a juror has an emergency or someone that was... The testimony goes on a little pass, seven or eight o'clock. They try to end around not so late. So could we have a verdict tonight?

Yes. Is it more likely in the next, I'd say 48 hours? Probably more likely in the next 48 hours. But who knows?

Because we haven't been inside the courtroom. All we're taking this from really is from two partisan sides of the news. What do you think is going to happen? Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. What do you think the verdict will be tonight, potentially? Of course, it could go on longer, but what do you think?

1-800-684-3110. You could kind of give us two versions. What you want it to be and what you think it actually may be coming out of New York.

You had Robert De Niro out there on the streets. We'll talk about that coming up. We're also going to take your phone calls, like you said. And I'm going to tell you next segment why today and the rest of the week is a very important time to become an ACLJ Champion. Go to ACLJ.org to learn more. We'll talk about that coming up.

1-800-684-3110. You know, there was also some breaking news, Logan, out of the case in Florida. Now, this is a case on the classified documents, the Mar-a-Lago raid, that has, again, been almost indefinitely, I would say suspended, but it's been put on hold because there's so many classified documents. There's so many classified documents to review. That process is very just extensive, to say the least.

And you've got to get, you know, attorneys have got to get special access to be able to even review those documents. You've had some missteps, certainly by Jack Smith and his team there. A lot of confusion around. Remember, they had to admit that the documents were mixed up?

Yeah, they weren't in the proper boxes. There's been a lot. We discussed it pretty at length. And now we have some breaking, real breaking news.

That's true. So they've asked for a gag order against Donald Trump in this classified documents case. This is Jack Smith. This is Jack Smith, the special prosecutor. He wants the gag order like the gag order that was issued in the New York case by the New York judge. And that gag order was denied by Judge Cannon, the federal judge in this case.

The request was, quote, wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy. So, again, she obviously did not like the way it was worded and kind of I think the way Jack Smith has handled this is, you know, we are the Department of Justice. We get what we want in a case.

Judge, we tell you what to do. And she said no in this. And I think when they messed up the documents, that was it kind of fed right into her problem that we've seen her have with Jack Smith throughout this process, which is they are going fast and loose with a classified documents case.

And it doesn't work out that way. And they've spent a lot of time kind of demonizing her, making her, you know, they always say the Trump appointed judge, you know, they continually have done that. So, yeah, I'm not shocked that she did not say the Democrat consultant's father judge. Right. Again, also made illegal campaign contributions as a judge to Joe Biden. As I said, the last case or the last shows we were doing about this, every judge is a something, someone appointed judge, but they use that as if like you therefore can no longer judge fairly or clearly if you've been appointed by a President or important.

But that's the system. But of course, she said, again, to quote her, which I like this quote, she denied it, saying it was wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy. And I want to read the document. I want to see what it was. We are going to take your phone calls 1-800-684-3110 as the case in New York is wrapping up today. And potentially we can have a verdict as early as this evening. We'll go ahead and take a call. Let's go to Michael in Florida. Michael, you're on the air and give us a call at 1-800-684-3110.

We've got a few lines open right now. Good afternoon, gentlemen. My question is this. How is it possible that the judge would instruct both counsel that they are not to speak to the law during closing arguments? I mean, isn't the case based on this is what's being accused as opposed to this is what the law is? You know, so I read that same statement from that was from Judge Merchant that he instructed the attorneys on both sides. Don't go back through what the law is because the jury will have that instruction to them, which is this is what the defendant has been charged with.

These are the counts. Do you believe that was violated so that they're going to have all that? And if they have questions about that, they can submit questions to the court while they are while they're deliberating.

So that I think is what they're trying to say is spend your time. And this is where I think it gets back to this is legal talk. It says spend your time back on evidence and the facts that that they believe show their side is correct in the case.

So you're still going to be going through evidence and facts that prove your point legally. What I think they don't want is another just diatribe on what the New York law is, what the federal law is. And I actually think that's probably to to help the prosecutors, honestly, because this isn't just about New York law. It's about some weird way of trying to bootstrap a New York law into a federal law, which makes it a felony.

That would usually be a misdemeanor crime. And so that's what has gotten so complicated in this case is even if part one was done, did part two actually happened that this court has kind of that Alvin Brand kind of made up to make this a felony case. And the judge doesn't want that relitigated is basically what he's saying. They said, we've done that.

We've gotten past that point. Now you go to your evidence. You go to your facts and the jury will get its instructions on what the law is. Is there a hung jury scenario that could happen here? People are asking that in the comments.

I'm seeing that a lot, saying if you're not necessarily purely guilty or not guilty, but there's they cannot come to a conclusion. What does that mean? On a six week trial like this, when you've seen some interesting characters that could be fairly confusing to you could feel one way. And the next day, you know, you get a character who gets up there and starts saying, oh, yeah, I also took thirty thousand dollars from this guy.

I didn't tell him about it. You know, embezzlement. And, you know, it was the whole cast of characters that was testified to this can be fairly off putting. I mean, so when you have, you know, the head of the National Enquirer and Stormy, you know, Stephanie Richards, and then you've got Michael Cohen. It's just a whole group of people that are not the most trustworthy on either side.

So I think what you have to then go down and look to is kind of like what you feel in your gut. Like, did Donald Trump really believe he was violating the law? They're saying all these horrible things about him in New York. And he's been working in New York for decades and never had any issues like this. He had Robert De Niro come out and say today, you know, he's he's destroying New York. And the truth is, he's built a quarter of New York. I mean, like he's been around New York recently. I don't believe Donald Trump is to blame for the disaster that's currently there.

No, not not at all. And instead, what they're trying to do is kind of erase the history of Donald Trump in New York because he decided to go political. I'm sure Robert De Niro went to tons of events with Donald Trump.

We got a clip. Let's hear from Robert De Niro. This was today by the Biden campaign. He is speaking on behalf of the Biden campaign officially. Biden campaign, let's say it's in front of the courthouse. They had set up essentially their own little campaign stop. Which they said they weren't going to do this time. But I guess finally they've had a change in... Well, the poll numbers have come in and, you know, we got to do something. We got to pull in Bobby De Niro.

Let's hear from him. Under Trump, this kind of government will perish from the earth. I don't mean to scare you. No, no, wait.

Maybe I do mean to scare you. If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted. And the elections, forget about it. That's over.

That's done. If he gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave. He will never leave. You know that.

He will never leave. So that's Robert De Niro out in front of the courthouse. We saw similar verbiage coming out of Ken Burns this weekend, also a documentarian. He was giving a commencement speech.

I have to forget where specifically. But for the first time decided to go political. I feel like they are now calling in these favors. And they're not lightly political. They're like this. The country will not survive.

Their democracy will die. It's those kind of verbiage that you're now coming out because I think they know. How old is Donald Trump? Donald Trump's heard what? He's 76?

Something like that. What I think they know is that saying you should vote for Biden because he's a better option is not on the table politically. So the only way to get people to vote for Biden is to scare them into thinking that the world is going to burn if Donald Trump is elected President. And the world has only been burning since Biden became President. There was no burning world under Donald Trump.

In fact, the fires in the world were being put out. ISIS was destroyed, thankfully, and they didn't come back. We have the Abraham Accords. We had this great peace agreement between the Gulf states and Israel. There was not massive fighting between Israel and Hamas or Israel and no new wars. We were able to handle hostage situations quickly even like in Turkey with Pastor Brunson was a great example or even in Sudan. So you would have these victory after victory and Iran was being isolated by the world. And so even North Korea wasn't shooting off intercontinental ballistic missiles, wasn't trying to shoot off intercontinental ballistic missiles. Because you had a very much a change in strategy where I think Donald Trump's, you know, we haven't repeated this much, but his statement that, you know, if 90% they think I'm bluffing, but 10% they think I press the button or will do what I say I will do, then they have to consider that every decision.

And 10% ain't nothing. Yeah, absolutely. I want to tell you the next segment, we are going to focus a bit on what's happening in Israel.

Obviously, there was the situation in Rafah yesterday, as well as a lot more. We're going to go Jeff Balaban. We are engaged in all these efforts here at the ACLJ. And I want to encourage you, as we start to wrap up this month, we really want to encourage you to become an ACLJ champion. We're doing a lot. 2024 has brought on some unprecedented challenges that we cannot have anticipated, but we are engaging in these legal fights because of you. We just sent a demand letter to the Biden administration and to President Biden specifically demanding they defend Israel and challenge those international criminal court because we believe they are doing that unjustly.

We've also filed two critical written submissions to the UN to defend Israel and expose Iran's plot to utterly destroy the Jewish state. We're going to talk about that coming up in the next segment with Jeff Balaban. We can't do any of it without your support and really the support of our monthly recurring donors, as we call them ACLJ champions, which there are over now 21,000. And what that does, it helps empower us all year long to defend you. It gives us a great baseline so it's not all reliant, which most of the organization is reliant on individual donations that come in at $20, $50, $70.

But to have that recurring number that we know we can rely on is just so important. So I'm going to encourage you today, if you have the opportunity at any level, become an ACLJ champion. Cases are mounting and we cannot take on more without your support. So go to ACLJ.org slash champions or scan the code on your screen.

Do it now and let me know in the chat if you're watching on YouTube or rumble that you have or already an ACLJ champion. Welcome back to Secular. Well, in your Inflation Reduction Act, which you thought was about, at least it was supposed to be about reducing inflation for Americans. Of course, as you've seen from the Federal Reserve, not much reduction in inflation, certainly not in interest rates so far, yet from the Inflation Reduction Act, but more federal spending. And then, of course, federal spending overseas.

They don't talk as much about that in the Inflation Reduction Act. But Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican from West Virginia, and she's the vice chair of the Senate Republican Conference, came out yesterday with a report and she's also the ranking member on the Environmental and Public Works Committee. And she discussed oversight findings from one of her staffers that revealed a $50 million grant was awarded from the EPA, so from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through the Democrats Inflation Reduction Act to the Climate Justice Alliance. See, these are nonprofits. We don't get these kind of grants, Logan, from the federal government. You know, like Planned Parenthood's $500 million. The Climate Justice Alliance Group gets $50 million. But guess what?

You might not figure out their name. You'd think they were about, you know, climate justice. So we might not like their politics, but maybe that would be the politics of, you know, environmental stuff and liberal stuff that we wouldn't necessarily agree with. But in fact, it's a group that engages in a lot of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic activities. The money that went to this group, and again, there is $50 million to an organization and out of $40 billion that is going to be ultimately distributed. When you go to the website of the Climate Justice Alliance, you don't have to do a ton of digging because at the bottom of their website, Logan, they had a picture of the bulldozer that went through the fence when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th.

Literally the bulldozer that went through the fence to create an opening for Hamas to attack Israeli civilians on October 7th, the day that most Jews have been killed in one day since the Holocaust. They also had a rendering on their website. It says, Decolonize Palestine, and it has a picture of that same bulldozer going through the fence. And you can see it there.

Yeah, if you're watching online. The actual picture and the rendering. By the way, why it's important to check these groups that have these benign names, like Climate Justice Alliance, and you realize that doesn't seem like what Climate Justice Alliance would look like on their homepage, Logan, right? But I want to go to Jeff Balabon, who oversees our office in Jerusalem. And Jeff, this to me, it just kind of exposes the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish bias we see inside our own federal bureaucracy. So that when these funds get allocated even to the EPA, and they go to a group that sounds like Climate Justice Alliance, where, yes, it sounds like a liberal group, it sounds like it's some group that's going to protest gasoline-powered cars and diesel fuel. What it doesn't necessarily, though, mean when you read their name is that they're some anti-Israel group, and they're promoting Hamas, but yet that's why you've got to go a step further, because they're smart about that. They realize, don't put Hamas on your name, call yourself Climate Justice Alliance, and don't even hide it that much because the bureaucrats are on our side, they'll get us that $50 million.

100% right, Jordan. You know, they say personnel is policy, and while there have always been these pockets of very deep anti-Israel bias and animus, and even anti-Semitism in certain places like, for example, famously the State Department, what's not realized is just how deep it is now and how much was brought on by this administration. And we at the ACLJ, as you know, obviously from the beginning, have been doing FOIA requests, Freedom of Information Act requests, precisely to ferret out this, because we've known, thanks to some information we've gotten in Israel, but also information we see in America itself, that there's U.S. federal dollars, meaning our tax money is flowing, rarely directly to the terrorist organizations, but the money is given over to these organizations with these benign-sounding names, or irrelevant-sounding names, being funneled straight through to the terrorists who are committing these genocidal atrocities. In other words, it's actual U.S. dollar funding to subvert the Israeli government, to bring down the coalition, to try to stop Israel defending itself, and now we see evidence of a substantial, $50 million in December alone, going in this one program, who knows how many tens of millions are going every month through other programs, to supporting this genocidal attack on Israel's existence. Yeah, and to these groups that are supporting what happened. They're not like they're saying, we need to provide aid to Palestinians because of the conflict.

They're literally supporting the October 7th attack on their website. And as Jeff said, this is just what they're getting from the EPA through the Inflation Reduction Act. You know, what we'd like to do at the ACLJ for our legal team listening is, can we file a FOIA to see who vets these, was it a request that comes in? And so does someone have to actually vet, you would think, these organizations that make requests under the Inflation Reduction Act?

Who stamped this one as approved? Like, did they look at the website? Did they see, hey, this actually violates even the Biden policy? So far it does, at least. But Jeff, what we do know, and I do want to get in, I do want our team to do that, and I think what we'll find is that pro-Israel groups, probably not a rubber stamp. Certainly not in this administration or much of the bureaucracy. Anti-Israel groups put in their requests for money, use a name that's kind of benign, and you get your stamp from the EPA.

I think that's 100% correct. And since we're talking about, you know, you want to direct the legal team to do this, I will share with you on air right now that just a short while before I got on air with you, I was on a conversation with a House staffer who had sought our request because this is something we can do as an outside group. We can do the FOIA requests.

We can request them. It's not something the government does. So they're looking for help digging into information about foreign funding, about pro-terrorist funding in certain universities, which we know is a lot of it also. In other words, we see a tremendous amount of money. We know the EU has been sending a tremendous amount of money. We know that Qataris and others have been sending some money to support this action to destroy the state of Israel. But it's also ratcheting up the hostility around the world and here in America against Jews. And we see the effect on the streets, not only are Jews being attacked, but there are hearings that are being canceled and events being canceled because of the threat of violence and terror. Well, all of this, you can track back some money flowing from foreign funding. And now we see money flowing from us to these groups itself.

It's terrible. Yeah, this is, I had to bring this up before we go to break. On the Climate Justice Alliance website, it actually says the path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine. So again, that is the sentiment there, which is that's how you loop it in. Does it make any sense?

No. Does that have to do with anything? No, it's just essentially dog whistling their own groups. But this is what happens when you aren't paying attention, when you aren't staying vigilant. And look, Israel is going to be under a lot of criticism due to what happened over the weekend, Rafa.

There's going to be a lot of negative press. Obviously, everyone's hearts go out to any casualties of war, whether they're, especially if they are innocent civilians. But as we know, Jeff, sadly, that is just the cards you're dealt when you are dealing with war and sometimes mistakes happen. But when you see this kind of situation where they're saying a path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine, we only got a minute left.

Go ahead. Well, look, because that's also, you're right, Logan, let's be clear. When they say a free Palestine, look at the maps. They're very clear what they mean. They mean the eradication, the annihilation of the Jewish state. They're not talking about coexistence.

They're not talking about two states. They're saying the path, this is money coming from our government saying wipe out the state of Israel, wipe it off the earth. That's the shorthand for what's happening. Folks, this is why we encourage you to become an ACLJ champion again, so we have these offices all over the world to fight back and to uncover, to go to the next step in uncovering. Why on earth did our government say that this would be a good use of your taxpayer dollars, $50 million of your taxpayer dollars, and our ACLJ champions, those of you who have decided to give a monthly automatic recurring donation, we'll make sure that that FOIA gets done and gets in and we find out who rubber stamped this, who approved this group to get these funds. We've got to get to the bottom of it. As Jeff said, we'll be right back on Sekulow. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. So we've talked a lot about, let's see, Israel. We've talked about $50 billion that went to the Climate Justice Alliance for Hamas.

Again, you get no justice for the climate without justice for a free Palestine. I mean, I don't know if you could ask the environment that question. It's a very small sliver of land we're talking about here. Is that what's really affecting the entire climate for the world?

Yeah, I think it has to travel through. I don't think they're major producers of gas and oil. I mean, even if they were, if we're relying on that few miles for... It's not the United States or Russia or China.

I feel like there's not a lot of electric cars there yet. I'm not sure. We're going to take your phone calls also on the Trump situation. Obviously, the case wraps up today in New York. Closing arguments are happening right now as we speak.

Could have a decision as early as this evening, which would be wild. But we want to take some of your calls about this. I know a lot of you have been on hold for a while. Let's go to Susan who's calling in Maryland. Line 2, you're on the air. Hi.

Good afternoon. First, I'd like to say Robert De Niro is nobody and his fan club just got flushed down the toilet. Secondly, Donald Trump will win today found not guilty because Americans believe in justice and the truth. The Biden administration, the Biden family of crime, all of his little mousy followers are all bought and sold. Donald Trump will win.

We will get our power back for justice and freedom of this country because there is no other alternative. And Joe Biden and his crime family are running scared. Hunter is in trouble. Joe is in trouble. Anybody related to that family is in trouble and they're pulling out all the stops.

Well, you know, they are – this was a huge change in strategy. So if you've been watching this trial since the beginning, which if – I mean, if you turn on any cable news, you couldn't have not seen it for the last six weeks. You're watching them essentially live tweeted for the last six weeks. Yes, because there's no cameras inside. So you get pictures.

You get sketches. And really you're dealing with people's opinions, which even media opinions and journalists' opinions are one-sided these days. But ultimately, the Biden campaign said we're not going to say anything until – in the Biden White House, we're not going to say anything until there's a verdict. And when there's a verdict, President Biden will make a statement. And now supposedly that statement is going to be making it from the White House because he doesn't want to – he doesn't want to look like he's on the political campaign trail, make it like a political event.

I don't know. It feels like it's more of a political event to address the nation. I know. It's like when they went after Donald Trump for having the RNC during COVID at the White House. I feel like that's a very similar situation, which is – I do too.

I do too. But today they decided we cannot just allow President Trump to use this as a platform for a press conference and his team, so he was having different people come up and appear throughout the week. So they threw up Robert De Niro, who again, elderly, has said some crazy political things in the past and is – New father?

That's the best – I mean, one of the greatest actors of all time. Yeah, but a strange person to pick as your person to put forward, but I think what it shows you is there's not a lot of support for Joe Biden. Even what you heard from Robert De Niro, it was just anti-Trump. Yeah, it was just – Joe Biden is just – he's just the – he's just the filler for we can't have Donald Trump, so I guess you vote for Joe Biden. That is the campaign.

No one's excited about Joe Biden. The campaign is don't listen to what Trump is saying. Don't listen to what RFK is saying. By the way, don't listen to what the world is saying. Don't look at the outside.

Don't go outside in New York because all of this goes away if Donald Trump becomes President. That's all they have to market. Their marketing and anti-Trump marketing has nothing to do with Joe Biden being the President because they know that is not something that sells. But what sells is fear.

I don't want people to understand. That was official today by the Biden campaign. Yeah, that was a campaign stop. That was a campaign stop they put together with De Niro. They put together some of the January 6th police officers who have the Capitol Hill 4 police who usually testify. And, again, they're very anti-Trump as well. They've become kind of political speakers too.

And that's who they got to come, which, again, kind of tells you the support that's out there for Joe Biden, even in New York City. That's the best you can put together. Support our work.

Become an ACLJ champion. We'll be right back with Rick Grenell. Welcome back to Secular. Do you remember the pier that the U.S. military was going to construct? Humanitarian pier. Humanitarian pier. We were going to use our military to construct in Gaza. It finally had been constructed not so well. So the first shipment of aid that went across was intercepted.

I love the report here. I see it. It reported that, quote, a group of men in Gaza intercepted the aid, saying they did not trust that it was actually meant for the Palestinian people. And there's all these conspiracy theories about what the U.S. is actually putting in these aid boxes. But who do you think the group of men were that stole the aid, basically, that we've been talking about the whole time, that the Palestinians don't ever get the aid because it comes through Hamas. And Hamas takes it and then resells it or utilizes it for themselves.

I'll bring in Rick Grenell right away, a senior member of our team at the ACLJ. And because, Rick, the fact that they write it that way, a group of unidentified men, the one aid shipment that got through before this pier became dismantled was an aid shipment that was taken by a group of unknown men because they didn't trust what the U.S. was delivering, supposedly. I mean, it's so obvious that they're talking about Hamas taking the aid away from what was supposed to be going to the people, not the fighters, but the women and children who needed food and clothing and items that we were providing.

And of course, it didn't even get to them. Yeah, look, this whole thing has just been a disaster. I don't understand why we're talking about rebuilding and all of these other things when we still have hostages. Now, we've had the traditional way of humanitarian aid being delivered, but that aid on trucks going in through Israel was being hijacked by Hamas.

So we came up with this idea to deliver it through the water and to build our own little dock. And that dock is sinking and the money is wasted. And once again, we're dealing with the Hamas government. And I don't understand when the American government is going to understand. They don't have a partner in the Hamas government. The Hamas government is not interested in helping its people. It's interested in helping themselves. The fact that they try to scare the people about the aid. I mean, they said that, quote, they have doubts about the aid. I don't understand this floating peer or what it indicates is from people in Gaza and what its purpose is. They say it's for aid, but people are apprehensive.

Is this aid or something else? We know that the U.S. has ever supported our cause, the Palestinian cause. So it's implausible that it's giving us aid without something in return. So again, they're still like attacking the United States for even trying to provide this aid in a unique way, which again, I think Rick goes back to the whole issue here, which is wasting taxpayer dollars, putting our troops at risk, trying to provide aid to people who won't even take our aid.

And then when it does get there, it gets stolen. Look, you know, we've got to state the obvious, which is death and destruction is never good. We want peace. And when we see the pictures in the Palestinian territories, our heart breaks for the people because the people are governed by Hamas. And what really needs to be the focus for the Palestinians, for Arab Americans, for the U.S. government, for the Europeans is to destroy Hamas. They are not helping the Palestinian people. They're making things worse. That should be the focus.

Getting rid of Hamas, the return of the hostages and finding a way to bring real leadership to the Palestinian people. You know, the pier itself, too, we talk about a pier, a dock, it was $320 million spent to build this. And it's now, as you said, Rick, it's sinking. Parts of it are in Israel. I think there are photos of it.

I think our team is even going to, that have been out. So I mean, it's no longer functioning. And so the one time it did function, that aid was stolen. And now it's disintegrating. Some sinking, some moved actually back into Israeli territory, I think.

And it's just been a disaster. And again, Rick, it goes back to the fact that the bad guys here are Hamas. The bad guys who are preventing the regular folks who are still in those territories, who are stuck in those Palestinians, in the Gaza Strip. Let's say women and children, they don't get the aid because of the bad guys in Hamas. It's not because of Israelis, it's not because of Americans trying everything possible, including spending $300 million of our taxpayer money on a pier that fell apart. Which, again, puts in doubt a lot of, again... We have pictures now, if you're watching online. There is what it looks like now. Which, by the way, is why you should be watching this broadcast, I'm not just listening.

There it is, washed up on the beaches. So it's like, you know, we could spend billions of dollars on this, Rick, but the truth is, Hamas is not going to let the people there receive the aid from the United States or probably anyone else. They want them to feel this pain to keep the anger up. Yeah, $320 million, I can think of a whole bunch of things that we should be spending that money on instead of a dock that collapses in the water and the aid doesn't make it through. This is an administration that doesn't think through. I mean, you look at the disaster and the Afghanistan withdrawal, we saw Afghans climbing on top of an airplane. Every single thing they do is academic white paper and doesn't face the reality of how to actually put it into practice.

The idea of a floating dock may sound good to Jake Sullivan when he's in Washington, D.C. on a piece of paper, but it doesn't work in practicality. And that is because Hamas is in charge. I hope that students all over America who are protesting understand that they should be protesting Hamas.

That's who is starving the Palestinian people. To me, it looks like campaign promises they know they can't keep it sound good on paper. It's a nice little bullet point, which is, say, we're helping humanitarian aid. We're building a $320 million dock.

Obviously, we know that that dock is not going to work. It's going to get attacked. It's not going to actually get humanitarian aid. We're going to pull our troops from Afghanistan.

Sounds nice on paper. Let's end that war. Here's what happens.

Obviously, we know chaos breaks out. It's like they think, and maybe we do, maybe Americans do, have a short memory, which to say, oh, when we just put a little ad together that gives you some facts that will show you what we've done. But we know in practicality, Rick, that none of these can actually get done. They sound nice on paper to say we're going to end a war in Afghanistan. Sounds nice on paper when you say we are going to build a humanitarian peer.

Even when all of us are going, we know how this is going to end up, and of course, this is how it ends up. Yeah, look, this is the frustration that we had in the Trump administration when we would try different things that seemed to be working. You just watch the academics in the NGO community who didn't get to participate in it, and they would just complain. And so we've got this problem in Washington, D.C. and in Brussels and all sorts of European capitals where people talk about issues, but those people haven't actually ever done the negotiations. They've never been on the ground. They're academics.

They are people who sit behind a desk and think that they can figure out solutions to problems just simply by writing it down on a piece of paper. There's nobody challenging it. There's no reality pushing it back against it. And as you can see, when reality comes, then the water is not kind.

The dock sinks. Yeah, I mean, Rick, final question to you. It's just if Hamas was, I guess the Palestinian leadership, if they really wanted to get aid to their people, they could do one thing today, and it would bring a lot of aid. It would stop the conflict, and that would be to release the hostages that are still living and the hostages' bodies of those who were killed. And aid would flow. Probably most of the conflict is over, and the Palestinian people who are still in the Gaza Strip would experience a much better life than they have in the past few months. But for Hamas, the people are pawns.

They're to be used for their strategy. They don't really care about the Palestinian people. That's been clear. They're taking the aid. They would rather have the people screaming and angry and hungry than actually calming the situation down and trying to return the hostages. They have not admitted that what they did on October 7th was a terrible mistake. They're terrorists.

They're never going to do that. And so what we have to be able to do is force them out and get our hostages back, and the Palestinian people are the ones suffering. Rick, as always, we appreciate your insight into all these issues and to break it down so you understand the truth behind the story. And when they write the story, they say, well, a group of men, they don't say who those men are, just took that aid and it disappeared. There's hundreds of millions of dollars we've spent trying to get aid, aid that won't even be able to be delivered to people. And now the whole pier has fallen apart.

Again, bad policies lead to bad actual results on the ground. And that's what we've seen over and over again when it comes to how the Biden administration has handled what has occurred in Israel, what's been happening in Israel since October 7th. We, again, folks, we are engaged, as you know, with ACLJ Jerusalem, with experts like Rick Grenell on our team, and our ACLJ champions, Logan, they're at the front and center of making sure we continue to have these experts as part of our team with ACLJ. Over 21,000 of you have done it. We want you, though, if you have not done it yet, become an ACLJ champion. Everyone who put in the comments, by the way, they are, know how much we appreciate it because it creates an amazing baseline for our organization, and we can't do it without you.

21,000 strong, and we want to see that continue to grow. Go to ACLJ.org. I'm going to give you a second. ACLJ.org slash champions. If you're watching, there's a QR code on your screen.

You can scan it. It'll take a few seconds, and we're going to take your calls coming up in the next segment. So give me a call.

Three lines are open right now at 1-800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110, your voice coming up. All right, welcome back to the SEC. We've got folks who have been on the line.

Logan, let's get right to the calls. Yeah, Kathy's calling in Kentucky watching on YouTube. Thanks if you're watching on YouTube right now and you're brand new to this broadcast, we do it every day, I'm going to ask you to hit that subscribe button. We appreciate it. Kathy, you're on the air.

Thank you. I have a real concern about so many unprecedented actions having taken place with this administration in our justice system, in our political system, healthcare system, even our international relations with other countries. That I'm really concerned that this country, under this administration, may not be fit to go forward to regain our constitutional republic, and it's really concerning. Well, listen, we have a chance here, we have an election, we have a real chance. There's a story out about how the Democrats are just in a full-blown freakout over Joe Biden.

I think that this morning having... That's the official quote, by the way. Yeah, having De Niro there this morning is actually evidence of that freakout because their initial policy was let Donald Trump just roast. There's no cameras in the courtroom, so all day it's going to be Donald Trump is in trial, Donald Trump is a criminal case, and then ultimately we got a New York jury and they feel pretty good about that New York jury coming back with some kind of guilty verdict. But instead he does the Bronx.

Every day he does a press conference, and then he hits the South Bronx with 25,000 people. The last person to do anything like that was Reagan, so it hasn't happened in a long time for Republicans. And did you see the people coming out for him? Yeah, it was a very diverse group.

The MAGA neck tattoos. Yeah, I mean it's a very big group, a very different group. I think it's important also to show that it's not just, because the media will make you see that conservatives in 2024 are going to present you as CPAC.

Or are Southern, white, rural people screaming what they would say are racists. There's Republicans elected all across the country in lots of blue states. You've got members of the House elected, especially New York. I mean New York, historically, has had Republican governors, Republican mayors. Recently.

Yeah, in our lifetime, multiple times. Yes, usually they're on the more moderate side, but they are still Republicans. They're still reflecting your area.

So again, I think what he's able to do, the fact that he can just do that. So they've started their freak out, and what do they do? They go to celebrities.

I don't know if that works anymore. I mean obviously Donald Trump is a celebrity that sits, but he was President of the United States. Well, they went to a celebrity that lives a few blocks away, and they were saying, okay, why don't you come up, speak for 15 minutes, and get out of here. And obviously one of the most established and respected names as an actor. Again, not necessarily as an activist, but as an actor.

Everyone knows Robert De Niro. I think there is some of that. But the problem you have is a lot of the actors this time have just said, I'm not getting involved. You had Dwayne The Rock Johnson say, pretty much one of the biggest mistakes of his career was endorsing, not even his career, just in his life, was endorsing Joe Biden last time and how he deeply regrets it. When you have people saying that, and people that are as loved and beloved as The Rock, you have to figure out ways to counterbalance that. And of course they didn't get Taylor Swift. They didn't get all those things they thought, because Hollywood has been known for getting the celebrities to take action. So what they're going to do is instead tell these celebrities, go out there and promote Joe Biden. They're going to say, you don't want Donald Trump, go out there and say bad things about Donald Trump.

And a lot more will line up for that. Let's go ahead and take some more calls. Let's go to Joe in Arkansas, listening on the radio. You're on the air. Hey Joe.

Hey guys. Yeah, I guess De Niro didn't know about the term limits on Trump, but anyway, I heard over the last week that the judge thinking about his jury instructions was going to tell them that they don't have to be unanimous to have a conviction on Trump. And I wonder if that's even possible. Yes, because there's 34 charges. They're very similar.

So I said that they're very similar. There's some are different because some were made in a ledger, some were actually invoices that they have like an invoice from Michael Cohen, but they don't have the actual check written. So they could come back and say, well, for the ones that we actually see the checks written, we'll say those were the ones that we decide were intentionally done by Trump as criminal acts. If they were doing that, they could also come back and say, listen, we believe it was the falsification of business records.

That's a, that's a misdemeanor in New York. We don't believe though that this had, that this was a federal election crime. So that would, so you could have guilty, find Donald Trump guilty of misdemeanors that don't amount to felonies because it doesn't, the jury doesn't believe it attaches to the federal election, which you have to have to make this a felony case. Now, I think what's interesting here is when we, when we get the reports on these closing arguments from the prosecution defenses, the, for the prosecution really to wait here, they don't need that.

They need you to take it all or nothing approach or else it gets convoluted. You can also remember you can have a hung jury. So you do have to have a unanimous jury on each count.

So I think that's where the confusion might be. So if you're going to find Donald Trump guilty of, of a false business records on count three, but you're not going to find him guilty of the, the election record. I tried to violate the federal election law. You start to have unanimity to find him guilty on that count.

And you have to have at least somebody say, I don't believe he violated the defense. So somebody holding out on the second one. Let's go ahead and take this last call. Cause this is a call I think everyone wants to hear the answer to from you. Elizabeth, you're on the air. Yes.

Thank you for taking my call. I'm wondering if they find President Trump guilty because I don't have a lot of confidence. Can they, obviously he's going to appeal it. Can they put, will they put him in jail or will he be out during that period of waiting for the appeal? One, they could, they could certainly put him in jail. I mean, I think that the secret service will step in and you will not see Donald Trump behind bars.

It could be very temporary. It could be that he's like a house arrest situation that he could be limited. He could appeal that as well. I think because of the politics surrounding this, that he is now about to become his party's nominee for President of the United States, that you are not going to see like, like, like you were saying, like, like, like likely behind bars. And I think that's going to allow this appeal. This is a non-violent offense. And again, some of these are misdemeanors and we're just assuming now that he's being found guilty of the federal offenses that would actually carry the significant jail time. But by this judge, who knows? Yeah. He could end up at Rikers.

His CFO did. How quickly would that sentencing happen? Usually a little bit of time, right?

A little bit of time usually. Yeah. So I mean, that's not something we get a decision tonight and then tomorrow immediately. Different kind of crimes.

No, right. These are violent crimes, multiple offenses. He's not being held. He's not in prison right now.

He's not at risk at flight, all those kinds of things. All right. Well, hey, I would encourage you right now as we take this last minute, we are just a few days away from the end of the month and we try to hit some goals and hit some, you know, we have internal decisions. We're a few days away from this being done. Yeah, absolutely.

This case. I'm going to encourage you though to become an ACLJ champion right now. You've heard about all the work we've been doing. We got so much that we're going to show you tomorrow to individual cases. And we would like to focus on moments and people who need our help and they can't do it and our team can't do it without you. So we encourage you right now to become an ACLJ champion of life, liberty and freedom and do it. So when you need us, we are there for you. Go to ACLJ.org slash champions.

Scan that QR code right now. You choose the level. It's not a membership in that sense. You choose the level of what you're comfortable with is it is a tax deductible donation. So if you want to give $10 a month, great. If you want to give $10,000 a month, that would be fantastic. But you could do that right now.

Go to ACLJ.org. I encourage you right now to do that. And if you're brand new, I know a lot of you are watching on YouTube and rumble. If you're brand new to this broadcast, I'm going to ask you simply to click that subscribe button and hit that bell. So you're notified when we go live. We put up new content each and every day. Be a part of that community that's over 400,000 strong on YouTube, over 200,000 on rumble. We'll talk to you tomorrow on Secular.