TRUMP APPEAL: Fani Disqualification Case Appeal Accepted By Court

Breaking news today on Sekulow as the Georgia Appeals Court accepts Fannie Willis' disqualification case appeal. 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 folks, yesterday afternoon the Georgia Court of Appeals, this was after we were off the air, has officially accepted the case involving Fannie Willis and whether or not she should be disqualified from her attempted prosecution of President Trump and others, I think 15 other individuals in that case. Remember her special counsel has been disqualified. This was done at the trial court level and then there was an appeal made to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Their three-judge panel, which is a randomly drawn panel, this panel is two judges that were appointed by Governor Nathan Deal, one by Governor Kemp, so all three appointed by Republicans. But again, looking at whether or not she should also be taken off this case, which would again probably give this to a different DA or someone else involved and they'd have to decide whether or not to even continue to bring this case. But what's really even, I think, secondarily very important here is to go over the timeline. But what I first want to remind you of is that the ACLJ didn't wait until this moment to say, okay, we'll file now because this is at the appeal court. We actually filed an interlocutory appeal, there it is on the screen for you, which again, asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to consider this, to make sure that they did consider and they should consider whether or not Fannie Willis is appropriately in the position to prosecute this case.

But the secondary issue here, I want to go right to Will Haynes on because, Will, the secondary issue is the timeline and the timing here. We, even on an expedited appeal, and we'll go through, we can go through it in a little more detail in a longer segment for people, but even with an expedited appeal, this is post-election now. That's right. So the- Until you get a final order.

Exactly. The Georgia Court of Appeals accepted this. As you mentioned, this was brought up on interlocutory appeals, so they didn't even have to take this. They could have denied the appeal and let the case go forward.

But they, whatever they saw in the briefing, including the one that we put forward, they decided this was something they needed to rule on. And now they've set a tentative oral argument date for October 4th, so just a month before the November election. But when you get into the details of how this court operates, it's a very busy court in Georgia, is that the Georgia Constitution mandates the matter must be decided within two terms of court, which means the justices would need to rule before mid-March of 2025. 2025.

Right. So now they also say they could technically do it on an expedited basis, but all the court watchers, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that they asked, say that most cases at this court are decided roughly eight and a half months after they're first docketed. So from now, eight and a half months, that would put it early 2025, well after the November election, put this in the column of one more case that will not go to trial before the Presidential election. And this is not the final court in Georgia.

Correct. So you have appeals, then you have the Georgia Supreme Court, which you can of course appeal to. They don't have to take the case again, like this court did not have to take the case, but again, that would take months as well. And this court has decided to take the case. So now we have a couple of cases we can look at. One with Fannie Willis, you look at that case, you look at the case in Florida, you look at the case involving New York now at the second stage, especially of the criminal case, the case involving on the civil side. I mean, you got kind of, maybe you got through round ones, but you're seeing how round two of these cases likely you're not going to get much decision on before you've cast a vote and know who the next President of the United States will be.

In fact, likely that next President of the United States will already have taken the oath of office before these cases, which will moot out potentially a lot of these cases as well, depending on who wins the election. We've got a lot to talk about today on the broadcast with this breaking news out of Georgia, of course, as well, the border policy announced by President Biden. We're going to cover all of that, a case out of California. We're ready to go if necessary.

We'll explain that. There's a lot to talk about today. 1-800-684-3110. If you've got questions for us, we'll be right back.

All right, welcome back to Secchio. We are taking your calls as well. 1-800-684-3110, a great time to support the work of the ACLJ financially as well. You talked about the case yesterday involving the whistleblower, a big win there from Marcus Allen, but on Friday we're filing again a brief at the D.C. Court of Appeals for Garrett O'Boyle. That second whistleblower, he has not yet been vindicated. He has not yet received his back pay. He has not yet received his security clearance, has not been returned.

He has not been able to start his life again. And you remember his testimony said, you know, this FBI were examples of how they will crush you and your family if you speak out, if you even question, through the proper channels, by the way, in the Whistleblowers Protection Act, if you even question the decisions or the conclusions or what's going on. And for him, in his case, it was the threat tags involving parents at school board meetings, which, again, was a huge problem for the FBI and the Department of Justice. And so, again, we've got that case. We have the Georgia Court of Appeals. We now know, we already filed an interlocutory appeal asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to take up the case involving whether or not Fannie Willis should be disqualified from continuing to prosecute this case against President Trump and the other defendants in Georgia. You remember the trial court judge removed her special counsel who had taken in about $800,000 and say that he had been because of their improper personal relationship and his lack of specialty in this case. Now, the Georgia Court of Appeals has done what we asked, which is accepted the case so we know the judges and we will now be able to file within that appeal a more extensive brief on why Fannie Willis should be disqualified. And you see, again, this is not all about just fighting for, in this case, President Trump.

It is, again, it benefits him in the short term. In the long term, this is about all of us and the weaponization of the legal system, whether it's at the state level or the federal level, against conservatives and against people who speak out and are willing to put their names on the ballot or willing to get involved in politics or even their attorneys in this matter involving Fannie Willis and, of course, in Georgia where you have 16 defendants trying to be some kind of RICO case. I want to go to Harry Hutchinson on this, but I do encourage you, if you can today, go to ACLJ.org.

Make a financial contribution if you can. This is a lot of legal work. This is a lot of casework. Marcus Allen's case was 13 months. I told someone yesterday we had to bring in additional attorneys in that case because of the complexities of dealing with a federal whistleblower, the FBI, the Department of Justice bringing everything they can against you.

And, again, the same with Garrett O'Boyle that continues. And so even when we're not talking about it every day, and the great thing is, listen, we're able to do all this work because of our supporters, because of our ACLJ donors and champions. But if you've thought about donating to the ACLJ, this is a great day to do it because it underscores, again, yet another case we will be directly involved in.

I want to go to Harry Hutchinson right now because, Harry, we talked about the timeline here, which pushes this into maybe March of 2025. So, literally, likely after the next President of the United States is elected and takes the oath of office again, which if it's President Trump, could mood out a lot of these cases to begin with. But, secondarily, what I think is important here is that the appeals court is taking this very seriously, this issue of who is prosecuting President Trump.

Absolutely. So, Jordan, we have seen a cascading number of cases brought largely by left-wing Democrats, which are designed to do one thing, to engage in election interference. These cases are designed to preemptively prevent the leading national candidate on the Republican side for the highest office in the land. And if you look at the Fannie Willis case and if you look at her relationship with the so-called special prosecutor, her romantic relationship, what do we have? We have evidence, I would argue, of a clear and unmistakable conflict of interest. And so the ACLJ has filed an amicus brief in this particular case. Among other things, we have argued that Fannie Willis was a conflicted prosecutor whose actions were tainted by the odor of mendacity. That is taken directly from the lower court's opinion, and this conflict, we have argued, cannot be remedied after the fact.

And this particular conflict adversely affects the public's perception of justice in this particular case. So if you look at the now assembled panel, which will hear the case, and if you look at the timeline, one of the things that is brilliant about this particular appeal and the acceptance of the appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals is it now takes the matter out of the glare of the upcoming election. Yeah, I mean, we were hearing a lot of people who too are just asking in the chat, you said interlocutory appeal, Jordan, what does that mean? To basically, to kind of explain that to people and not get too in the weeds, we have a judgment like you did in the lower court. And the judge there said you've got to take off that special counsel that was brought in. And you feel as the party, well, okay, that's fine, but you didn't get to everything, which is we also ask for the prosecutor to be removed.

You can file that as an appeal, and that's the interlocutory appeal, that not all of my claims actually got adjudicated. You didn't give me really a final answer on that, so I'm going to take that to the next level court when it involves, in this case, Fannie Willis, to get an answer on that specific question. So we filed there, now you'll file a full, like, a brief on the merits of why you believe, and ours would be the Mecas brief, because you'll have other filers as well, probably likely joining with President Trump, on why she is improperly in this position. And I mean, you can almost go right to MSNBC and pull clips from MSNBC to give the evidence about why she is improperly in this position, that she has basically run a campaign to prosecute President Trump and his allies, and won on that campaign, has already gotten in trouble with misusing funds and bringing in the special counsel, has not been able to get this case started.

I mean, this was the first one going, and then it was, everything came to a scorching halt. I remember when she showed up and she actually took the stand. I mean, Harry, there's so much to pull from that, and again, I always remind people, because we went back yesterday 13 months, just going back a few months, in this case, when Fannie Willis showed up and actually walked into the courtroom and took the stand and was questioned. Absolutely, and I think if you look at her testimony, you will find that she effectively indicted herself. And so, in other words, if you look at the evidence which she provided, there is a clear timeline suggesting that she was conflicted, that this particular special prosecutor, Norman, Mr. Wade, was appointed, at least in part, because he had a romantic relationship with the district attorney. And now the district attorney has paraded herself on news programs in churches in Atlanta, basically claiming that she is fighting for justice.

I would argue that she is fighting to engage in election interference as part of the weaponization of the legal process designed to prevent the leading national candidate from basically running for office. Harry, as you look at this, and now Jordan explained interlocutory appeal, and that's not an appeal that the appeals court has to take. It's not the appeal of a final judgment where you would get an automatic review. The fact that they took this case and that Judge McAfee kind of laid a roadmap with calling the odor of mendacity still remaining, as well as the fact that he said some of the things she did were improper and illegal within the case, and we also know the panel doesn't collect new evidence. They review the record and they determine whether McAfee arrived at the correct interpretation of the law. Is there anything you can kind of infer, the fact that they even took this up, that maybe they at least have their own questions about how this was decided at the lower court?

I think we can. So I think if you look at the lower court's opinion, the lower court basically reached the legal conclusion that the prosecution was indeed tainted. But nonetheless, the lower court said, we will not remove Fannie Willis so long as Mr. Wade steps down.

My own view is that once you have the odor of mendacity, once you have the taint, it cannot now be removed. And so what we need is a new prosecutor to be appointed by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and that would remain the removal of Fannie Willis. All right, folks, again, I encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

You can do that financially. You can also sign the brief, which we, again, to remove D.A. Fannie Willis, we'll be filing that brief directly so you can be part of that and defend the integrity of the justice system. That's up at ACLJ.org slash sign.

That doesn't cost a thing. It is just important to us at the American Center for Law and Justice. But if you're able to make a financial contribution or even become an ACLJ champion, that means an automatic regular donor monthly to the ACLJ. It's a great day to do it after we talk about the victory yesterday, the continued battle here against this system, ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. All right, folks, we'll get back to some of these domestic legal issues in just a minute. But I do want to check in with our senior counsel for global affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary Pompeo.

I wanted to go to this one first because it's just I think it needs a little explanation. So we have Britain, France and Germany. They just submitted a sensor resolution against Iran for its nuclear program at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting. And last week, though, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration was pressuring those countries not to do that and pressuring other members to join the U.S. in abstaining from a vote like that.

Why now? I mean, I'm just trying to look at what everything that Iran has done and been linked to. Why now is the Biden administration running interference for Iran at this time at the IAEA? Well, Jordan, it's unexplainable, but it is completely consistent with the Biden administration's absolute refusal to acknowledge that in the end, both the terror in Gaza, the rockets being fired from Yemen into the Red Sea, the rockets that Hezbollah owns, that at the root of this is all Iran. And it is also the case that the administration is embarrassed because on the Biden administration's watch, they have allowed the Iranian nuclear program to get to the point that the French and the Brits now want to censure Iran at the IAEA, the governing body for nuclear materials around the world. That the French and the British want to sanction, but that we don't. This is from Obama time. This is, you know, a set of near Iranian assets inside the Biden administration, and they have always been unwilling to hold Iran accountable. This is really dangerous. Iran is as close to a nuclear weapon, close to having enough enriched material for a couple of dozen weapons systems, and make no mistake about it, the IAEA is trying its best to do the inspections and regulation that it's entitled to do, and the United States won't even call out Iran when it violates the most basic principles of international law.

Yeah, I mean, you said it right there. You got Britain, France, and Germany ready to do this, and the United States said, please don't. Please abstain.

Don't ask the, don't sit sure, don't move forward, just abstain. You know, don't even say, hey, Iran is not allowing these inspectors to do the basics of their job. In this other stark contrast, we have a new interview that's come out in Time Magazine, and it shows that President Biden, how he's treating our ally Israel, and this constant pressure, and so this just gets published, and when Biden gets asked in the interview if Netanyahu was trying to prolong the Gaza war, which means more IDF soldiers killed, more Israelis killed as well, for political reasons, he said, quote, there's every reason for people to draw that conclusion. So this divide of how Biden treats our enemies and how he's treating our allies and our friends, both privately, but also publicly in the media. Jordan, if there's anyone who has caved to domestic politics, that is, his own personal political interests on this conflict in Gaza, it appears to me it's President Biden who has allowed the pro-Hamas left wing of the Democrat Party to dominate his thinking about how Israel should be assisted and permitted to conduct its necessary campaign to protect itself. And that line in the Time interview, that Time interview is very troubling, but that line perhaps was the most disgusting of them all, to accuse the leader of an allied nation, one of America's closest partners, of prolonging a war, allowing hostages to be, continue to be held, and as you described, their own soldiers to be killed just for his own political interests, to say that out loud in an interview. That is the line that is, I don't know that it's ever been crossed in American history before, and President Biden has now undermined the Israeli effort, and you can be sure of this, the Iranians and Hamas saw this line too, and they were gleeful when they heard President Biden make that statement.

Yeah, I mean, it's just a bit of a rich irony in this Biden comment about the Netanyahu prolonging wars, because, I mean, here, you mentioned it, Secretary Pompeo, but it's this idea that, again, he's utilizing, anytime he can talk about Israel now in a negative way, it seems like this is what Joe Biden is doing for his own political well-being domestically here in the United States because of what he sees on the left. Every bit of pressure from the Biden administration has been on restraining our allies and helping our adversaries. Think about Ukraine.

We gave them weapons, but we told them they couldn't actually go after big, heavy military targets that were just right across the border, so allowing Putin to continue to be undeterred and tell the Ukrainians, here's the things that you can't do. Well, the Israelis constantly repeating, hey, don't do Rafa, don't take these actions. We're worried about the fact that you've become morally equivalent to Hamas. Instead of supporting them and providing them with the tools that they need to defend their own countries, President Biden's been on the wrong side of literally every issue facing our nation today as a national security matter. Frankly, Jordan, I think the American people can see that and will have that as a major factor as they think about who they want to lead this nation come this November. Yeah, I mean, it's just, you know, I think it's upsetting to people, like you said, in the actual, when it's actually the field where you're talking about the weapons and then restricting their use and you have these prolonged conflicts because of the United States and because of the U.S. policy.

Hey, you can have this, but don't use it to do this or else we won't send anymore. And then, of course, you know what we saw at the IAEA, don't get involved with Iran. Don't censure them for their wrongdoing with their nuclear weapons.

And now we've got Britain, France, and again, Germany taking a stronger stance against Iran than the United States. And I want to go to our southern border as well, because then you see that President Biden tried to release the executive order yesterday that sounds tough, but doesn't go as far as what the administration you served in and President Trump's administration. It's an executive order yesterday.

It closes the border during surges. Interestingly, this is three years after Joe Biden told us that he could not do anything else as President. He had to wait for Congress to take action. But now that his numbers aren't doing well, you know, politically, we get closer to an election, suddenly this executive order he pulls out of the hat and thinks, oh, wait, I could do this and maybe this will help. Again, you know, it just reeks of politics only, not even of trying to put in best policies or practices, but just to save their own political futures.

Now, Jordan, you nailed it. This executive order has a singular purpose. It is so that he can stand on stage on June 27th across from President Trump and say, no, I did that.

I issued an executive order. It's not going to impact the number of immigrants coming across. It is going to be completely a bollocks to try and figure out how that's number twenty five oh one.

Take a ticket as you come across each day. This will this will demonstrate further that these folks have been completely incompetent at protecting America from this invasion from our southern border. It will fail. Jordan, I think it will fail politically, too, because I think the American people will see right through that he really doesn't want a closed southern border for he had three and a half years to do it.

He refused. And so I think this will turn out to be a one day or two day story. And we will sadly be right back at weapons, fentanyl, people, potentially terrorists coming across our southern border in massive numbers again, presenting a tremendous amount of risk to each of us.

We see the violence increase against law enforcement, local law enforcement as well and in communities. Secretary Pompeo, it's always great to have you on the team and on the broadcast with us as a senior counsel for global affairs at the ACLJ. Thank you, Secretary. You know, Mike, I will I want to go this because Secretary Pompeo talked about this, about President Biden's order, because he talked about the twenty five oh one. Let's explain it to people real quickly. I mean, the way this order works is that you've got two weeks of twenty five hundred or more crossers weekly. Then you could shut the border down and then you could reopen the border after it's down to fifteen hundred. But not if it was at fifteen oh one. Right.

And we'll get into a little bit more in the next segment, but that's right. A seven day average for daily illegal crossings has to hit twenty five hundred and then they can shut down the border. And then what we it's after seven days and then it after a week of seven days of fifteen hundred and then stays in place for another two weeks, they can reopen the border.

But as our producer Allie pointed out, the average has been thirty seven hundred illegal crossings a day over the last three weeks. So this could go into effect immediately. Yeah, it should go into effect immediately, technically, and not probably ever go back the other way. Is that what we're really going to see from the Biden administration? Support the work of the ACLJ financially. We need you to do it. We've got a lot of cases going on.

You've heard it. You have one more we haven't even talked about yet this half hour that we could be filing on Friday. ACLJ.org. Be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. We're going to get back to some of the legal cases, too, in just a minute. But because we mentioned it with Secretary Pompeo, who is our senior counsel for global affairs, and that last question to him, I did want to get into it just a little bit more. Yesterday, we saw if you watch that press conference, you won't watch President Biden.

It was the question was like, was he going to make it from the stage to back to the door? I mean, again, I kind of I don't want to say I feel for him and get your comments. But like what I do think is it the reason why you're seeing policies like this crazy Iran policy where Britain, France and Germany are taking out a tougher position than the U.S. at the IAEA. And the U.S. is saying, no, no, abstain. Is it because you've got a President of the United States who isn't really in charge? I mean, I think it's being run by, again, a lot of these individuals that you see constantly in the media trying to say, no, he's a great leader, he's great, he's wonderful. But in fact, you know, they're throwing pieces of paper in front of him and he's agreeing to it.

And maybe on this issue on the border, you know, even this one. Technically, the average of border crossings, we had this pulled by our producer Ali. It's been at 3700 weekly. OK, so 3700 for weeks.

Yes. So if you have a 2500 person standard that if it hits that in a week, you shut it down for multiple weeks. And you've really got to lower that number. It's got to get to 1500 or else you don't reopen the border. So from 25, you've got to get it down a thousand.

And yet you haven't even had. Why not implement this now? Does it go into implementation on day one? I assume as soon as he signs it and they're using a portion of the code, U.S. code 212 F, which enables the border officials to quickly expel migrants that come across before they can. I believe he announced it yesterday. Should be signed soon. And and we'll see if how quickly they put this into effect. Now, a lot of this was actually the framework that Donald Trump used. And remember, the person who took this out of practice was President Joe Biden when he rescinded. I think it was sixty four or sixty five executive orders on the border on day one. This could have been something that continued on. Now he's trying to play catch up of three and a half years of just a total disaster.

We saw earlier this week that an illegal immigrant that crossed the border, made it to New York, was a part of a violent gang, Venezuelan, shot two police officers in Queens. This is not what should be happening, but three and a half years of taking this policy out of place. It gets you right back here. And he's thinking that this cap is now going to fix what he's broken so desperately for three and a half years. It's a little bit cynical to think that I can just put this in place so I have a talking point of the debate and then I can say, look, I'm doing all I can to fix the border when the American people should see through that. He's about 20 points behind President Trump in the polls on how they'd handle the border. Does he really think this move this late in the game is going to dip into that deficit? It just seems very cynical political minds in Washington, D.C. are saying, here's something we can do now.

Actually, it's what Trump did, but a little bit weaker and we're going to do it right in the fourth quarter of the ballgame and see if it does anything. 3700 people a day right now. They're talking 2500 people a week.

I mean, or the day is a weekly daily average, so weekly daily average. So they've got to get it down, you know, roughly twelve, twelve hundred, twelve hundred under that to even have this not kick in. And then once it does kick in, they have to get it down to fifteen hundred as a daily average. Right. For a couple of weeks.

That's right. So it would have to be at that average for a week and then they have to maintain it for two weeks for them to open the border back up. You know, Texas Governor Greg Abbott just tweeted this from January 20th of 2021. The proclamation on the termination of emergency with respect to the southern border of the United States and redirection of funds from those border policies that was put out by the Biden White House on his right after taking the oath of office on day one of his presidency. But now we see getting closer to a debate with President Trump and closer to that general election in November that the emergency is back.

It took him three years to see it on TV every single day. That number at thirty seven hundred plus a day on average. But, you know, they think they get it down to fifteen hundred. One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. We'll be right back on secular. Welcome back to secular in the final segment of broadcast. We're going to take your calls. You get back to all these questions and everything we've talked about today.

One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. If you want to be part of the show, call in now for that final segment of the broadcast, because there is more to talk about today. Now we're going to take you to Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, which, again, are our own. You know, I know that we've got a team members who at the ACLJ who call Manhattan Beach home and I have family that call Manhattan Beach home as well. So it's a beautiful area of Southern California, and I'm sure a lot of people who are familiar with that who listed in that area or been out there know that as well. But what's not great is, of course, the Manhattan Beach City Council, which is probably not like shocking to most of you, but how bold they are against religious people. I want to go to CC how because CC, this is one of those these standards where they have a very broad, open community centers and, you know, community rooms. It's pretty easy to rent out except for religious people. I mean, it's everything else.

No problem. But you can't be religious. And we won this case when I was a kid that you're not allowed to open these facilities up and say the only thing that can't happen here is something that could be religious.

Yeah. And that's exactly what we're having happen here at the city of Manhattan Beach. They literally, like you said, have a facility reservation policy for all of their public facilities to be reserved. And they allow this reservation for a lot of uses. So it includes civic, social, educational, athletic, cultural, and even limited commercial use.

But guess what? They don't allow. The one thing they don't allow is facilities will not be used for religious worship or other religious purposes. So we have a client that contacted us that, of course, wanted to just rent out and reserve one of their community rooms to show a sermon and to discuss scriptures and to fellowship. And, of course, because of this written policy, they said absolutely you cannot do that.

And you're exactly right. In the Lamb's Chapel case, which was an ACLJ case before the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said you cannot have public facilities that treat religious use different than non-religious use. It has to be treated equally. Yeah.

If you're going to open those facilities up for people to rent or to go through that process, you can't just say the only thing you can't do there is something that happens to be religious. So we have a lawsuit prepared. And then time was running out for the city of Manhattan Beach to respond to our initial demand letter that we would send before filing a lawsuit. And then late yesterday we heard, Cece, from the city attorney. Tell us about that.

Yeah. So we did send a demand letter, which we do on all of these cases. When you reach out to us and you fill out our legal help form on ACLJ.org slash help, we get you in touch with an attorney. And usually in these situations we will send a demand letter, which we did in this situation, and literally did not hear anything. We usually give them a time frame to respond to us to change.

And in this case, we want them to change their policy and allow our client to reserve the community center. So we did not hear anything, did not hear anything. And of course, again, giving them the benefit of the doubt, we reach out again. And lo and behold, we hear late last night from the city attorney, oh, I just saw your letter just now. And so would you please give us some extra time? Which we will. And we will respond Friday. We have given them until Friday to respond. And again, we are requiring that they change their policy and allow our client to reserve this room. And if not, we have a complaint ready to go.

So if we, you know, they're on a couple hours behind us where we are at most. So we've asked for this Friday morning. If we ultimately get a response from them that doesn't, isn't a positive and isn't, oh, this is a bad policy, thanks for pointing it out. We're going to change it and make sure your client's taken care of and future individuals as well. If they want to use it for religious places and make sure we get all that language to you, that would be great and wonderful. But if that doesn't happen, we're ready to sue.

Absolutely. And we will go to court and we have the complaint ready. And this is again where the ACLJ, if we can't get something resolved amicably through a letter and pointing out the law, we will actually litigate and go to court.

And we are ready to do that on Friday. I mean, Lamb's Chapel was unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court does not like viewpoint discrimination. So saying everybody can use it even commercially to some extent. That's wild that they even to some commercial extent.

So not full, but some. But for religions need not apply. It's another example, too, of the ACLJ's work. We may be finding this on behalf of a specific individual who is a Christian and wants to show, again, a specific sermon and have a discussion. But if we get this win or we get the policy changed, that's for all religious people in Manhattan Beach, whatever religion they may be part of.

Absolutely. It's across the board because the restriction is literally used for religious worship or other religious purposes. So that's any religion. Any religion. And so when we win this, we win it for all religions. Well, I also find it interesting that they explicitly say you can use it for cultural activities.

Oh, yes. But not for religious worship or religious purposes. Political fun or religious fun.

Right. But my question there is cultural activities, many religions have cultural festivals that even they invite the public to. Would that be okay? Or would they allow that? But is it mainly a target towards evangelical Christians that want to have a Bible study?

It could be. I mean, obviously, we have not had anyone else reach out to us but an evangelical Christian who wants to have the Bible study. But it sounds like they are willing to pursue this.

If it is a religious purpose, they will shut you down, which is not constitutional. What is unfortunate is that Manhattan Beach is not a small city within Los Angeles. And you've got these kind of independent cities within LA.

LA County is what we're talking about here. And, you know, they have this, what it appears to, you know, this animus towards anything religious at all. And they think that, and oftentimes they just have the bad legal training.

So you see, they believe that this is what you're supposed to do. I hope the city attorney takes a moment and says, wait, the Supreme Court's been clear, we can't do this and gets the city council quickly so that this can be resolved. But if not, you know, I feel pretty good about where this lawsuit ends up, even if we have to fight it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court because of what circuit this ultimately falls in. But it is a changing circuit as well, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yeah, and you're exactly right. I mean, a lot of times what we do find is the attorneys are ill-informed and they feel like the Establishment Clause, you know, basically says you can't allow anything religious on public government property, which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for. And Lamb's Chapel was clear on that, too. Again, an ACLJ case that we won at the United States Supreme Court. The Establishment Clause literally does protect, you cannot discriminate and have viewpoint discrimination.

If you have a public facility that allows non-religious use, you have to allow religious use, and that is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Yeah. I mean, I think, again, on all these matters, folks, where the ACLJ is front and center, I mean, we have talked about it today. We talked about it today in Georgia. We've talked about it. We were already front and center there. We'll continue to be front and center there. We talked about it yesterday with the whistleblowers. We've talked about the international issues. Of course, we are front and center there with all those issues, you know, involving Iran. But then this takes it back to, you see, that traditional ACLJ work that people, through their financial contributions, are making sure that when we have someone who calls it, who says, I tried to rent it out because it's a religious purpose, they said no.

We can take on the City of Manhattan Beach as part of LA County for them and fight it as long as we've got to go through the entire legal process in California and the entire federal court process if we need to to defend the religious freedom of Americans. That's right. Absolutely. We do. And we do that because of the support of our donors. And we are able to do and we have many, many cases like this going on. And we have many people respond and reach out to us on a daily basis with these kind of issues.

And because of our donor support, we're able to quickly respond and act immediately and defend their rights. So, again, just to remind people, on Friday morning, if we don't get a positive change from the city attorney contacting us saying he'll be allowed to, you know, rent his room, we're making the change now, we'll send that change to you as soon as we do. And then if we get that change, and it's not what it's supposed to be, we can file later. But if we have to, if they come back Friday and say we're not budging, we're ready to go.

Absolutely. We have the complaint drawn up, drafted, and ready to be filed. We'll file it on Friday. You see, this is what's great about the ACLJ, folks, and your donations to the ACLJ. As we talked about, Will, the fact is that when you donate to the ACLJ, you're donating for work to get done, for action to be taken.

And so in this matter, we were ready to go the last minute before filing. We get something from the city attorney. Okay, we'll say, hey, we'll give you that chance to do the right thing, to read our memo. But if you don't, lawsuit coming.

That's right. And many times we don't even have to file the lawsuit because they read it. The city attorney or another attorney reads it, sees our explanation of the law, and they say, we really don't want a lawsuit on our hands. They know what they're talking about. This is the law. Let's change the policy.

Other times, they don't. But we have the lawsuits ready to go. And that's where we prevail is in the court.

So we'll fight, folks. And again, these are those traditional ACLJ cases. And if you're experiencing anything like this around the country, I make sure that you are contacting us at ACLJ.org slash help. As CC says, you will get to an attorney. That attorney will advise you on our path. Our path usually starts with a demand letter, unless it's an emergency situation, and then ultimately can lead to a lawsuit. Go to ACLJ.org slash help if you need our help today. All right, folks, we got a lot of calls that have come in.

So we're going to start right with the phones and answer as many questions as we can. Let me encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ financially. You know that we're ready to go and file in Manhattan Beach if we need to on Friday. You know, again, we're preparing to file at the Georgia Court of Appeals. We've already filed their interlocutory appeal. They've decided to take the case on appeal.

That looks like it will be in March. But again, we'll also be filing those amicus briefs before then, so we'll be doing that as well. So it is a great time to become an ACLJ donor or an ACLJ champion, which is a recurring donation to the ACLJ each month. So you could do that, become an ACLJ champion or just donate today.

But it is those dollars that make sure we are able to take all these cases without having to worry about the cost. The whistleblowers really underscored that because the complications of their case, the additions we had to make to our team. But listen, when you're taking on a city in L.A., and again, they've got one of the more wealthy cities in Los Angeles, if they want to fight us, they're going to fight us with whatever they've got, including private law firms potentially. I hope we've gotten to the city attorney there and they understand that this is a loser for them long term, but you are talking about California and some of these areas which are run not that differently from places like Atlanta when you've got the Fannie Willis, we've got that appeal going as well. Donate to the ACLJ if you can.

That's at ACLJ.org or become an ACLJ champion. These are your dollars at work. You're seeing it. You saw it yesterday with the whistleblowers. You're seeing it and hearing about it right now with how we are defending and making moves in Georgia at the Court of Appeals level as well and in California to make sure that these rooms available by the city of Manhattan Beach are open to everyone.

And that includes religious people as well. Let's go to Michael calling from California on Line 1. Michael, you're on Sekulow.

Thank you for taking my call. There's a couple things that I was listening to. One was from Mark Levin and the other was Judge Joe Brown. Mark Levin was used in the Constitution saying there are statutes in our Constitution that allows those parties to expedite the situation with Trump to the highest court in the land because that's what they did in Florida with Gore and Bush. But then also Judge Joe Brown made it clear that the Republican state governors, I believe he said, could be wrong, but I believe it was the governors.

They could take it to the highest court land because in both cases, this franchising people like myself who want to vote for who I'm going to vote for Trump. And that's who I want to vote for because, as it's been said, we've seen Trump in action. We've seen Biden in action. Trump is a better fit for the United States of America. He puts the American people first. And this needs to be expedited because, as Mark Levin said, the longer this goes on, it destroys the presidency and it shows to other countries we're no different than they are because we use our legal system to go out.

I agree. Listen, we're going to be doing panels on weaponization and lawfare, how it's come to the United States. And it came to the United States, I think, most prominently with the IRS going after Tea Party groups and now most prominently with the full work of the DOJ and local, you know, DAs as well, local law enforcement, going after the leading candidate in the Republican Party right now, the de facto nominee for the Republican nomination again, President Trump.

And so all those ideas of lawfare that we've seen in other countries will that we've derided in other countries and also pray never became the norm in the United States of America has now become the norm inside the Biden administration. Well, I think that's also why you saw record breaking fundraising for the Trump campaign after the decision over a 24 hour period. It was close to $53 million that was raised. I saw some statistics that showed it was only 20 million after the Dobbs decision came out that Act Blue got.

So kind of trying to compare a big moment when it would energize a base. And it was only 20 something million after the Dobbs decision came out when Kamala Harris was announced. I think it was also only around $20 million. Big numbers in and of themselves. But just showing how much people decided to go there. And they also looked at the records on WinRed.

It crashed the site. But how many of those people had never given political donations again? It goes to Michael's point. People don't want to see happening here in the United States, what's happening in other countries. And unfortunately, it looks that way.

Yeah. I mean, I was one of those people who made a donation that day. I mean, I had made other donations in the past, but had said, you know what, this is a day we need to all speak up with our resources.

It's not time yet for us to cast our votes. We can ultimately do that. But we could speak up by making sure that President Trump and his team have the resources they need. Just like how you speak up to make sure the ACLJ has got the resources we need to fight these battles. Let's go back to the phones. Elizabeth from Minnesota, you're on the air. Thank you for watching on YouTube.

Well, thank you for taking my call. My question is that because the judge is going to be sentencing President Trump just days before the Republican convention, how does that affect, if he puts him in jail, how does that affect if he can't be there? That's when you start talking about immediate appeals. And that's when you start talking about going to other processes and maybe outside of the New York state court system, because that is just reeking, like these cases all do, of politics, Elizabeth. But I really do believe, like this judge just says, he doesn't want to put President Trump in jail because of those very issues that will arise then on the First Amendment, on his ability to run a campaign. But right now the gag order is still in place and the Trump administration will, and the Trump legal team, they filed the order to remove the gag order and they use the Presidential debate as one of the reasons this needs to be done fairly quickly. And yet Alvin Bragg didn't even go along with that, even though his case is done now. He said, no, this gag order needs to stay in effect as it's appealed. And once again, it looks like pure politics of typically after a case, yes, you have to file the post-trial motions to get the gag order removed, but that's typically pretty routine.

And what we're seeing here is that nothing is routine when Trump's derangement syndrome kicks in and you're seeing here, unfortunately, the district attorney trying to still silence the former President. Let's go to one final call for the day really quickly. Jerry from Michigan, you're on the air and we just got about 30 seconds here.

Hey, Jerry. Jordan, this was a poor attempt by the President to garner support. If he was serious, his number would have been zero, not 1,500.

Well, you know what? He's talking about numbers that honestly, if he was serious, we'll see very soon because the average has been 3,700 a day. So he put in this number of 2,500. So if the average is 3,700 a day, our border should close the moment he signs this executive order. As well as if you take 2,499, so one below that threshold that would kick in, multiply that by 365, you're getting 912,135 illegal immigrants still coming into the country every year before that threshold of the measures would kick in. The average right now is 3,700 a day.

A day. And they've got to get it down to an average of 1,500 a day because if they get it down, if it's more than 2,500 a day averaged, you have to shut it down. And only to reopen it is to 1,500 a day. What are they going to do? And this we're going to watch very carefully.

What are they going to try to do to not actually have to follow these strict number guidelines? And that's what we are looking for now at the American Center for Law and Justice. I encourage you to support our work at the ACLJ. Sign the brief to remove D.A. Fondy Willis and defend the integrity of our justice system at ACLJ.org slash sign and donate today if you can.