Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

The 2024 Prosecution of Donald Trump

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
June 7, 2024 12:02 pm

The 2024 Prosecution of Donald Trump

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1085 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


June 7, 2024 12:02 pm

The 2024 Prosecution of Donald Trump

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Charlie Kirk Show
Charlie Kirk
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Today on Sekulow, we break down the cases against Donald Trump. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow folks. You know, I think it's a good opportunity, because we've talked about so many different cases involving President Trump, to kind of break them down for you, because there's multiple cases and they're all getting to different stages, especially as we're about to have debates, and you get issues about, you know, gag orders, and when will that be decided by, and will the gag orders stay until July 11th, that one in New York, because that's, again, it would be after the first Presidential debate. So that could, again, impact what President Trump is able to say on stage in response to even, not even direct by Joe Biden, but even in questions. So, again, to have that over you, you have to think the whole time, okay, if I say this, I could go to jail, or say this, I could get fined another $10,000, but I'm supposed to go into this freewheeling debate, which is fine if you don't have gag orders, but if you do, suddenly becomes a major issue, which I would hope that you see, again, these judges understand the bigger issue here for the country is that the people that tune into that, and as Americans kind of start tuning in more and more to the election, who they were going to vote for, which kind of starts around the time when you have a debate like this, again, that first case in New York, that's on the business record. So President Trump was found guilty, he was convicted of all 34 counts. His sentencing is on July 11th, they want the gag order to stay in place until then. When he gets sentenced, he can then appeal and try to get a stay on that sentence to the New York appellate system, and then potentially the, again, it goes to the appellate system, the New York Court of Appeals, which is their highest court, and then potentially even the US Supreme Court. But you've also got the civil fraud case there in New York, where President Trump was found liable in order to pay that $355 million, in other words, they said, oh, Mar-a-Lago is worth $12 million, which you couldn't buy a lot for in Palm Beach anywhere, but certainly not on the coast.

And again, this idea that because real estate values go up and down, that somehow that's fraudulent for the city, even though you pay back your loans, you pay your taxes to the city, and by the way, the more it's valued, the more your taxes go up. So again, we expect, you know, we saw that decision, that's a civil court, so you're not going to go to jail, but they were saying that you might not be able to operate businesses in New York, or they're going to seize his buildings and things like that. Remember the bond, it got moved down to $175 million cash bond on April 22nd, so President Trump will continue with his appeal, and that will stay through the civil process there, and that will stay the court's seizure of President Trump's assets in New York. There's also that New York defamation case, where he was ordered to pay $83 million to Agent Carroll. That case is pending on appeal, the Georgia election prosecution. Of course, we now know, and we've talked about that as well, that you've got an October 4th hearing on whether or not Fannie Willis should be disqualified, and in Florida, with the classified documents, while the case has been put on hold indefinitely, there is going to be a hearing this month on whether or not the special counsel is lawful. And then there's the D.C. prosecutions.

Don't forget that. So Jack Smith, Part 2. And these are the prosecutions about, you know, disrupting an official proceeding and what happened on January 6th. It wasn't quite — it's not quite insurrection, but it is criminal. And there, you've got a Supreme Court case just figuring out on what issues would Presidential immunity bar Jack Smith from prosecuting, or would it be any? And so that is at the U.S. Supreme Court. It's been argued, and we will likely have that decision the end of this month or the very beginning of July. And that could, again, that could hamstring Jack Smith down to a couple of the lesser counts in that case if the Supreme Court was to believe — and I think it's not even — I think it's going to just — the Supreme Court's going to say, of course, there's official acts and there's immunity for those. They could become criminal, and there's, of course, unofficial acts.

How do you determine that when someone is President, and how do you determine official acts that become criminal? We're going to get through all of it today. That was just the quick rundown for you, maybe a quiz at the end of the broadcast. We'll be right back on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow, and we will get right back into — we'll take your calls on this too, because we talked about lawfare targeting individuals, taking them to court. Donald Trump, the best example of that, kind of like at the highest level. We've been fighting back against the weaponization of the legal system and the bureaucracy against Americans. Really, when I say we go back to the pro-life protesters, we go back that we've represented, I mean, they're talking about the 80s and early 90s, when we go to the Tea Party groups that were, again, targeted by the IRS and the FBI and DOJ. But then, you know, they learn from that is, hey, let's just go after the President or former President of the United States. That's who we've now weaponized to that level in our judicial process inside the United States. But there's a new move too, which is don't just go after the President, just go after a judge. And you're going after the judge not because of anything they've said, prejudicial, or again, because they — again, because of their political views, even though I think that's part of it here. But you're going to say, this judge, I disagree with their moves on this case, so we're going to have a coordinated effort. And that's what we saw here. And we're going to Harry Hutchinson, because Harry, what we saw is that Glenn Kirchner put together through his podcast, it was through MSNBC, but it has a podcast, a way to file a complaint with the 11th Circuit.

And those on the left, if you give them away to protest, they will follow it. And so they sent so many in that were so similar. Much prior now, the chief judge of the 11th Circuit has said, we're not accepting any more of these if they're just copy and paste.

Absolutely. And I think the judge is precisely correct. So the judge is reacting to the weaponization of the courts. Keep in mind that Mr. Kirchner was a former federal prosecutor, and he put together a podcast and then he linked the podcast to a YouTube video, which essentially was a how to do a complaint video.

And it provided a step by step approach to filing these complaints. So it is all a made up job that represents the full weaponization of the courts. It's important to keep in mind that if you go back to the Trump conviction last week, that the third highest DOJ official stepped down from the Biden Justice Department to work in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office on the so-called hush money trial. So what we have seen since 2020, in my view, is a coordinated campaign to prevent the Democratic process from operating. And one of the ways in which this approach takes place is to try to prevent Donald Trump from campaigning. And I think Kirchner is part and parcel of this effort. Yeah. I mean, when you look at Will again, these kind of coordinated efforts to go after this judge, and this, I think, listen, we saw so many missteps by Jack Smith and the fact that they went in, you know, guns a blazing or raiding Mar-a-Lago and... You could authorization a use of deadly force in that case as well.

Right. I mean, remember, this was the initial action that took Donald Trump from, maybe I could go for that again, to put him right back at the top of, basically, I think that was the time when he secured the GOP nomination is when Mar-a-Lago was raided. And then, since then, they've had to admit, which I have no idea how long this is ever going to take to be figured out.

And hopefully, he'll become President before they ever do and they can move on with this. I think it's so absurd since classification is a power for the President. And I do believe in the power of the President to be able to declassify whatever they choose to do so long as they are President of the United States at the time that they do it. But putting that aside, then they get all the records and the records don't match the bookkeeping. So when they provide it to the defense, the defense, I mean, there's thousands of pages of documents, the defense has nowhere to go. It doesn't match up.

That's right. And I think this, once again, this case is the prime example to show how many times the left holds a double standard when it's with their own or with a conservative, whether it be they're saying the President mishandled classified documents and they can't even handle classified documents appropriately, or even to this complaints against Judge Cannon that Glenn Kirschner put forward. The main complaints that they were sending to the appeals court was that she was delaying the case and had an improper motive. And Judge Pryor said, although many of the complaints allege an improper motive in delaying the case, the allegations are speculative and unsupported by any evidence.

And it says the complaints also did not establish that Judge Cannon was required to recuse herself from the case because she was appointed by then President Trump. So they're complaining that she's delaying the case. However, they're saying send thousands of complaints to the appeals court so that they have to go through them all and maybe take her off the case. That's a delay tactic in and of itself. Having a clerk and then all the lawyers and all the judges at the appeals court have to go through thousands of complaints that are sent in. We know that the wheels of justice turn slowly.

The fact that they have to open these and go through them all. And that's why I think Judge Pryor did the right thing and said, listen, we're putting an end to this. We're not even going to read them if they appear to be similar in nature because what Glenn Kirschner here has done is actually potentially delayed proceedings.

Even further because of this coordinated effort. But when the left does it, totally fine. Totally fine. Of course. I mean, Harry, just to go back to this, it does seem like, I mean, you've got here, it's another way they can weaponize the legal system is to we've, we've seen the brutal attack pieces against Supreme Court justices. And now we see it against a district court judges.

Absolutely. So if you look at Congressman Jamie Raskin, he essentially has told Chief Justice Roberts to force Clarence Thomas and Judge Justice Alito to recuse themselves with respect to anything having to do with Donald Trump. He doesn't have that power. And in fact, Congressman Raskin is violating the separation of powers provided by the United States Constitution. And if you look at what's going on with respect to this particular case, the complaints, the orchestrated campaign against Justice, sorry, Judge Cannon, we have a similar activity.

In fact, if we follow the approach, as Will rightly points out, this further delays the trial. And so if Jack Smith believes that Judge Cannon should be recused, the proper venue is to file a motion with the courts not to orchestrate a letter writing campaign based on a YouTube video. You know, I want to play this sound from Jamie Raskin because again, you brought him up, and just to kind of take into account how they have tried to demonize this judge and the multi-step process and the weaponization, I will say it over and over again, you call it lawfare, but lawfare has come to the United States in a big way. It was here, but it's come in a big way now that it's being used against the President and federal court judges.

Take a listen to a Democrat, Jamie Raskin. This is like an Atlantic City mob understanding of people who go into federal or state courts as judges, that somebody owns them. And I think Trump's position is either he owns the judge, he controls the judge, he feels that way about Eileen Cannon, obviously, or they're someone who can't be trusted. They're a political enemy. The whole world is friend or foe, which of course is, you know, a fascist way of looking at things. Of course, fascist way of looking at things, Will.

They love language on the left and they love demonizing people. However, there's been nothing that I've seen that this judge has done other than be a judge. And Logan brings it up all the time is that they love to label judges they don't like by who appointed them. And they say Trump appointed judge as if that isn't the natural process for becoming a federal court judge. You can go through every federal court judge and apply that label, whether it be Clinton appointed judge, Bush appointed judge, Obama appointed judge. I don't know, there may be even some Carter appointed judge who's still around.

It's probably on the line. But you're looking at this and you're saying you can't just label someone and try to make that as a pejorative thing on them by they were appointed by the President of the United States. I mean, listen, the whole thing has gotten, it is getting out of control.

I think we see that with the Bragg case. You're seeing that with the fact that the chief judge, the 11th circuit is having to come out and say, you know, and by the way, has disagreed with judge candidate, some action she's taken through the normal process you would go through if you felt like the judge had, had overstepped or not felt the right process. But so he's not trying to protect her because he agrees with every procedural decision she's taken.

But the fact is that it's a clear coordinated campaign with a bunch of people sitting in the exact same, you know, copy and paste complaint in telling her, you know, telling the court to have her removed. Now, remember, I think what's very important, we're going to talk about this with secretary Pompeo coming up next and with Jeff Balabon who's in Israel as well. Israel continues to be under a brutal orchestrated attack, both actually on the ground and legally.

Israel of course was invaded, the constant bombardment of rockets that hasn't stopped us as well. And now it's facing the coordinated legal attack of the ICC. We're demanding the Biden Congress sanction the ICC, exposing the ICJs, a legal attacks as well. And we're delivering a demand letter to the UN security council to fit Israel from these repeated acts.

We want you to sign our petition to defend Israel today at ACLJ.org slash stop. Welcome back to Sekulow. As you said, we are very excited to announce this victory and we were worked with our friends at Empower Oversight, empoweroversight.org, the President of Empower Oversight, Tristan Levitz joining us now.

Tristan, you've been on this broadcast before when this began over a year ago. And then for you, it was two years ago, starting to represent these whistleblowers. I want to kind of focus on how we got here in the first place, because both of these individuals, Marcus Allen, who ultimately gets the vindication and the justice so that he could go and continue his life, Garrett O'Boyle, who we're going into federal court for with a reply brief on Friday at the DC court of appeals with the FBI, trying to get it tossed out. But the idea that a whistleblower who follows through the correct channels that have been set up by Congress can still be retaliated against this way so openly by the FBI. And yes, we can take these individuals and ultimately get justice, but you think about it, if other people look at this situation, it's not like you've got people running to become whistleblowers, which is why so often we get these reports, we don't have a face or a name to put with the information that gets to Congress, that gets to investigators. So I kind of want to walk through people that, is there are laws or is it the agencies that are protecting these people, these individuals?

Well, in this case, it's a combination of both. So when the modern whistleblower protection laws were written in 1978, the FBI was given special treatment. And that was the state of affairs for several decades. Right here on the wall next to me in my office is a framed copy of a law that we passed in 2016 to strengthen the laws for FBI whistleblowers. So it used to be the FBI whistleblowers disclosures to their supervisors weren't even protected, unlike every other type of federal employee whistleblower where those are protected.

So there have been some strengthening, but there really ultimately are still just a lot of weaknesses in that law. And so that's why for Marcus Allen, he had to go to the Justice Department Inspector General instead of going to the Office of Special Counsel, where he used to work or the Merit Systems Protection Board he used to sit on. Again, all of their federal employees by and large can go to those things. So you've got weak laws, you've got weak process, and you've got an agency that just is retaliatory, that tries to push out those that don't have views similar to those in its echelons of leadership.

Yeah. And Marcus' situation, he's an Iraq war veteran, American here, he goes to continuous service to the country. None of these individuals, and you work with them at Empower Oversight, but when they're coming to you and they feel like they've got to take this path as a whistleblower or go through Congress, I don't think any of them are trying to become a name or a story. Oftentimes in our world, in the media world, you see these individuals were doing their job, they were going to, in Garrett O'Boyle's case, he was just starting a new position with the FBI the day he gets suspended. He had just moved, just had a child, and that day he gets suspended. I mean, they're not trying to become a name in the world that we work in, but they have to, to survive, and ultimately then to seek justice, which I mean, I'm glad groups, I thank our donors and your donors to Empower Oversight, because again, to fight these two year battles against an agency that has an endless coffers to go and try to take these rights away from individuals and ruin their life so that they can't even work. I mean, maybe walk people Tristan to the power of these security clearances to have that top secret clearance. When that's suspended, you can't just say, well, I quit, I'll go get a job. I mean, you're basically, it's like your life is on hold. Right.

Absolutely. And that's a FBI unique construct. So other agencies as well, if your security clearance is suspended, you're not able to work. But the FBI particularly uses the suspension of security clearances very frequently for cases that have nothing to do with security allegations. So, you know, again, in this case for Marcus Allen, it was disclosures to his leadership about FBI Director Chris Wray potentially misleading Congress in his testimony. That's a significant disclosure.

And so if there are concerns about that, there's ways that the FBI could respond to that. But suspending a security clearance sets off a process where he's without pay, any requests for outside work was denied. And so that's where you end up with him receiving 27 months of back pay, because for all of that time, he was unjustly, you know, not compensated.

And so now he has both his back pay his benefits, all of this coming back to him. But you think of how long someone you know, going that long without a paycheck, it's just outrageous. And again, you don't see that in most other agencies. And of course, the Justice Department Inspector General put out a report just several weeks ago, talking about how this is really a stacked deck against whistleblowers, because even if someone absolutely does everything in the right way, makes protective disclosures absolutely is a whistleblower, the kind of person we want to protect.

The FBI has no obligations to move quickly in any way on that security clearance adjudication. So that's why Marcus went a year before there was ever a proposed revocation. And then once they proposed the revocation, we requested the documents behind it. It's another six months before we get the documents, we write a response to them.

It's another six months before we get a decision here. And so this is just a process that's designed to squeeze out whistleblowers to bleed them drop by drop until they can't fight the FBI anymore. Yeah, and we exist and you existed your organization exists as well, because we say, you know, we can fight those battles with you for those two years, if we've got to and go through the court process that we need to, to make sure you get your back paid, to make sure you're reinstated.

But it should be, it shouldn't be that way. And I wanted to ask you too, even about the reports, they're even trying to utilize this kind of settlement and moving forward to say, well, we don't need the report anymore from the inspector general. Yeah. And that's a little bit of a tricky, I mean, it is often the case in agencies that if someone had filed and then they engage in a settlement, then they'll withdraw the complaint.

Right. And so then then the investigating agency has to make a decision about whether or not to issue a report. You know, of course, we sent a letter today in power oversight to Inspector General Michael Horowitz waving any Privacy Act rights on the part of Marcus Allen to say, we encourage you to go and speak about what you found about his case. We're not afraid of anything. We're not trying to hide behind the Privacy Act. Go tell the world, go tell the press, go tell Congress what you discovered about the whistleblower retaliation complaint that we filed on Marcus's behalf. And so we're, you know, we're very hopeful that they will take that opportunity to explain what they found because, yeah, just getting this corrective action for Marcus is good.

We want to make sure it doesn't happen for other people. And so that means that we, you know, we have to explode, expose the process that led to this and the FBI abuses that put Marcus in a position where the FBI could walk all over him for 27 months and he couldn't do anything about it until now. So Tristan, we appreciate, of course, we continue to work with you guys and empower oversight with Garrett O'Boyle.

And if we do with others, we will with others and appreciate your team's work on this. And also standing with these whistleblowers, because folks, again, as you heard from Tristan, 27 months without pay, you know, we got involved with this, I guess it was about 13 months ago when we start, you go through the court process. So right as you were seeing them testify, we start going to get federal court. In Garrett O'Boyle's situation, we're just at the court of appeals reply brief level this Friday. And, and again, we're still fighting to get back pay.

You're still fighting to make sure that his life can be put on track. So while we've got this great victory for Marcus Allen, let's not forget Garrett O'Boyle and make sure, let's make sure in that situation that, that again, he is vindicated, that he receives that justice as well. Because when we, when we talk about this, we talk about the FBI, we talk about the weaponization of law enforcement.

To be able to put two different topics, but to be able to actually put names with the story, it's very important. It's not just leaks coming out of the agencies. We're not, that's not what we're supporting here at the ACLJ. We're talking about individuals trying to do the right thing inside these agencies that have been corrupted, that have been just overrun with abuse, but you can get vindication and you can get justice. We, we thank you for standing with the ACLJ as again, it's a great example of your donations at work. I mean, if just that it's your donations at work, the champions who donate each month automatically at ACLJ.org. And we encourage you as well to sign and stand with the petition for these whistleblowers.

As you heard, there's work to do as Tristan said, we're going to do that policy work as well at ACLJ.org slash sign. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow folks. You know, it's a good opportunity because we've talked about so many different cases involving President Trump to kind of break them down for you because there's multiple cases and they're all getting to different stages, especially as we're about to have debates and you get issues about, you know, gag orders and, and when will that be decided by, and will the gag orders stay until July 11th, that one in New York, because that's, that again is, it would be after the first Presidential debate. So that could again impact what President Trump is able to say on stage in response to even, even not even direct by, by Joe Biden, but even in questions.

So I did have that over you, you have to think the whole time, okay, if I say this, I could go to jail or say this, I could get fined another $10,000. But I'm supposed to go into this freewheeling debate which is fine if you don't have gag orders, but if you do suddenly becomes a major issue which I would hope that you see, again, these, these judges understand the bigger issue here for the country is that the people that tune into that and as Americans kind of start tuning in more and more to the election and who they were going to vote for, which kind of starts around the time you, when you have a debate like this, again, that, that first case in New York, that's, that's the, on the business record. So President Trump was found guilty. He was convicted of all 34 counts. His sentencing is on July 11th. They want the gag order to stay in place until when he gets sentenced, he can then appeal and try to get a stay on that sentence by, to the New York appellate system.

And then potentially the, the, the again, it's the, he goes to the appellate system, the New York court of appeals, which is their highest court, and then potentially the, even the US Supreme court. But you've also got the civil fraud case there in New York where President Trump was found liable in order to pay that $355 million. In fact, as it's saying, they said, oh, Mar-a-Lago's worth $12 million, which you couldn't buy a lot for in Palm beach anywhere.

But, but certainly not on the coast. And again, this idea that because real estate values go up and down, that somehow that's a fraudulent for the city, even though you pay back your loans, you pay your taxes to the city. And by the way, if the more it's valued, the more your taxes go up. So again, we expect you know, we saw that the decision, that's a civil court, so you're not going to go to jail, but they were saying that you might not be able to operate businesses in New York. Are they going to seize his abilities and things like that? Remember the bond, it got moved down to $175 million cash bond on April 22nd. So President Trump will continue with his appeal and that will stay through the civil process there. And that will stay the courts see any seizure of President Trump's assets in New York. There's also that New York defamation case where he was ordered to pay $83 million to each and Carol, and that case is pending on appeal. The Georgia election prosecution, of course we now know, and we've talked about that as well, that you've got an October 4th hearing on whether or not Fannie Willis should be disqualified. And in Florida with the classified documents, while the case has been put on hold indefinitely, there is going to be a hearing this month on whether or not the special counsel is lawful. And then there's the DC prosecutions.

Don't forget that. So Jack Smith part two, and these are the prosecutions about disrupting an official proceeding and what happened on January 6th. It wasn't quite, it's not quite insurrection, but it is criminal. And there you've got a Supreme court case just figuring out on what issues would Presidential immunity bar Jack Smith from prosecuting or would it be any. And so that is at the U S Supreme court has been argued and we will likely have that decision the end of this month or the very beginning of July.

And that could, again, that could hamstring Jack Smith down to a couple of the lesser counts in that case. If the Supreme court was to believe, and I think it's not even good. I think it's going to just a little process that the Supreme court's going to say, of course, there there's a there's official acts and there's immunity for those sub date. They could become criminal and there's of course, unofficial acts.

How do you determine that when someone is President and how do you determine official acts that become criminal? We're going to get through all of it today. That was just the quick rundown for you.

Maybe a quiz at the end of the broadcast. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to secular. We are taking your calls 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110 an issue. And I don't know if it's the first time we're going to have oral argument on it. It has been challenged before and recently as well. Hunter Biden's attorneys tried this as well with judges in Los Angeles and Delaware. So both Democrats and Republicans in high profile matters, which is usually when you get a special counsel appointed. Paul Manafort's legal team tried this to challenge Robert Mueller's authority that did not go anywhere.

And Andrew Miller, who was associated with Roger Stone lost a challenge to Mueller's authority as well. That doesn't mean that Judge Cannon can't consider this argument though. And obviously you have serious attorneys on both sides of the aisle who have and do believe that these special counsel appointments are not lawful. And that's because one of the main issues, I'm going to Harry Hutch to tell this, is that Harry, you've got an entire department of justice full of officers of the United States. So we talk about officers of the United States with the 14th amendment case, but this is separate.

We're talking about confirmed. They go up for Senate confirmation. They're not the most necessarily high profile confirmations most of the time, nor should they be that controversial. But so they're confirmed to take on their jobs, to lead prosecutions, really to direct their deputies to decide what cases we are, they're not going to pursue when it comes to criminal matters. And you've got a whole civil division as well. But then you have this whole world of special councils that an attorney general can appoint when they believe the department of justice is not best suited internally.

So for really reasons of, I mean, I think it's just reasons of actually optics. They appoint someone a special counsel and they act like they have this authority to do whatever they need to do outside of the attorney general. What we do know is that's actually not true. They could be hired and fired by an attorney general at any time. And that means that a President of the United States can hire them and fire them. That doesn't mean there couldn't be congressional ramifications. Remember Congress talked about that with Mueller, like, well, if the attorney general decided to get rid of Mueller, you know, you're impeaching the President of the United States or impeaching the attorney general, even though these by the federal rule itself and the rulemaking, they're clearly appointed by the attorney general, not for indefinitely kicking one word forever.

But these challenges have been unsuccessful in the past. And we have criticized that the ACLJ, the use of special councils, when we believe it's just unnecessary when you've got an entire department of justice, what are you afraid of having your US attorneys handle this? Absolutely. So if a US attorney was handling the Mar-a-Lago case, the classified documents case in Florida, uh, there would be no legal question with respect to his authority. Uh, in this particular case, Jack Smith was hired or appointed by attorney general Merritt Garland. And if he is presumed to be a principal officer, um, of the United States, he must indeed be nominated first by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

That did not occur. So the argument that the Trump defendants are making is that Jack Smith has no viable authority. Indeed, the United States Supreme court, at least in the person of Clarence Thomas, has raised a question as to whether or not these so-called special councils, um, are viable within the meaning of the United States constitution. And so I think at the end of the day, this will be an important hearing and it will indeed be a lengthy hearing.

Why? Because judge Cannon is going to hear from so many lawyers on both sides of this particular question. And so I think this is a very, very important issue. I hope that at, that this issue ultimately winds up before the United States Supreme court.

So we can decide this question once and for all. Yeah. I mean, this is not, it's not the usual criminal practice to have, have like side parties come in, but they, the, the defendant here in the case, Donald Trump agreed to it as well.

So that it was kind of the, the judge saying, look, we don't normally do this, but so first of all, the defendant has the constitutional rights. Do you want this even presented? Okay. You want these other, other individuals to present it. So, but that's unusual, but it can be done.

I mean, that's all you can say is it's unusual. Any other attack is just an attack on the judge herself. If you don't like the idea that she's even considered by the way, we don't even know how she's going to ultimately come down on this. She might not be convinced one way or the other. What I think is probably pretty clear here though, that is being set up is exactly what you just said, which is, this is a trial where we can, we can almost guarantee unless she just says no and kind of goes with the past, that if she takes a position that it's unlawful, it's certainly going to be heard by the 11th circuit. And then if the 11th circuit issues an opinion that maybe is similar to hers, I think it's certainly going to be heard by the Supreme court.

It might take two, two, it might take two levels for the Supreme for it to get there. But the other, the other times it was challenged, it was thrown out so quickly. There was no way to really, it wasn't like an appealable issue.

I mean, it was, it was just like, no, and they just moved on. I think that is precisely correct. Ultimately though, I think it's important to note and for listeners to note is that all of these issues are delaying the trial. So I think at the end of the day, however, the judge rules more likely than not, we will not see a trial in the classified documents case, uh, probably until the end of this year, perhaps going into next year, because there are many other unresolved issues that she has to look at. Um, this is a high profile case. It's important to keep in mind that Robert Herr, who was appointed a special counsel to look into the Joe Biden, uh, classified documents case, uh, he was also in a similar position. Um, and so one of the issues that's out there, at least from the perspective of a law professor is you could challenge the legitimacy of his decision making, um, and virtually all special counsels going forward.

So I think this is a very important issue and I think the judge is wise to, uh, listen to, uh, outside parties on both sides of the argument. But it's also important to keep in mind that many of the individuals who are claiming that this particular special counsel, Jack Smith, uh, was legally appointed are simply, uh, individuals who have been victimized by the Trump derangement syndrome. I also think it raises a broader issue with the way our government operates.

And this is something that we at the ACLJ have pushed back against for decades. And that is the rulemaking process and the regulatory process within bureaucracies as opposed to legislation by Congress. So the special counsel office and authorities come out of the code of federal regulations, which is the rulemaking process. And they rely on a part of the U S code, which would be legislative that allows the attorney general to delegate some of his authority that specifically says to any other officer, employee or agency, the department of justice, but the interpretation of the law by the bureaucracy takes it much further. And actually it raises questions of whether people like John Durham or Weiss, the special counsel that is prosecuting Hunter Biden are actually within the rules allowed to be special counsels because the, the provision says it needs to be someone outside of government, which automatically sounds like it sets up a constitutional issue on whether the regulations are relying on us code to say it has to be someone who is not a part of the government. And yet we also have two special councils that have been a part of the government in recent history. Do you think that this shows one, the, the terrible nature of the rulemaking process that we're struggled with when we have bureaucracies making this, but also it gives a lot of holes that a higher court could poke.

I think that's precisely correct. And so it's a wonderful issue for appellate courts. It's a wonderful issue for the United States Supreme court. It's a wonderful issue for law professors. So at the end of the day, however, the bottom line is you are absolutely correct.

Well, that the rules were imperfectly drafted and there are gaps and lawyers like to use fancy words like lacuna, uh, to indicate that there are gaps in the rules and regulations, and this needs to be filled in by the court. So ultimately this case should result in a United States Supreme court hearing and decision-making to clarify this particular issue. All right, folks, uh, we, again, we're going to follow this very closely.

I want to remind you as well. We're preparing to file a critical brief in Georgia. That's the Georgia court of appeals, uh, looking to disqualify Fannie Willis from her corrupt prosecution of President Trump, like her chosen special counsel was disqualified as well. We're prepared to file the New York appeal of President Trump's conviction to defend the constitution, but it's not just about President Trump. It's about defending all of our constitutional rights in this constitutional Republic. And to save our country from this new weaponization of law, we call it lawfare. Please take action with us by signing on to our brief to remove DA Fannie Willis and defend the integrity of the justice system.

That's an ACLJ.org slash sign. We'll be right back with Tulsi Gabbard. The final segment of the broadcast. We're going to take your calls.

You get back to all these questions and everything we've talked about today. Now we're going to take you to Los Angeles, Manhattan beach, um, which again, our, our own, uh, you know, I know that we've got a team members who, uh, at the ACLJ who call Manhattan beach home. Um, and I have family that call Manhattan beach home, uh, 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 a religious people. I want to go to CC how, because CC, this is one of those, the, the, the standards where they have a very broad, open, uh, 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, um, one of their community rooms to show a sermon and to discuss scriptures and to fellowship. And of course, because of this written policy, um, you know, they said, absolutely you cannot do that. And you're exactly right in the lambs 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, to rent or to go through that process that you can't just say, the only thing you can't do there is, uh, something that happens to be religious. So, uh, we have a lawsuit prepared and then, um, 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, uh, late yesterday we heard, uh, CC from, uh, their, their 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, and you fill out our legal help form, um, 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 timeframe 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, um, 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, uh, is it a positive and is it, 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 in future individuals as well. If they want to use it for religious places and make sure we get all that language, she would, that would be great. Wonderful. But if that doesn't happen, we're ready to, 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 say 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, two of the ACLJ work CC that we may be fight be, uh, you know, find this on behalf of a specific individual who is a Christian wants to show, uh, again, a specific sermon and have a discussion. 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 for 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 also find it interesting that they explicitly say you can use it for cultural activities, but not for religious worship or religious purposes.

Right. So, but my, 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, 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 a evangelical Christian who wants to have the Bible study. But, um, 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, you know, Manhattan beach is not a small city, uh, within Los Angeles.

Um, and you, you know, 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. Um, I hope the city attorney takes a, takes a moment and says, wait, uh, the Supreme court's been clear. We can't do this and gets the city council quickly so that this can be resolved. Uh, 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, uh, because of, uh, what circuit this ultimately falls in, but it is a changing circuit as well. The night circuit court of appeals.

Yeah. And you're exactly right. I mean, the 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 lambs chapel was clear on that too. A case, again, an ACLJ case that we won at the United States Supreme court that you cannot, the establishment clause literally does protect. You cannot discriminate and have viewpoint discrimination. If you have a public facility, you have 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, 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 today in Georgia, we've talked about it. Uh, there will be, we were already front center there. We'll continue to be front center there. We talked about it yesterday with the whistleblowers. We've talked about the international issues. Of course, uh, we are front center there with all those issues, you know, involving Iran. Uh, but then, uh, this takes it back to CC, 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. I encourage you to support our work. The ACLJ side, the brief to remove da Fonny Willis and defend the integrity of our justice system at ACLJ.org slash sign it. Donate today if you can.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-06-07 14:28:46 / 2024-06-07 14:48:21 / 20

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime