BREAKING: MAJOR Trump FBI Raid Developments In Jack Smith Case

Breaking news today on Sekulow, a major development in the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments, or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls. You know Judge Cannon is holding more hearings today on the classified documents and how they were taken at Mar-a-Lago by the FBI during the raid that was overseen by Special Counsel Jack Smith. So you had the hearing over whether or not Jack Smith was even a legitimate appointee and these special counsels that are appointed under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So she's had those two days of hearings. We expect an opinion on that sometime pretty soon because you're already having then hearings on matters. It was closed to press earlier today because they were talking about classified documents, specifically actual documents.

Because remember, one of the issues, there's two issues at play here. One of the issues is that when the government seized these documents, only the government would ever get away with something like this by the way. When they seized the documents, they did not keep them in order. So when they provided what you must do to the defense, like a glossary, right? Think about a table of contents to the defense team, to the Trump team of here's all these documents we found and here's where you can find them.

And even if it's in lots of different boxes, you can at least have a glossary to know where to look. When the Trump legal defense team started looking, the documents didn't match. So they were out of order. Now we know that there's documents that could be missing, documents that were misplaced, or documents that they could have made up a description for that didn't exist at all.

But let's take it one step further. So during the raid, the FBI said to shut the recording off of the security cameras at Mar-a-Lago. They said, don't worry, you can keep the cameras going so you can watch what we're doing, but you can't record it because of security reasons. Except for when they protested that the cameras had been shut off, what happened? They turned the cameras back on. So you see a lot of times law enforcement, and again not beating up on law enforcement, but especially the FBI in this situation where you've got politicized law enforcement, they treat and they ask you to do things that sound like it would be normal practice that isn't normal practice. And when you ask and say, hey, can we turn these back on, they have to be honest about it and say, yes, we will. And the idea here that they're rubbaging around Mar-a-Lago and for a period of time, we don't know what they were doing.

That's right. And in an era where body camera footage is ubiquitous with law enforcement and really as an accountability measure with law enforcement, it raises questions in your mind when you see in this response to the motion by President Trump's defense team, the special counsel's prosecution team says at approximately 955 a.m., the CCTV servers were turned off to prevent recording at the request of the FBI out of concern for agent safety. One of the main reasons we talk about things like body camera footage in law enforcement these days is for officer safety. You would think that the FBI and the DOJ here would want more accountability. They would want more transparency.

They would want a record. If something went awry of what happened, that would do more to preserve the safety of the agents. Instead, you see quite the opposite. They're arguing that not having a recorded record of this is more safe for the agents. But then later in the filing, it says at approximately 10 20 a.m. So about 25 minutes later, recording resumed at the direction of Trump's attorneys. So what you're seeing here is, as Jordan pointed out, that they got them to shut off the recording. But when the attorneys protested and said, no, you've got to turn this back on, they complied.

So what happened here? And the good news is that because the Trump attorneys went back and said, no, turn them on, when the real raid, they call it search, but when the real raid occurred and these documents got thrown around, remember those messy pictures to make it look like Donald Trump was having all these documents thrown around his room and those were all made up? We do have video of most of the raid beginning at 10 33 a.m. And I have a feeling it does not make the FBI look good, especially if they were the ones tossing these documents.

And the reason why there's now missing classified documents is not because of President Trump. It's because of the FBI and the raid, the shady raid on Mar-a-Lago. Give us a call. We want to talk to you.

1-800-684-3110. Be right back on Sekulow. All right, so there's two parts to the hearing today involving President Trump. Now, this is back in Florida. Remember earlier we were talking about, just yesterday, the hearing about whether or not Jack Smith was legitimate was on Friday and yesterday. And that hearing about because he is not a U.S. attorney who is then given the special counsel role and because a special counsel is even different than a U.S. attorney because they get almost universal jurisdiction. They still do have to report to the attorney general.

The deputy attorney general is usually put in charge of monitoring special counsels. And this has been an issue that's been raised by the right and the left. We talked about it yesterday. But now we're getting more specific into what actually happened at Mar-a-Lago. And this is while Judge Cannon is going to determine whether or not she believes Jack Smith is even a legitimate prosecutor for this case. But what we're looking at is due process violations made. So we talked about initially how they said you've got to cut the recording off of the agents going in.

And ultimately that recording was turned back on. But the second part of this was the fact that, again, like during a hearing on Tuesday on classified documents, so some of this is, again, some of this is sealed so no one can be in the hearing room because they're talking about classified documents. But we know that President Trump's team is going to argue that their due process rights were violated when the FBI agents raided the Mar-a-Lago property and that attorney-client privilege was breached. But that hearing is sealed.

So there's no members of the press or public will be there. The private hearing will be conducted to protect those classified and attorney-client privilege matters. But the case, and we're going to Harry Hutchinson on this, that they are focusing on first, Harry, and this is something we see often when there's raids and when there's a FBI move to seize documents, is that the warrant to go after the documents was so broad that it lacked the particulars that's required by the Fourth Amendment.

I think that's precisely correct. And so I think the Trump defense is on sound grounds in asserting Trump's constitutional rights grounded in the Fourth Amendment. So the quintessential question is whether Trump's due process rights were violated during the FBI's Mar-a-Lago raid and secondarily was the search warrant, which was the predicate for the raid, was that basically a misleading search warrant. In other words, the judge was indeed misled.

So based on the publicly available information, I think the answer is yes. I'm not taking a position on how the judge will necessarily rule in this case, but it's important to note that Trump's defense can logically make the claim that the evidence obtained during the search warrant should be thrown out due to unconstitutionality because the warrant lacked, as you point out, Jordan, particularity as required by the Fourth Amendment. What does the Fourth Amendment do?

It protects every person from an unreasonable government intrusion. And so secondly, Trump's lawyers can claim that the special counsel, Jack Smith, does not have standing to invoke, for instance, a good faith exception to preserve the evidence from the search because the agents engaged in bad faith in conducting the search. So we have evidence, for instance, that they turned off the recording. Then we have evidence that the recording was turned on. So why would you turn off the recording? There's no basis for doing so unless you're trying to hide something.

And guess what? The recording actually protects both the defendant and the FBI. And so then you could go into court and you could basically say to the judge, we conducted this search, the FBI could, in accordance with constitutional principles. Why don't you look at the tape? Except the FBI is saying, hey, we want to cut off the tape.

It doesn't make sense and it doesn't pass the smell test. At one point, you have to wonder if on that tape, because it did start recording again around 1030 when they conducted most of the raid, and good on the attorneys for getting that recording back done. But you don't know if every room had the same kind of cameras. A lot of times those cameras are in hallways and entrances to rooms, but they're not in the room itself. And you wonder if there's video of them scattered around and then taking pictures of documents to make it look like Donald Trump left these documents out, you know, kind of willy nilly in a room that kind of scattered and dirty.

And you remember the one they took like in a bathroom? Even though they were utilizing just an area of Mar-a-Lago that was unused and was actually being sealed up, they made it look like, oh, if he keeps classified documents near a toilet, that's not the case. It was a whole section of Mar-a-Lago that wasn't being utilized.

So it was blocked off from guests to be able to turn into this. So I think, again, that issue alone. They also did something, Harry, which I think as attorneys we're always very concerned about, which is piercing the veil and going to the attorneys. And we've seen that in this case, maybe more in these cases than any other cases in history, where they are going at the attorneys and at this time they tried to use the crime fraud exception to go after Trump attorney Evan Corcoran.

Again, while this is all going on, and this kind of mess of the raid that's not timed is going on, and piercing that veil is supposed to be very difficult, but it seems like it's not for the special counsel. They go to a judge, they just ask for it, and they get whatever they want. I think that is correct, and there's no evidence that the crime fraud exception applies to the facts in this particular case. And so one of the things that we have to go back to is we have to go back to Jack Smith's record in prior cases. Jack Smith has a reputation for, A, overcharging defendants, and Jack Smith basically has a history of being overturned by the Supreme Court. So if you look at the McDonald case involving the former governor of Virginia, he was overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court opinion. So one of the things that is going against Jack Smith in this particular case is his prior history.

And so I hope the judge scrutinizes his conduct very harshly, if you will, simply because he has a very bad record and a record of bad faith. What we've seen throughout this entire case, starting with the actual raid itself, the unprecedented nature in which the Department of Justice, the FBI, and now the Special Counsel's Office has been behaving. On one hand, they try to explain away the boilerplate language of use of deadly force in the search warrant language, and then said, you know, we didn't really see a threat. And then on the other hand, they're trying to turn off CCTV cameras because of the security and safety of the agents. It just, there's so many different issues, whether it be what Judge Cannon raised yesterday with the post due financial report that they're supposed to be given, that they say, well, we've got it done, but it's going to review.

And she replies with, well, we're in June now. And they haven't had a report since late last year. Don't worry, if you don't like us getting money this way, we're definitely going to prosecute this case. We can get money. We're the Department of Justice. We got plenty of money.

And the idea that they could be so flippant about that, she said, is also unnerving because you're, again, you're putting a defense. When you feel like the weight of the government's coming at you, Harry, and they go into court and say, we've got unlimited resources to prosecute you. We don't care if this judge thinks the way we're getting the resources is wrong. We know we can go to the Department of Justice and get $20 billion more this way. I mean, if you're a defendant or the defense counsel, you realize what you're up against is this unbelievable wall of resources.

I think that is correct. And it's very, very important to keep in mind that the security of the agents in this case, as Will points out, is secondary to the constitutional rights of the defendant in this case. And so one of the things that is very imperative for listeners to keep in mind is, yes, the special counsel may have access to unlimited resources. But if he is using unlimited resources to prosecute an infirm case, in other words, a case that doesn't make sense legally, it doesn't matter. And so the judge needs to cut off the FBI and needs to cut off Jack Smith.

And there's an argument out there that Jack Smith should indeed ultimately be removed from this case. I think, again, folks, this is just, and we'll take your calls on it too, 1-800-684-3110. Mike Pompeo is coming up next to the broadcast, but if you're hanging on, we do want to get to these calls. I think, again, remember, this raid was done in August of 2022. We're now in 2024. I mean, we're getting closer and closer to where you realize, again, that they haven't even gotten through the procedural grounds of this. And this is probably one of the most serious cases, but because it involves classified documents, it has taken a long time. And there's also the look at whether or not Jack Smith has even been legitimately appointed.

I think Jack Smith is facing a lot more pushback from the courts, not just Judge Cannon, than he ever thought so. So we've got, again, Secretary Pompeo coming up next. We'll get to a little international and, of course, this border move by President Biden as well.

So some of these international moves affect all of us since I consider all states border states now in the United States. And we also want to remember this is a week where, again, we are calling it Life Week, celebrating the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and asking you if you could donate $60 or more to the ACLJ at ACLJ.org to get this special pin commemorating the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Even if you don't wear the pin, it's a great reminder to pray for the fight for life in the states now. Welcome back to Sekulow. For those of you waiting on the phones to talk Jack Smith, we're going to get back to that. Don't worry, we've got a second half hour of the broadcast coming up after this discussion, which I want to have right now with our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State, former CIA Director Mike Pompeo. And Secretary Pompeo, you have a new blog up at ACLJ.org about Biden taking a page from the Obama playbook and this idea that he's, quote, changed the law through his executive order on giving half a million illegal immigrants an easy path to citizenship. Now, all of us in the ACLJ were kind of there, so they scratched our heads. Secretary Pompeo was saying, you know, this seems like exactly like what President Obama did as an election year move, and it actually didn't lead to anybody getting citizenship, and it never really went through, but it sounded nice for President Biden to his constituents, who I guess don't want to look back at history, as he's Secretary Pompeo, and realize this doesn't work.

Jordan, I think that's probably the best explanation. It's a terrible one, but if you ask me the most likely reason, I think that's it. It's not going to work. It's not going to actually happen.

And worse, imagine that it did. Think about the incentive this creates for people who try to come here lawfully. They realize, oh, that's not going to benefit them.

And think about the incentive it creates for someone who's thinking, maybe if I just stay a little bit longer, or maybe if I just sneak across, this creates all the wrong incentives. It's precisely the reason you have millions of people, including, we now know, a couple of hundred people on the terror watch list who come to this country illegally. When it sounds sympathetic and kind and generous, it really does an enormous disservice to people who are trying to simply find a better life for themselves to say, you know what, if you come here, eventually we'll let you become a citizen. It encourages this unlawful behavior, and it damages not only American sovereignty, but it's bad for America's national security as well. And I encourage you again to go to the ACLJ.org, check out and share the new blog up by Secretary Pompeo on this. The executive order, again, it does seem to me, and you just talked about it too, it doesn't really help Americans, because it weakens the Constitution, and it doesn't appear to be helping President Biden that much in the polls either. So, again, I think people may have learned that these executive orders, when it comes to immigration matters, it's going to take a lot more than that. It's going to take coming together Republicans and Democrats to get things done. Now, there are things you can do to secure the border, certainly, that the Biden administration has failed to do. And even in their latest border security move that we had talked about with these numbers that were insane, that they would never even get to to finally reopen a border, how do you close the border?

But the idea here is that even the Biden administration is not seeing some major bump in the polls. I think because, to an extent, Secretary Pompeo, people are used to this border issue, unfortunately, being so politicized, and they realize, you know, we're talking about, we see it on TV every day, you can't really be blind to it, because it's in your communities around the country. You see the people, this is hurting, when they come across and then have to live in the shadows.

They are abused, the trafficking, the drug issue that comes up, the violence that comes with the cartels, and of course the fact that these are people who have to, for the most part, live in the shadows most of their life with phony documentation and are never able to really live as Americans, and so it's not good for them either. That's certainly true. Look, your point is very well taken. This move is odd because the best explanation that you and I can arrive at is that he did this for domestic political purposes, and you can see that the polling's not going to reflect any bump.

There's no benefit. Who's going to decide, geez, I think I like President Trump, but oh my goodness, he lost 500,000 family members, people who are American citizens. I think I'll change. I think I'll vote for President Biden. So I think it's the fantasy land that the Biden administration lives in on most of the things they do with respect to American sovereignty and American national security, right? They pretend that they said, right, Afghanistan was a success.

They pretend that somehow, if you do a favor for someone who came here illegally, that people will say, oh, good, that's a good thing for American security. If you restrict weapons sales to Israel or you tell the Ukrainians, you know, maybe you can have a little bit more weapons tomorrow, but we're so afraid of escalation that you really can't use them effectively. Those are the kinds of things that don't, these are people that don't live in the real world, and I've been traveling a little bit outside of the country these last few weeks. And this immigration issue, people have wizened up to it, whether they're in France and they're unhappy with Macron, whether they're Germany and they're unhappy with Chancellor Schultz, whether they're in the United Kingdom and they're unhappy with the prime minister there who's going to get crushed on July 4th and his party. The people in the world can see reality.

They can see things that work and things that don't. And I think the American people aren't going to give President Biden a bump in the polls because of some fantasy policy that, frankly, is never even going to take effect. You talked about it. When we were overseas, we've been working with our ECLJ team, which is based in Strasbourg, France. We met with a lot of those members of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, from those right-leaning parties that have been demonized in the press there, but of course had huge electoral victories at the Council of Europe level, and now we'll see, can they turn those victories into domestic victories? And when you talk to them, you know, I made the honest approach, Secretary Pompeo, because a lot of us had only seen what we could read in the news about a lot of these parties and the kind of histories there and the words thrown around. And then you meet with them and realize, hey, we're actually, this is, you know, France is not so, the conservative movement in France is not so different than the conservative movement in the U.S. It may be a little bit behind in the sense of organizing and maybe a couple of issues here and there, but it's not scary or dangerous. It's people just trying to reclaim what they see as like an out-of-control society where, because of immigration a lot of times, that has led to terrorism and it's led to concerns about terrorism with the Olympics coming up and with, even with just the threats that ISIS has made yet again with the Olympics.

But I want to go to also what's happening. We're talking about terrorism to Israel. I think this is important for people to know, especially if they're talking to loved ones who are still confused about who they should be supporting.

And listen, we're seeing it not just on the left, we're seeing this in churches across the country about whether they should be supporting Israel or is it the Palestinians. And Secretary Pompeo, we saw that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday he is open to a partial ceasefire deal to bring home, and I want people to remember this number, 120 remaining hostages. And so that would include several Americans, Secretary Pompeo.

You know the Prime Minister very well. Do you think that there's a possibility of a temporary ceasefire deal to at least get these hostages, those who are alive, out, and of those who have been killed, their bodies back to their loved ones? Jordan, we've seen that happen before.

We've seen it happen a couple times effectively. Then we've seen instances where the Israelis have rescued hostages. And you and I know we both have met with these hostage families. We pray that as many of these hostages are still alive as possible.

We want to get them back. When I hear Prime Minister Netanyahu say that yesterday, I also think he's doing that understanding that he has had enormous burden placed on him by President Biden, who has not full-throatedly support the fundamental basic idea that Israel here is the victim and not the aggressor. President Biden has kind of put this on its head, saying, you know, if Hezbollah attacks, we might not be with you. You all need to wrap this up quickly.

The descriptions are long and varied. But President Biden has clearly emboldened Hamas by failing to recognize that the problem child here is the Islamic Republic of Iran. And they've played footsie with Iran for three and a half years, the same way President Obama did. And that makes it hard for Prime Minister Netanyahu to do the things necessary to protect his people. I'm confident he will still do that, and the Israeli people will support him. But when I hear him sort of trying to reflect on what he hears out of the Biden administration, so he can continue to receive the support he needs, it just disappoints the heck out of me.

And it's bad for America, too, because a strong Israel, a capable Israel that actually crushes Hamas and goes after Hezbollah in a way that protects the Israeli people and gets them back to their homes, that's a place that will be a good partner and friend for America when it is our time and there's terror risk to the United States of America as well. Absolutely. Secretary Pompeo, we love having you as part of the team at the American Center for Law and Justice. Support our work, folks, at ACLJ.org, second half hour, coming up next. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. You know, before we get to your phone calls and we're going to get to the Jack Smith matter, we also want to remind you at the ACLJ, we're declaring this life week because yesterday marked the anniversary, the two year anniversary. You know, it can feel shorter than that.

It may feel longer than that, depending on this political process and how you've been a part of it. But the two year anniversary of overturning Roe versus Wade. Now, remember, we had that leaked, the leaked opinion. And those of us who had been fighting to take this out of the federal system and get it back to the states were, you know, it was one sense you don't want a leaked opinion, but you also didn't really believe it until you were going to actually hear it from the justices themselves, from the Supreme Court officially.

Of course, that did happen. And we have declared this week life week. We've reissued this special pin. I'm wearing it right now. Will has it on his shirt as well.

And it's a pin we can put up on the screen real quick for people. It says again, victory for life. It has the Supreme Court.

It says ACLJ. And then 2022 to remind you again of the year that Roe versus Wade was overturned. Now, you may not be like me and basically live your life in a jacket or blazer, but you don't have to for this lapel pin to be utilized because I think it's a great memento to remember to pray for the pro-life battle that is occurring now in the states across the country. It's a reminder that overturning Roe versus Wade got this out of the federal courts, but it took it into your states and where we've seen very tough battles for life. And that's exactly what we wanted.

We wanted those battles. We wanted the opportunity to bring this issue to the American people directly, not to their members of Congress, not to the judges, but to the people. Now, to do that, you've got to spend resources as well.

In fact, it costs more to do it than just inside the federal court system. And right now, we're being outspent by the abortion industry. But I think long term, we had to take this hurdle.

We had to get this hurdle out of the way. And it was so important. But it also, again, so if you donate $60 or more to the ACLJ at ACLJ.org, you will get one of these, again, I call them lapel pins, you call them buttons, whatever you want to say. And I think it's just a great reminder to pray for those who are fighting for life. And of course, if you are a donor to the ACLJ and you make that donation, you are one of those people who are fighting for life. So during Life Week, let's not forget the victories. There's a lot of tough fights ahead when it comes to protecting these innocent children. We know that.

But don't forget the victories that can sustain you on the path to the additional fights. It could seem, certainly, I didn't know if I'd even see this in my lifetime. And yet we overturned Roe vs. Wade. How much more can we get done in our states if we've got the resources and that same commitment to protecting the life of unborn children? So make that $60 donation to ACLJ.org, get this lapel pin, and it's a reminder to pray for everyone, including you if you're one of those donors that make this work possible, that you will continue to fight for life. Do we have time for a call, Will? Or we should just, again, we'll take calls when we come back from the break. So Todd, and I think it's Todd and Will, stay on the line. We'll get to you first.

If you want to talk to us on the air, 1-800-684-3110. I just want to remind you, when it comes to life, next week, and we'll talk about this a little bit more in the next segment, we're filing in court to defend pro-life sidewalk counselors. They're always, again, going after those pro-life sidewalk counselors and trying to shut them down.

And they save lives right outside of abortion clinics. Next week, we're also filing a critical amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood. So now, remember, a lot of that was at the federal level.

Remember, it was through Medicare and all those different things, and Medicaid, actually, and so could you do it through the state levels? We're looking at it that way now. Again, another example of the battle moving to the state. So what I'm asking you today during Life Week is to, one, remember that victory two years ago today. Don't forget that, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Second, the left thinks, oh, that was wonderful because it's going to help us get elected.

Don't be discouraged by that. We are saving lives. We know more lives are being saved now because Roe vs. Wade was overturned. But we have to be ready to fight in these states and also educate people in these states.

So make that $60 donation, get the pin as a reminder about the fight, and to pray for those who are fighting every day for the unborn. We'll be right back on Sekulow. Whether or not Jack Smith was even a legitimate special counsel, and are special counsels even legitimate. This second issue that she is holding hearings on involves due process concerns about how the documents were collected. We learned that they tried to shut off the recording of the raid, and of course that was ultimately turned back on. So that would be interesting to see at some point. We know they were the ones that scattered the documents around.

Was that captured on video or not? Because that was like in an office it looked like. So usually the cameras are in like hallways that go into offices.

They're not into the offices themselves. But we will see. So there's issues there. I want to take a call, and then we'll get to some life issues as well.

That's right. We're going to go to Todd from Georgia on Line 2. Todd, you're on Sekulow. Hi, thank you for everything you do, and my question is about the evidence that Mar-a-Lago, it was obviously staged, and then it was illegally leaked to the media. And we saw them do this with the Steele dossier. They knew it was fake.

They leaked it to the media. They got special warrants to investigate the campaign, and then they got a special counsel to go after the President. How do they keep getting away with this?

I mean, this is like Gestapo tactics. Well, how do they keep getting away? They're the federal government. They're the Department of Justice. And they got elected, they got into power, and they set their sights on Donald Trump. So not only did we see these elected Democrat DAs or attorney generals set their sights on Donald Trump, whether it was Atlanta or New York, we've seen this happen through the appointment of Jack Smith to say, go after Donald Trump on whatever you can get him on. So if it's on January 6th in D.C., go after him there. If it's on documents in Florida, go after him there.

I mean, the list goes on. We'll let them go after him in New York and try to take his properties in New York. I mean, the list goes on and on, but I do think, again, Will, one of those issues is how they tried to show the documents. I still go back to that because in a criminal trial there's going to be a jury if this ever gets to that point. And that photo, we know, was manufactured by the FBI that people are looking at right now. If you're not watching it, it's the one where they had all the scattered documents around, as if that's what it looked like if you were just walking around Mar-a-Lago. Well, and the other problem with it is another little nugget in this filing by the special counsel is, clearly they wanted that photograph out there and they had those cover sheets.

If you put the photo back up on the screen, you see the secret SCI with a red border and top secret SCI with a yellow border. Those weren't how the documents were in the storage. Those were placeholders and cover sheets brought by the FBI to the raid, almost as a prop, so they could cover up sensitive information and then take a photograph, and then that's okay for the public to see. They wanted these photos out publicly as quick as possible.

And even in the filings, they knew that these would be used as a part of their indictment or their charging documents. And what you see is those photographs, and they got them out so quickly because they had the props with them. It wasn't like they photographed the evidence and then had to go and digitally blur the documents out. As you see many times in court filings, things that should not be shown, they'll blur it out in the actual photograph but to represent it.

They brought props. They were ready to stage this in the manner that they did, and they spread it across the floor and made it look like there were so many classified documents with these big red headlines. How could the President not know that these were secret?

Look at these cover sheets. That was the narrative they wanted you to believe, but it wasn't real because in their document, they even said, as a part of processing the seized documents Mark classified, ER to E photograph the documents with appropriate cover sheets added by FBI personnel next to the box in which they were located. Photographs attached exhibit eight are examples. So they weren't even on the floor. They were in that box that is next to it. None of it was reality, but that's what they wanted you to believe, that it was a mess, that they were littered everywhere, and he is such a danger to the American security because of how he was treating these documents. It just wasn't real, and all of that is even brought up in this hearing that was happening today.

Right. I mean, again, it's important to point out, and these hearings continue, and we're going to do that continually here on the broadcast. We've got questions and comments about it. We've got a full segment coming up.

We'll take those at 1-800-684-3110. I do want to spend some time, though, because this is Life Week at the ACLJ. You see the lapel button that we're wearing?

It's been some time since maybe you saw us wearing these. And this lapel button we issued out right after Roe vs. Wade was overturned in the Dobbs case. So what it says is victory for life.

It has the Supreme Court, has the ACLJ there, and then it says the date, 2022. And what it's a reminder is, of course, is that Roe vs. Wade and these major battles that you can ultimately win, it doesn't mean the war is over, but that was a huge battle to take that issue out of Washington, D.C. and the federal government as much as possible and to have the battle in the states. Now, we've seen the battle in the states be tough. And I'll go to CeCe Howe right now because, CeCe, we're still fighting in places like Louisville on pro-life sidewalk counselors, as if it's like they're ignoring the fact that all of this precedent went out the door that would even give these judges, really, authority to treat what was happening in an abortion clinic different than any other place. Yeah, and I think this case that we have, and we've been working on it for years, is a perfect example of the fact that Kentucky, basically abortion is illegal now in Kentucky, yet we are still in Kentucky fighting a buffer zone law in Louisville. And, you know, that's one of the arguments that the other side is trying to say, well, basically now that Kentucky has outlawed abortion, you know, this case is moot. But it's not because the abortion clinic there in Louisville, and we represent the sidewalk counselor who has been counseling there for years, praying with women and, you know, talking to them, giving them advice and facts and truth.

This buffer zone law keeps them from doing that. And even though Kentucky has outlawed abortion, the abortion clinic is still open. And it's still referring people and patients to how to get abortions out of state. And there's also Planned Parenthood that is open there.

And so our clients, of course, still want to go and pray and talk to these people. And they're not able to do that with this buffer zone law still in place. And we actually, it was in district court, federal district court, and we asked for a preliminary injunction, meaning for that court to enjoin the law, stop the law from being put in place. The district court denied it, but we went to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and we actually won there. So there is an injunction. There's a preliminary injunction right now.

In this case, that law is not being enforced. But we have to go through the whole trial process now at the district court level. And the law, again, is not in place while we're going through this trial process.

And we had an evidentiary hearing and now on July 1st, we are, our brief, that post-evidentiary hearing brief is due July 1st. So this case is still going forward. But it's still very important because our clients have a right under the Constitution to be able to speak and pray with these women. And abortion distortion always comes in and says, no, but we're going to protect. Everybody has a right to do that everywhere, but not in front of an abortion clinic. They love free speech, all these liberal groups. If you are walking down the street with your Palestinian flag or in front of a synagogue, they have no problem with that. That's free speech for them.

That's not harassment. But if it's someone who's pro-life who wants to quietly pray with someone who's walking into an abortion clinic or say, you know, there's other options, and usually there are pro-life pregnancy centers nearby that could at least share the other options. That's all they can do. That's the best they can do is pray with you and share other options.

Of course, they can't force you to do either of those things. We're just talking about here speech. But again, that is so dangerous to the pro-life, to the pro-abortion industry because every time that works or that, they're able to show what that child looks like in the womb at the pro-life pregnancy center or the prayer works, they're losing money.

That's right. It's not about speech to them. It's about dollars and cents.

Absolutely. The bottom line is money. And we know we even spoke about this yesterday on the radio show that once you have truth, once you put truth in these women's hands that are making this literally life decision, once they know truth, then they usually change their mind. They understand that that's a baby, and they don't want to take its life. And so they're very, very much afraid of truth. They're very much afraid of the ultrasounds that show the baby.

But that's what these pro-life sidewalk counselors do, and that's why they're trying to shut them down with these buffer zone laws. Yeah. And again, we've got one, of course, we're waiting to get back at the U.S. Supreme Court. Just update people. I mean, we're just waiting. Yeah.

We have a cert petition for the Turco case, which is another buffer zone law, and that is we're waiting to hear if the Supreme Court's going to take that case or not. It'll probably be the end of September when we hear that. All right. We come back, folks. I would call in right now if you've got questions about Jack Smith and the hearing in Florida and this latest update on this legal case against President Trump. Of course, we've got a debate we're just two days away now from, and we want to take your calls at 1-800-6843-110. Will, we'll be going to you first, so stay on the line. But we've got some lines open for you now, so you can call in and get your comments and questions on the air. 1-800-6843-110, that's 1-800-6843-110. Remember, this is Life Week at the ACLJ.

You donate $60, you get that pin as a reminder to pray for those in the battle for life. All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to take your calls, 1-800-6843-110, just to update you very quickly. I will, so right now we've got a second hearing by Judge Cannon. Her first two days of these hearings was from Friday and Monday. That was on whether or not Jack Smith is even legitimate.

I would expect an opinion fairly soon there because she's already having then hearings on evidence, on hearings about due process concerns with the evidence, hearings about the recording of the FBI raid. The FBI wanted the cameras to stop recording. They didn't say they should turn them off. They did stop recording for a period of time. But for most of the raid, we do believe they were recording. The question is, were the cameras in places that would have gotten the videos of the FBI agents actually scattering the documents, or was that done like in a room?

Because you have to think about it. Usually, even in a place with a lot of cameras at security, those are usually in the hallways in kind of public areas. They might be pointed towards a room, but they're not usually inside a private office and things like that because of privacy issues. So you might not still have the actual video of them scattering around. But we do know that that has happened now. We know that it was not President Trump who just threw, and his staff, who just randomly tossed documents into a room that was scattered around.

I mean, so there's already the issues there. We've already talked about the second big issue, and I think this is huge, folks, is that when you're dealing with this many documents, 15 boxes of documents that were supposed to be illegally taken, and you have to go through all of those. And some have attorney-client privilege, and some don't. And some are classified to this level, and others are classified at another level. And the government takes them. They have to make a glossary, if you will, a table of contents, and put them in order. So that when the defense is able to view the evidence against their client, you're able to go and say, okay, here's, they said this document was there, and it was improperly taken and stored.

Let's go see. So it says this document is in, we can find it here. And then you go there, and for a number of these documents, they weren't there. Some were totally missing, so they're gone now.

We don't even know if they ever existed. And some are not in the place they're supposed to be, so you've got to, again, this is a huge issue. I mean, for attorneys to not be able to go to the evidence and rely on that, how it was taken and how it was put forward by the Department of Justice, I know that might sound, it might sound to you as petty.

It's not. This is huge, especially the case where the entire case is about pieces of paper. That's what all this case is about. And so if some of it's disappeared, were they mishandling classified documents? Should they be charged for mishandling classified documents?

It's much easier to charge an FBI agent for mishandling classified documents, even without negative intent, than it is a President of the United States who has declassification power. But Will, let's go to these phone calls. That's right. We're going to go to Will in South Dakota on Line 3. Will, you're on Sekulow.

Good morning. My question is, where is the Supreme Court? In any swearing in of any office, you always see a pledge or an oath to follow the Constitution. And obviously, I mean, I don't understand why the Supreme Court isn't jumping in on this.

They don't typically jump in. So, I mean, obviously, this case could be on track to the Supreme Court, certainly. It's a very slow case because it involves classified documents. We said that this case was not going to be done before the election, even before we found out all of this other negative info. So ultimately, whether they like it or not, the Supreme Court could be an arbiter in almost all of these cases, even the cases that are originating in state court.

Once you go through the state court process, Will, I think that's a good question. So in New York, for instance, it's not a great place if you're a Republican Presidential candidate, especially named Donald Trump, to go through courts and juries and even in the state court system. And even the federal court system is out the best.

The Second Circuit is maybe not the best one for you. But ultimately, if you're fighting it through that system, when you are done at the New York's highest level of court, you don't have to restart at the federal district court. If you believe your rights were violated and you were wronged, you can then take that directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. And a former President has probably the most weight to have their case heard, especially one who is currently running for President right now, again, than anyone else because it affects so many issues that are bigger than just Donald Trump. It affects the future of our country. Well, and also to Will's question as well, we know that we're waiting on two opinions from the Supreme Court that most likely will happen by Friday of this week, one being the Presidential immunity case, which is a Jack Smith case out of D.C., where it relates to actions and obstruction of the official processes around January 6th, as well as the case, the Fisher case in which someone was challenging the application of the obstruction of official proceeding law and the broadness in which it's interpreted to the Supreme Court. Two of those will affect cases that President Trump has going on, as well as you have to look at what you said on the broadcast yesterday. That there are many issues within this Mar-a-Lago case that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, not just the appeal of the if there happened to be a conviction at some point, but whether it be the appointment of the special counsel. If she rules one way, Judge Cannon rules one way and the government tries to appeal that ruling within the case to the appeals court, that's an issue that could be decided by the Supreme Court. It could be parsed out by the Supreme Court because of the magnitude and the constitutionality of that ruling.

And that's just a motion within the case. There are many issues that could come forward out of this that could make their way up to the Supreme Court. But we also are a country that follows the rule of law and there is a process to get to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be good for the Supreme Court just to willy nilly decide to jump into things because that's not the way the system works. And even when Jack Smith tried to early take the immunity issue to the Supreme Court out of order, they rejected it. And then it went to the appeals court and then it went en banc and then it finally went to the Supreme Court and they took it. So the Supreme Court is wary of going out of order. And that's a good thing for the system, not a bad thing. Let's take Joanne's call.

Joanne from Ohio on line one, you're on secular. Hi, guys. You know, there's so many issues with this Mar-a-Lago thing. I mean, the way they did this, you know, like you're talking about, you know, just this total loss of due process. I mean, we don't even know.

They could have planted documents in these rooms that didn't have a camera, for all we know. But doesn't this kind of fall under the fruit of the poisonous tree thing? It could, ultimately. I mean, in fact, that's kind of what the judge is looking at here. I don't know if it's directly they're just saying it's fruit of poisonous tree. But these are motions, Will, to exclude this evidence. Well, that's right. I mean, the motion that was filed was the motion to dismiss based on spoliation of evidence in violation of due process. That is what you're talking about.

Our caller, Joanne, is spot on that that would extrapolate out to what is considered the fruit of the poisonous tree. You can't use this because you obtained it illegally and then when you had it under your control, you did not, you didn't have it under control legally. Because, of course, the fact that there are documents now missing. So you're going to prosecute someone for documents they can't even see if they actually existed or not. The documents aren't in order.

The documents aren't in a, so you made up a glossary table of contents that doesn't match the documents. The Department of Justice under Jack Smith, they're in a mess. They're in a mess. Let's keep it that way. Let's keep it that way, especially through the election.

Because the more they're in a mess, the less that's a distraction issue for the American people. We can talk about the big issues like the immigrant, like what's happening on our border. And, you know what, we can, it also shows you can combat lawfare. It's tough. And the weaponization of our government against people and against politicians.

But you can do it if the American people are with you on other issues that really affect them in their pocketbook. I want to remind you, too, this is Life Week. It's that second year anniversary of the overturning of Roe vs Wade. For every donation $60 or more at ACLJ.org, you will get the lapel pin that I'm wearing right now. Which is a great reminder to pray for those of us, and you, who are in the fight for life. Go to ACLJ.org, donate today.