TRUMP Immunity WIN: "No Comment" By Jack Smith

We've got breaking news, a big Supreme Court win for President Trump on immunity, while a breaking news. Later on in the next segment, we're going to have my dad, Jay Sekulow, joining us later on the broadcast, Harry Hutchinson.

And then, towards the end of the show, Rick Rinnell will be joining us. We're going to talk about the legal and the political fallout of today's decision. Obviously, if you're just watching right now, the breaking news, the Supreme Court has ruled on the Trump immunity case, essentially dealing out what looks to be, and what all reports are saying, it's a hefty opinion, but what is being considered a big win for President Trump. The court held that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

And then they go on to say that there is no immunity for unofficial acts. And then they go on, as well, to say the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, or for the D.C. Circuit, rather, is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So the guidance that comes out of this opinion will feed into the case at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with Judge Chutkin, or the D.C.

Circuit Court, rather, and we will go now and see what happens as they have to start back there and parse out what would be an official act and what would be an unofficial act. But it really guts a lot of the case for Jack Smith, including this section here, because one of the cases is conspiracy to defraud the United States, a very broad statute. But it says on page 40 of the opinion, for instance, Section 371, which has been charged in this case, is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover, quote, any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government. Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws. An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could become quickly routine. The enfeebling of the presidency and our government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the framers intended to avoid, ignoring those risks.

The dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors. Yeah, so essentially, for those who are trying to follow along, now, what is a Presidential official act? That is sort of yet to be determined, but what we can say for right now in this historic 63 ruling, we are delaying a lot of things, including the Jack Smith case, likely.

We are pushing that well beyond the election, and that's what's likely going to happen. We're going to discuss that. If you have a question or comment, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. As I said, we're going to be joined by some legal experts coming up. My dad, Jay Sekula, will be joining us in the next segment.

Professor Harry Hutchinson will be joining us shortly after, and then Rick Grenell to give us sort of the political fallout of this decision, as well as all those talks over the weekend where President Biden was meeting with his family to discuss the future. We're going to talk all about that coming up. I'd love to hear from you, though. 1-800-684-3110. Give us a call. Also, if you're watching on YouTube or Rumble, hit that like little thumbs up or the plus sign. Either one of you get that really helps us out right now. I'll throw in a comment as well.

I did, before we head to the end of this segment. Today is July 1st, and that is the beginning of our life and liberty drive, which means all gifts to the ACLJ are doubled dollar for dollar. It is only through the support of you, our ACLJ members, and we need those ACLJ champions, those are the people that give on a monthly recurring basis, that we can continue to fight and win historic legal battles. Last week, we heard loud and clear what President Biden intends to do if he wins. He's going to do everything in his power to reinstate Roe. He'll continue to betray Israel. And even with today's Supreme Court victory on immunity, he will continue to wage lawfare against his political opponents.

But right now, there is hope. We're sending a demand letter to the U.N. to defend Israel. We have a massive case against the Biden's lawfare, and we're filing a major brief to defund Planned Parenthood at the Supreme Court.

Go to ACLJ.org right now to be a part of day one of our life and liberty drive. Welcome back to Secula. A ton of you are broadcasting, coming in, watching our broadcast right now, wanting to hear the breaking news. Obviously, the breaking news is a big win, or at least perceived big win, out of the Supreme Court for President Trump in the case whether he has Presidential immunity or whether Presidential immunity is even a thing.

Now we find out it is, with pretty overarching means. People were asking, well, who were the dissents, because we said it was a six to three. You had Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all coming through with a dissent there.

But my dad, Jay Secula, is joining us right now. I just want to get your initial thoughts. People want your feedback of what this means and what it looks like for the future for some of these President Trump's cases. Well, number one, it's a huge win for the President, former President, because the court not only recognized immunity, but they said there's presumptive immunity. In other words, it's presumed that the acts the President are engaged in are official acts. And then they went through a litany of the indicted facts and said that most of those were official acts.

There's only a couple that he's sending, that John Roberts is sending back to the trial judge for an evidentiary hearing. And even on those, it's presumed, he says that in the order, in the opinion, it's presumed that those are official acts. By the way, the opinion tracks very closely to the brief that we filed. And it also cites frequently to the cases we argued for President Trump four years ago at the Supreme Court, Trump versus Vance and Trump versus Mazar. And both of those cases are cited extensively justifying the Presidential immunity here.

Let me tell you something that a lot of commentators are not picking up. This will end the case in Georgia against President Trump, because remember that conversation that serves as the basis of that lawsuit was strictly the phone call to Brad Raffensperger. Well, under the court's analysis, that is not only presumed official act, that is an official act. So I think Fannie Willis' prosecution of the President is dead. As we look at this opinion, and you couple it as well with the Fisher case that came out last week, and even on this broadcast you said the case for Jack Smith is dead there, but now you even have the broader statute he was charged with, the conspiracy to defraud the United States. And that is one of the specific charges that the court seemed very nervous about, especially in light of future presidencies. And when you look at this coupled today with what we have as well as last week, do you think that the district court even takes this at this point? Or does Jack Smith have to refile in some way to try to parse this out? Well, I think there's going to be motions to dismiss filed on the basis of the two conspiracy claims out of the basis of the decision that came out last week.

So, and he can't simply refile charges, he has to re-impanel a grand jury. So I think we'll effectively, and to our audience, those cases, Jack Smith's hurdle now is, I think it's insurmountable. This is a typical of what Jack Smith does, by the way. He overcharges everything.

And this is another example of that. Let's go ahead and take a phone call. A lot of people are calling in with some questions about sort of legality and the future of some of these cases. Let's go to Angie, who's calling on line one. She's in Colorado listening on the radio. Angie, welcome.

You're on the air. How does this case, the immunity, affect the ruling on July 11th that Rashawn's going to hand down? So for the Judge Rashawn's case, how will it affect, really, how does it affect in general a lot of the cases, Dad?

Maybe you could break that down a bit. How does it affect the cases moving forward, or the ruling that's coming, or even the sentencing that's coming? Does this play a factor? Yeah, so like I said, I think the Georgia case is totally dead as it relates to President Trump, so I think that's over with. Rashawn's was a state criminal proceeding on business records. Probably doesn't apply to that at all. I think the same's true with the New York AG case.

Not likely to apply here. And they'll raise issues that I'm sure will be litigated. But I think the Georgia case, which was the next pressing case for the President, has got serious trouble. And I think Judge Cannon's case, the document case, has also got serious trouble because he's going to argue, the President will argue, that those records were taken in the context of official acts of the presidency.

Remember, they were moved down before he was still in office. I think people keep bringing up, there's a lot of comments coming in, a lot of people are encouraged by this. And obviously, up until last week, you know, last week there was, dealt out some wins, some losses here. You had a big buildup of the Supreme Court where there's been a lot of pushback, whether that is on Justice Alito, whether that is on just the court. We even saw it in the debates where, you know, President Biden said, well, he's packed it full of hardcore conservatives.

But then we've seen some kind of switches in there. We've seen some wins and losses. It does feel like we actually have more of a balanced Supreme Court than the left maybe wants you to believe. Well, last week, Logan, the case, I think the example of that was the case involving the January 6th protesters because you had Justice Jackson join the conservatives and Justice Barrett join the liberals.

And, of course, the conservatives carried the day with Justice Jackson's vote. And she went and wrote a separate concurring opinion, spelling out the importance of the case for First Amendment purposes, which, again, was something we argued. So you look at all of this and you've got to realize that these are not necessarily falling on ideological lines. But I think this has been it.

I'll tell you this. I believe this is a death blow to Jack Smith's litigation between Friday's decision or Thursday's decisions. And today's it's a death blow to his case in Washington, D.C., when you think of the broader implications of this. And this is one thing that I know we reference many times that if you can start picking apart and even the broadness of the conspiracy to defraud statute, things that you don't like about what a President has done during their presidency and then rogue prosecutors, as you've discussed many times, decide to go after a former President or even a sitting President building a case while they're in office. In one part of the opinion, it says an enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute, referring to Section 371. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine in feebling the presidency in our government would result with a cycle of factional strife. Do you think that even President Biden and maybe even former President Obama are sighing a little bit a sigh of relief at this opinion?

Of course they are. I mean, I couldn't believe that he allowed the Solicitor General to argue there was no immunity because it affects him. It affects every President. And by the way, that was very similar to the line I opened up the oral argument with in 2020 when I said 2,300 prosecutors going after a President.

I said just 10 percent of those went after it would be 230 cases. So Justice Roberts picking up the same kind of thought when he said that it allowed for a new administration to come in and then the Department of Justice starts going after the previous administration criminally. So, yeah, of course, I think that, look, I think at the end of the day, they're bringing a sigh of relief. I mean, the Biden administration has got other problems right now, and that's determining whether he's going to even stay in running for office. But this decision today, I think, is really good for the office of the presidency, no matter who that President is.

We've always argued that the President has a unique role because it's the only branch of government where one person is the branch, and that's the executive branch of the President. Absolutely. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. If you're new, by the way, because a lot of people are joining us right now on YouTube, but we can always tell about 50 percent of the audience doesn't subscribe. They're brand new to our show.

We do this show each day, Monday through Friday, have for many, many years. You can be a part of this community. It's great. Click that subscribe button. We appreciate it. Hit the thumbs up.

Do whatever you need to do to get involved. Hit us in the comments. If you don't even know what to say, let me know where you're watching from. We like to see. You know what?

American politics and American news actually gets really ingested all over the world, and we get to see that on platforms like YouTube and on Rumble, where people are watching everywhere that they can, and they get their comments in, so it's always cool to watch. But again, we'd love to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. Next segment, Professor Harry Hutchinson is joining us, and then later in the broadcast, if you have a question about sort of the Biden concerns, we're going to have on Rick Grenell.

We're going to really be diving into that coming up towards the end of the broadcast. However, we are right now kicking off today our life and liberty drive, which means all gifts, when you support this work, because we can't do this broadcast, we can't do our legal work, none of it happens without your support. And that only happens really when you say, I am going to dedicate to give a financial, just anything, whether that is $5 once, or whether that is $5 a month or $50 a month, whatever it can be. But really, in these special months, and today kicks off the life and liberty drive, your gifts are doubled dollar for dollar, and it is only through you and your support, and our ACLJ members, those people that give on a one-time basis, you know, regularly, or people that we call ACLJ champions. ACLJ champions, almost 21,000 of you are ACLJ champions, those people that are dedicated to giving to the ACLJ on a monthly, recurring basis, if you are one of those champions, I thank you. If you have been a champion, thank you, we'd love to have you back.

Do that right now. Go to ACLJ.org, have your tax-deductible gift doubled as we launch today. It's the big kickoff day of our life and liberty drive. Keep us in the fight.

Okay, we good? Keep us in the fight. ACLJ.org, we can't take again any of these crucial cases without you.

Phone lines are completely jammed. We have phone calls about Jack Smith, about President Biden, about the Supreme Court, and we're going to go through all of those coming up throughout this broadcast. So again, the next segment where we join by Professor Harry Hutchinson, give you more inside look into what this decision means and what it means for the future.

Then later on, Rick Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence, who's a part of our secular team, part of the ACLJ team. We cannot have people like him if it wasn't for your support. So again, you're going to hear me talk about it today and for the next month.

It's the life and liberty drive. Be a part of it. But kick us off with a really strong day.

That would be amazing. And also, two lines just opened up. 1-800-684-3110. President Trump just posted on Truth Social. Big win for democracy today. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. Professor Harry Hutchinson joining us in studio as well as Will Haines, executive producer of this broadcast. And we have a packed show today because obviously the breaking news is the Supreme Court has ruled on Presidential immunity, essentially establishing, if you will, Presidential immunity or absolute immunity. If it's an official act, what an official act is.

Those are the big questions that we're going to have coming out of this. But I think all the commentators, whether you're watching Fox or CNN, whatever it is, are all giving this as a big win to President Trump. Professor Hutchinson, I just wanted to get your initial thoughts on this opinion. Well, I think it's important to note that this particular opinion does not necessarily establish Presidential immunity. That is established by the Constitution pursuant to the separation of powers. So it's embedded within our constitutional structure that the President needs immunity in order to function properly. Otherwise, he or she would be hamstrung with respect to engaging in conduct that might indeed be seen questionable after the fact.

That's number one. Number two, the happiest two individuals with respect to this opinion are Barack Obama and Joe Biden, because essentially their conduct, particularly official conduct, is now subject to immunity and the Supreme Court has made that very, very clear. Thirdly, I would argue that Justice Roberts was very intent on establishing this principle for all future Presidents, not simply President Trump.

So I think this is a win for the Constitution, it's a win for the American people, and it's a win for democracy. Professor Hutchinson, there's something that comes out of one of the concurring opinions. This is from Justice Thomas and it relates to something we talked about on this broadcast just a couple of weeks ago, where Judge Cannon in Florida held a hearing and a lot of commentators called it unprecedented that she would have this hearing, not just on the documents, but actually had oral argument in her courtroom about whether or not Jack Smith has the authority, or was properly or lawfully appointed as special counsel.

And we predicted then that could be an issue that could find its way up to the Supreme Court. If she were to say, I don't think he has been appointed properly, that's going to be appealed, and then it would naturally make its way up to the Supreme Court on an issue like that. We're seeing a little bit of telegraphing from Justice Thomas where he sits on this issue, and he writes in his concurrence, in this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as special counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But I'm not sure that any office for the special counsel has, quote, been established by law as the Constitution requires. By requiring that Congress create federal offices, quote, by law, the Constitution imposes an important check against the President.

He cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there's no law establishing that office that the special counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. And he even goes on to say, if this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. So we see a Supreme Court justice taking on an issue that's a very live issue in a court in Florida right now. Judge Cannon has not ruled on that yet. But what's your take on what Justice Thomas decided to reveal here about his thoughts on the Office of the Special Counsel? Well, several takes. Number one, Justice Thomas is telegraphing an issue before Judge Cannon's court.

That's number one. Number two, I think Justice Thomas is correct, more likely than not, Jack Smith was not duly appointed consistent with the United States Constitution. If Justice Thomas is correct, then all of the cases brought by Jack Smith should fall apart.

And you would then need to appoint a different individual who would, I think, have to go before a grand jury and to bring these cases in the future. So this means at the end of the day, I think, at least from Justice Thomas' perspective, that all of these cases fall away. And as Jay pointed out correctly, I think the Georgia case goes away, the Jack Smith case in Florida goes away, and the election interference case goes away.

And so I think at the end of the day, what have we seen? We have seen a waste of millions upon millions of dollars in the prosecution of a former President. And there is no legal or constitutional basis for these prosecutions. I mean, they go away regardless if President Trump wins reelection.

I think that is correct. A lot of people are obviously saying if he wins, a lot of these are dead. So whether he wins or loses, these cases should go away. And it provides basically an object lesson for any future President. If you are going to appoint a special counsel, make sure that special counsel was duly appointed. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

And typically, as we have seen with Jack Smith, virtually everything he does is a waste of time. Let's quickly take a call. Let's go to Roger, who's calling in Oregon on Line 3. Roger, you're on the air. Yes, thank you for taking my call. I have more of a comment than questions. I'm not surprised by the Supreme Court decision.

I actually expected it. What I find encouraging and comforted by is that on one side we've got judges grounded in the Constitution, and his decisions are framed by the Constitution. However, on the other side, there are judges who view the Constitution as a fluid document, like Hillary Clinton envisioned in her debate with President Trump in 2016. And this is even made worse by a new liberal judge who can't even define what a woman is, which to me is very scary.

Yeah, I think there's a lot of reaction coming out. There's actually, I saw one of the chyrons, we have all the news stations up here, and it said that Jeffries calls the Supreme Court extremist, right-wing extremists is what's happening. But of course, that's only on the cases where they disagree with him. Because we've had now cases, many in the last few weeks, where you've said this is a very balanced court.

Well, and even to that point, the caller was referencing Justice Jackson at the end of that comment. But she actually sided with the conservatives on the Fisher case, and that's where the statute of the obstruction of official proceeding was over-broadly interpreted and actually could infringe on many First Amendment activities the way that the court was taking it. And so therefore, even sometimes the justices you don't expect to side with you side with the Constitution.

Maybe some of them are actually doing their job, and I think that's okay. If you actually have a Supreme Court where it's respected that they will call things the way they feel and the way they see it, and also when they think it's constitutional. And I think maybe what we're seeing is though they get mad about these cases, really if you break it down, I'm going to encourage you, caller, to not fall into that trap. Because there are sometimes, I mean sure, they're going to fall a little bit more conservative, a little more liberal, but we are seeing now, time and time again, as has been in the Supreme Court, and I've only got a minute here, that sometimes it can be pretty even-handed. I think that's precisely correct, and if you look at the Fisher case, it's important to keep in mind that that case was predicated on an Enron accounting scandal statute. It was designed to prevent future Enrons.

It was not designed to deal with so-called interference with official proceedings in Congress. All right, we're going to be taking more calls coming up. Jerry 1-800-684-3110, a second half hour of the broadcast, Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us as well, and we're going to take your calls, but some of you losers here, if you're on radio, if you do, find us on ACLJ.org, find us on YouTube, find us on Rumble. We're broadcasting live there right now for another half hour or later on on podcast feeds. You can find us, because we are kicking off the Life and Liberty Drive today. Be a part of it. Become an ACLJ champion also if you can. That is someone at any level that decides to give on a recurring, automatic basis.

You can do that right now, and during Life and Liberty, all donations are matched and doubled. Be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.

Welcome back. We've got a lot of calls lined up, and we're going to keep taking those coming up a lot, and we're going to take in the final segment, which is not that far away. Next segment, we've got Rick Rinnell joining us, but we also want to encourage, as we are in this Life and Liberty Drive, to understand the impact of the ACLJ, the ACLJ's work, and our attorneys.

And there's actually some, you know, there's some parallels to some of the work we have done and what came out of this decision. That's right. So back on May 12th of 2020, Jay Sekulow, your dad, argued at the Supreme Court in a case titled Trump v. Vance. This was the oral argument. We're going to play a bite from that oral argument.

He actually referenced it two segments ago. There's something fun that was actually done in this room. That's right. Because this was during the height of COVID, so this was when all Supreme Court cases were virtual. So it was argued, the Supreme Court was argued from this very room, so just some fun fact.

That's right. So you'll hear this audio from this room by 29, and then I'll read from the opinion. The Second Circuit is wrong. It should be reversed. If not reversed, the decision weaponizes 2,300 local DAs.

An overwhelming number of them are elected to office and are thereby accountable to their local constituencies. The decision would allow any DA to harass, distract, and interfere with a sitting President, subject the President to local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions, and to state grand juries who can then be utilized to issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the President. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case. And from the opinion from Chief Justice Roberts in this case, in the immunity case, Trump versus the United States, this says, an enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The feebling of the presidency and our government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the framers intended to avoid.

Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors. Very, very similar language. Different words, but same idea of what your dad argued in front of the Supreme Court just over four years ago.

Yeah, exactly. And that again happened here in this room. So you see how sort of the work that we do here, and the legal experts we have too, how it bleeds over, even when it's not something we're directly involved in, how we are involved in many different ways.

So again, support the work of the ACLJ during this life and liberty drive. I want to quickly take a call because I'll lead into our next segment with Rick Grenell. Let's go to Dave, who's calling online too. Dave's calling.

You're on the air in Maryland. Yes. I want to know, does the cabinet have the authority to get an incompetent President out of office?

Look, we can talk about that coming up with Rick Grenell. I think technically, yes. Do I think that that is likely how this is going to go down? No. I think if President Biden is going to potentially not be the candidate, he's going to have to voluntarily do that.

Now voluntarily, maybe with pressure, maybe with force. I thought, you know, I was at a concert Saturday night. I got a bus. President Biden to meet with his family on Sunday to discuss future. That did not sound promising for the Biden camp. But then they seemed to start spinning it. They started spinning it. Well, he met.

The families decided, keep on going. Of course, when the other work is happening where everyone else on all the networks are saying don't. And look, I have to say, do I feel that a lot of this was contrived, that they thought President Biden would fall on his face and therefore they would be able to do this? And all the media has decided to now all of a sudden be against President Biden.

I mean, I feel that way. So in some ways, I don't really feel for President Biden because I don't agree with him on really much of anything. But the guy did work for practically 90 years to become the President of the United States. And while I do not think he is up for the job, it would take a lot for me if I'm the him to be convinced to step down. Now, when you fought your entire life to be the President, when that's been your goal, that seems to be your number one goal your whole life.

Now you finally got it. The bunch of people, you know, commentators are going to tell you to step down. I don't think that's how that's going to work. And frankly, I hope that's not that. I hope it is a Trump Biden run, because that will be a much more like the swerve that could happen here could be gigantic.

So we need to keep our eyes on the on the on the end game here, which is support some good policies, not just these people. 1-800-684-3110. Call in at three lines open right now.

We are just kicking off our life in Liberty Drive. Become an A.C.L.J. champion. All donations matched. A.C.L.J.

dot org. Welcome back to Secular. We're now joined by senior advisor for national security and foreign policy, Rick Rinnell, who joins us here each and every week. But today, big Supreme Court victory comes up for President Trump.

I thought this is a great time to have him. And of course, the fallout from not only the debate, but now the weekend of going back and forth of whether it seems like the Democrats are going to actually get behind their candidate of Joe Biden or the families going to meet. And then they're going to say, oh, but we met and we decided we're going to keep moving forward, which honestly is what I hope happens, because I think the swerve of trying to replace him could be chaotic for everyone.

So I'm very much in favor of that. And of course, we saw the debate, we saw a clear picture there, but I want to get your thoughts, Rick, first on this win as Supreme Court for President Trump and the immunity decision. Your thoughts. Just give me your thoughts in general.

Go from there. I mean, look, I think most people are sitting listening to the Supreme Court decision and saying it's common sense, right? Donald Trump has immunity for everything he did as President because that is common sense. Of course he should, because he's got to make the best decisions.

Sometimes those are tough decisions. But the personal aspect is where I think the left is going to try to wiggle their way in. But as President, there's not much that you're making that is personal.

Everything you're doing is about the job because you are President of the United States. This seems like common sense to me, but seeing the left completely melt down with really crazy radical theories. I think that what so many people on the left did is they just read the minority opinion and they didn't read the majority opinion. And now they're screaming about the slippery slope of the minority opinion. But I think what people have to recognize is that the minority opinion, they lost.

There were three of them and six judges said, no, you're wrong. And so the majority opinion is what rules the day. And I think people just need to calm down, read it. It's full of common sense. It makes sense to the average person. It should be good for all Presidents moving forward, not just President Trump and all Presidents previously.

Right. Specifically previously, because it's talking about former Presidents in that point. But, Rick, my question is, do you think we've seen this before, that when the left gets opinions out of the Supreme Court that they don't like, their first thing to do is to attack the institution and say, we need to pack the court so that we can only get opinions that go our way, which seems to be the most effective way to preserve democracy, which is what they're so concerned about. But if you if you look at what come out today and knowing that we are now in the heat of the campaign season, heading up to the convention for the Republicans here at the end of the month and then a little bit later for the Democrats, do you think now maybe they're shifting a little bit more away from their angst against Israel and maybe turn it back at the Supreme Court on the left? Look, I think that this today's Democratic Party is so radical, so left that they don't even know what to attack every day.

It's something different. And if you would have told me that the Democratic Party was going to stand for more than two genders, an open border, more wars, you could just go through the list of things where they're going after their political opponents. They're trying to jail their political opponents.

Today, Steve Bannon goes to jail. I mean, literally this radical party, today's Democratic Party needs to be defeated. They can't be compromised with you can't come to some sort of a middle ground with people that are this radical.

And I think that the Democratic Party needs to have a inward conversation about what they stand for. They've lost the middle. They've lost common sense. And they must be defeated to show them that they've got to come back to the middle. I mean, for people who are watching this election, we can't have a Democratic Party that literally is trying to say that there are more than two genders.

And yet they're mocking people for, you know, some sort of science denial. They've become our worst nightmares when it comes to denying common sense, denying the facts. And so what they need to be shown is that the American people reject them resoundingly in November, and then they'll have an internal conversation and fix their issues and hopefully come back and try to fight for the middle class. We can have a conversation about what's good for the middle class. Let's take a phone call, actually, kind of so we can also talk about what's going on with this situation with President Biden.

Obviously, as the post debate fallout still happening pretty strong. Let's go to Sherry, who's calling on Line 4. In Oregon, you're on the air.

Thank you, guys, and thank you for all you do. My question is, how can they change candidates in the middle after all the primaries and everybody voting for Biden that wanted to? How can they change to a different candidate if he steps down even when nobody has voted for the next person?

And how does that work? Sherry, there is a process. There's a process that can be done.

We'll go into that in a second. Why don't we have Rick, though? But, Rick, as of last week, who do you think it is too late for that?

Yeah, look, I think it's too late. I mean, Sherry's question is a good one as to how can they do it. Well, they could do it because they would suspend reality.

They would suspend the rules and throw out common sense and manipulate the process to the point where everybody would say, wait a minute, you knew he was I'm never going to buy that that the media just found out on Thursday that Joe Biden has early stage dementia. They've been telling us that we're wrong and that it's a cheap fake video every time we pointed it out for the last three years. I actually think the media are complicit in this pyramid scheme. The whole thing came crashing down because the media and the establishment in Washington were trying to trick us and no one was coming forward to pull the curtain back from behind like Wizard of Oz to say, look what's happening. On Thursday, they could no longer keep up their charade.

The whole pyramid scheme came crashing down. So now what we've got to do is hold them to account, hold them to the democratic process that they claim that they want to see. If they want to change horses right now, after their primary is over, they should be told that they can't do it.

They had this opportunity. Joe Biden is their candidate. And I believe that if Joe Biden did step back, it's not an easy decision for the Democrats. Kamala is going to try to take the job and then a whole bunch of people are going to try to challenge it. They only have seven weeks before the convention.

So time is ticking. Yeah, I've never seen anything that felt more calculated in my life on the press. When it went from here's the preview to the debate, the debate happens, and then all of a sudden, an entire panel on CNN have all decided in the same moment, no one's defending him. Honestly, my son, who is not a huge fan of the policies because he grows up in our household, was like, I feel bad for him. I feel bad for President Biden because I felt bad for him watching it.

I think a lot of people did. And then you feel bad that there's not one person there defending you. And now all of it becomes a press statement of, oh, well, he needs to do the right thing, step aside. Then he meets with his family to try to step aside. But also I was telling Will, and I believe this in our audience, that President Biden has worked 90 years practically to become the President of the United States. He's a career politician. This is not a guy who you probably are going to easily be able to convince to not run. I mean, let's just take the politics aside that we don't agree with him. These kind of characters do not easily just go away.

Yeah. Look, I have to be honest with you, Logan. I'm on the front lines here in what Jack Smith and this DOJ have done to me, what they've done to President Trump, what they've done to my friends. When I see the media literally lying for the Biden team, I don't feel sorry for them one iota. They made this bed. They picked this guy.

They tried to dupe us. And I don't feel sorry for people who have manipulated the system completely. And I just want to say that because I think there are those of us on the front lines who have experienced this. You know, I've paid a lot of money to defend myself in court for ridiculous, dumb lawsuits that are law fair coming after me.

And I know a whole bunch of my friends that have spent tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to defend against these ridiculous claims. And so when I saw this come crashing down, my my only thought was this is what they deserved. They sowed this, and now they must reap it. Hey, we're going to take some more phone calls coming up. Thanks, Rick, for joining us. We always appreciate your commentary. Read more content, see more content from Rick. Make sure you're subscribed to all of our platforms on social media, on YouTube, on Rumble, as well on ACLJ.org.

There's always great content there. In the next segment, we like to hear we've heard from incredible experts like Rick Grenell. We've heard from my dad, Jay Sekula. We've heard from Harry Hutchinson.

You've heard, obviously, from our team here. Now we get to hear what I always say, the most important voice in the room, and that's you. We've got three lines open right now. Give us a call.

1-800-684-3110. If you're one of the brand new people, and I can tell just by the amount of you that are watching on YouTube and on Rumble as well, and on YouTube right now specifically, well, actually, hit subscribe. Hit that subscribe button. Of course, you can ring the bell. You can hit the thumbs up.

Do all that. But hit subscribe right now because we do this show each and every day, and there's thousands of you watching, more so than even normal. So be a part of this great community. Get involved in the chats. You're seeing the clowns come in. Of course, that always happens right around now. You know, the clowns get sent in, so have some fun here in the next segment.

But I want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. We are kicking off day one of the Life and Liberty Drive. You've heard about the amazing work the ACLJ is doing, and we can't do that without ACLJ donors, ACLJ members, and ACLJ champions. That's monthly recurring donors.

And right now, all gifts are doubled dollar for dollar. Keep us in the fight. ACLJ.org. Your voice coming up next. Alright, it's time to take some phone calls. A lot of you have been on hold for a long time.

Let's go ahead and just go through them. Linda's calling right off the top. Linda in Maryland on line one. You're on the air. Hi. I thought I heard earlier.

Thank you for taking my call, by the way. I thought I heard earlier that somebody was suggesting that Prosecutor Smith or whatever, Special Counsel Smith, could refile. But my understanding is, since the SCOTUS sent it down and remanded it, that it has to be heard first before he could choose to refile.

Is that correct? Well, I think there's several different layers here, Linda, that we have to look at. And one is that there are two cases now that have been remanded after the decision out of the Supreme Court. One being the Fisher case, which related to the obstruction of an official proceeding charge.

And then there's also the one now that refers to the immunity. So there will be a couple different angles that will have to be sent down. And then the lower court would have to look at, one, the Fisher opinion on whether or not that case could go forward on those charges. And at that point, if they say these charges cannot go forward, then that is probably when it would trigger Jack Smith needing to refile. It wouldn't be an immediate now that the Supreme Court has put it out. And that would have to impanel a new grand jury. That would have to have a different slate of evidence potentially because of the things that are having to be omitted from that. But then you also look at this where the court will also need to decide what in his original indictment would equate to being an official act or an unofficial act. So there is a lot of work that I think has to go forward with the district court naturally as a result of this being remanded back down.

But it is necessary. I'm not necessarily sure what the timing would look like, but I think there are at least some work that Judge Chutkin would have to do first before he would then take it and refile. I think that ties in pretty well to our next call. By the way, a couple lines are open now. 1-800-684-3110. Kind of last chance to get on the air. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Tim in California. Tim, you're on the air. Yes.

Yeah, I got a question. This diplomatic, I mean Presidential immunity, does that apply to, let's say, the Biden case because of his influence peddling? A lot of that took place prior, or accused influence peddling, a lot of it took place prior to him being in President, but he maybe fulfilled those agreements that were made while he was in President, as President. Yeah, hey Tim, I hate to cut you off, but you've got some sound connection problems, but I think this ties into the stuff that happens when he was a President ties back into the what is an official act.

That's right. And so what Tim is talking about here is the accusations that have been levied against the President. If they were things that he was doing, and Hunter Biden was using the fact that he was the former vice President, one, that would be a completely different set of facts, but most of that that they've keyed in on was either while he was vice President or after the fact when he was out of office. And so that would not have any bearing on this case because this was specifically about Presidential immunity and official acts as President. So this wouldn't really have anything to do with that. And it also kind of goes to the point of why it wouldn't have any influence on the New York case because that was during, prior to President Trump becoming elected President, it was the alleged, or I guess what they decided were false business records.

They weren't, had nothing to do with his presidency and occurred before he was President. So none of the immunity claims here would take place there. All right, let's continue on. Let's go to Susan, who's calling in Maryland on line four. Susan, you're on the air.

Yes, hi. Regardless of who wins, where does all of the campaign money, the millions and millions of dollars, where does that money go regardless of who wins the primary, who wins the election? So your question, Susan, is that if Joe Biden were to not be the nominee or to remove himself from that process, where would that campaign money go? I believe it would probably, I mean, many of it, much of it is probably held by the DNC. So I bet you'd have a lot of it shifted as well as, I mean, there are costs, they got to wrap up business.

Who knows what staff is being moved over? Look, it'd be a very unprecedented thing to happen, but I think what you probably would see would be just some of it shifting over because as the current President and the nominee, a lot of this is being controlled by the DNC. And as well, even when we talk about the primaries, when a candidate suspends their campaign, they don't shut up shop.

They normally have to pay off a lot of people for a long time that they had contracts with and things of that nature. So it's not like it would just cease to exist the Biden-Harris campaign. So we would see some of that wiggle room there, but also it would probably end up going to whoever is the Democrat candidate there. All right. Let's go take a last call of the day. Let's go to Dennis who's calling in Arizona on line two. You're on the air, Dennis.

Hi. My question is, would today's ruling on the immunity issue be the basis for a malicious prosecution lawsuit against these district attorneys? So, Dennis, it's an interesting question. Obviously, optically, what Jack Smith is doing seems pretty malicious in a lot of what the left is doing. However, I reached out to some of our attorneys and got a little bit of an answer for you on this. One, the Supreme Court, by vacating and remanding, they were still telling the district court, now you need to go look at these charges and see, based off of our guidance from our opinion about Presidential immunity, which of these charges can stand and not stand. So they didn't just wipe the slate clean in that aspect of the case as well. So, one, those charges still exist while then they're reexamined and see what happens to go forward as well.

But also this isn't a improper lawsuit that you would see coming out of a civil dispute or even a criminal dispute where there is no cause of action or there's no probable cause brought forward by the plaintiff in this. So, unfortunately, although it looks pretty malicious, the answer seems to be no, that wouldn't be the remedy here, but still a big vindication in this case. Absolutely. Hey, I want to appreciate and thank all of you who have been staying and watching, all the brand new people who are joining us on social media. Thank you so much to our incredible team who put this broadcast out there, our legal team that are always involved in every aspect. And none of this happens without you and your support. So today, as we wrap up this show again, this is the kickoff today of our Life and Liberty Drive. I want to get off this show today and I want to see that we have raised a lot of support because all of you, I know thousands of you that are watching live and the millions of the view that watch later on or listen, be a part of the Life and Liberty Drive right now. All donations are matched.

That means if you give twenty dollars, there is another supporter out there who has already pledged to give twenty dollars to match it. And we are in the middle of a lot right now. I'm just going to go through some of the highlights right now. We just helped win a massive case against Biden's lawfare on his political opponents in the Supreme Court this morning. We're sending a demand letter to the U.N. today to defend Israel. We're filing a major brief to defund Planned Parenthood at the Supreme Court.

That is this week. And last week we heard loud and clear if President Biden re-wins, wins re-election, he's going to do everything to reinstate Roe, use his power to do that. He's going to continue to betray Israel.

We know this for his own political gain. But we can only do this with the support of ACLJ members and ACLJ champions. An ACLJ champion is someone who wants to give on a monthly recurring basis. Help us stay in the fight. Keep us in the fight. Donate today at ACLJ.org and have your tax deductible gift doubled as we launch today, kicking off big, our Life and Liberty Drive. Again, ACLJ.org or scan the code that's on your screen if you're watching this broadcast. And if you don't watch, start watching. It's a much better experience. We'll talk to you tomorrow.