CHAOS: Calls For Supreme Court Impeachment

This is Logan Sekulow.

After the Trump immunity decision, the left calls to impeach the Supreme Court. 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, Logan Sekulow.

Welcome to Sekulow. We will be taking your calls as it was said at 1-800-684-3110. We've got a packed show. We're going to have Professor Harry Hutchinson, C.C. Heil Senior Counsel, and Rick Grinnell joining us later in the broadcast. So make sure you stay tuned. It's going to be packed.

And again, phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. After the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, we thought maybe we'd have a quiet evening, but of course it doesn't look like that. President Biden decided to make a White House address to discuss his disgust with the Supreme Court as he proclaimed, I dissent.

That's right. So as seems to be normal for the left, whenever there's an opinion out of the Supreme Court they disagree with, they have to go on the attack. They have to attack the actual institution of the Supreme Court. And what we got last night from President Biden, as you mentioned, was a White House address decrying the decision of the Supreme Court when it comes to Presidential immunity. Forgetting the fact that even some of the wording in the decision made reference to like, if this weren't the case, Presidents who've done maybe a poor job with the border could be subject to a rogue prosecutor. Even the article that I was reading this morning from NBC News said, well, this also protects President Biden. But of course, President Biden not thinking about that. His campaign is thinking about precisely that. The campaign, how this affects elections coming up in just a matter of months, not about the long-term implications of this. And as someone also probably in their mid-80s doesn't really have as concerned with as much of the long-term implications of the law as we see how slow these things go. So you start acting like, okay, I'm going to deal with this when I'm in my mid-90s. All right, we'll deal with that then.

Again, phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. What do you think about this? Here is some words specifically from Joe Biden. That what bite you want to play? Let's play Bite Four. This is where the President broadens his attack on the Supreme Court of not just this decision, but a lot of the decisions they've made recently.

Let's play Bite Four. This decision today has continued the court's attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation. From gutting voting rights and civil rights, to taking away a woman's right to choose, to today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation. Undermining the rule of law of the nation. Of course, that is that Presidents have some kind of immunity when dealing with official acts of the President. It doesn't even feel like that crazy of a statement to even make.

Something I assume most people thought was already some kind of law. Give us a call. I want to hear from you, as I said, at 1-800-684-3110, because we're going to hear from some experts like Harry Hutchinson, C.C. Heil, Rick Grenell, but of course we want to hear from you as well. And hey, we are just now in day two, and we had a great, great day one. I want to thank everyone who supported us during this life and liberty drive. But remember, we kicked it off yesterday.

That means for the month of June, or July, all donations are doubled dollar for dollar. It is only through the support of you that we can continue doing this work, whether that is our legal work you're going to hear about coming up in the next segment with Harry Hutchinson, also with the work that we're doing right now for Israel right now at the ICC. You're going to hear about that with C.C. Heil.

We can't do any of that or even put on this show, put on this broadcast for you without your financial support. Last night, you heard President Biden make it clear that he's targeting his political rivals by denouncing the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity and obviously pushing really hard back on the overturning of Roe versus Wade. He said it'll do everything in his power to reinstate it.

He continues to betray Israel, and it'll do everything to undermine our constitutional republic. But we can fight back. You can be a part of this. It's not just about fear.

It's about looking towards the future and looking towards the hope. And right now, we're preparing to file an amicus brief at the ICC to defend Israel. You're going to hear about that coming up in a few segments. We just helped win a massive case of lawfare for the political opponents of the Supreme Court. We're filing a major brief to defund Planned Parenthood and the Supreme Court this coming Friday.

We can't do any of these without you. So donate today. Scan the QR code on your screen right now if you're watching at ACLJ.org and have your tax-deductible gift doubled as we launch our Life and Liberty Drive. And if you're able to, and a bunch of you did yesterday, I appreciate it, become an ACLJ champion. That is someone that supports the work of the ACLJ on a monthly, recurring basis. So you say that you give $10 a month, we would appreciate it.

You can set whatever number that is, whatever you feel comfortable at. Again, give us a call right now, 1-800-684-3110, because we're going to be taking your calls coming up. Welcome back to Secula. Professor Harry Hutchinson is joining us, but we did want to give you a bit of a setup here before we get to that conversation. Because as we said, there have been calls now for the impeachment.

You saw that in the title, possibly, if you're watching on YouTube or on Rumble. The impeachment of the Supreme Court. And Will, of course, this comes from some of the top leaders in the squad.

That's right. So this comes from your favorite Congresswoman and mine, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She tweeted yesterday after the Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy.

It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return. So Professor Hutchinson, the distinguished Congresswoman from New York, is now saying that when they get back from their recess, obviously Congress isn't there working the July 4th week and sometime after, she plans on filing articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court.

What's your take on that? Well, my take is that AOC will simply file articles of impeachment against the conservative justices, the ones she doesn't like. So she will basically make a selective filing. But if you look at this in context, it's important to keep in mind Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, he's also attacked the Supreme Court. He has said that the House will engage in aggressive oversight. Joe Biden has essentially suggested that the Supreme Court must be attacked because no one in the United States is king. These individuals fail to understand that this particular decision protects Democratic Presidents just as much as it protects Republicans. And so one of the things to keep in mind is that during the Obama-Biden administration, the Obama-Biden administration targeted American citizens in Yemen and killed them. And this particular decision protects President Obama and arguably protects Joe Biden.

So this particular decision requires a balanced review and we should anticipate that anything that comes from the mouth of AOC, Hakeem Jeffries, and Joe Biden will be unbalanced. So we saw something interesting yesterday when this decision first came out. It was at first all the chyrons on CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News to some extent were saying things like the Supreme Court gives limited immunity, things of that nature. And even we in our pre-radio meeting were like, I think it's a little bit more broad than they're letting on. And then it seems like the left read the opinion and then quickly changed their tune from there's some limited immunity to this is literally the worst thing in the world, democracy is over, the President had to give a speech from the White House quoting from the dissent of Sotomayor. And what do you think was that there? They were first trying to get a capture on the narrative by downplaying it or do you think they just hadn't read it yet?

Well, I think it's probably both. And I think once they read it and once they digested it, they realized that their worst fears were being realized, which was essentially that Donald Trump would not likely face trial on the January 6th election interference claim until 2025, probably at the earliest. And if he wins the presidency, more likely than not, he will never face charges with respect to that activity. But what these individuals failed to realize is that the Supreme Court is looking at history.

It is saying there is something called the separation of powers. And yes, Presidents are entitled to absolute immunity with respect to official acts. They're not entitled to absolute immunity with respect to unofficial acts. And the President is entitled to the presumption of absolute immunity. And so one of the things that I think is imperative with respect to your questions, Will, is that the left digested the opinion and then began to freak out.

Why? Because the left realize that Joe Biden cannot beat Donald Trump in a fair and free election. And so I think they're very worried, particularly given Biden's performance last Thursday, which was a night which will live in infamy, that basically the election is now baked into the cake and many Americans see it. And so unless Joe Biden withdraws, which right now I don't have any evidence of, more likely than not, most prognosticators are suggesting that Donald Trump will likely win in November. This is a horrifying prospect. And so you're seeing commentators in the United States and even in Great Britain suggesting at the end of the day that Biden has only one option, which is to eliminate, perhaps assassinate his opponent.

That's right. The Huffington Post ran a headline which essentially misread the opinion and suggested that now President Biden could assassinate his political rival and get away with it under this newfound immunity that they're saying the Supreme Court found. But there's another element of this, and we actually had a caller about it yesterday, about the the sentencing of President Trump in Manhattan. And on the face of this ruling, it doesn't seem like it would apply at all to the case that was there.

That had to do with the campaign. It had to do with business records, not what you would consider Presidential acts because he wasn't the President when they alleged these crimes happen. But what you saw yesterday was quickly the Trump team file a letter to the judge ahead of the July 11th sentencing. So that would be next Thursday when President Trump was scheduled to be sentenced, asking for a delay in that sentencing and also in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. And they highlighted something interesting was that some of the evidence that Alvin Bragg brought into this case was evidence that he procured while the President was President.

And what the attorneys are trying to argue is that there's an angle here where reading the Supreme Court's opinion, if they're using as evidence something that was an official act, that can't be used and taken as evidence against him. Tell us a little bit about what happened today and about that sentencing and what kind of you read on that legal move. Well, number one, it looks like the judge may be open to delaying sentencing.

Alvin Bragg is open to delaying sentencing. Number two, if you look at the Trump attorney's letter, it is actually grounded in logic because Alvin Bragg adduced evidence which basically was procured after Donald Trump took office. And so Donald Trump engaged arguably in official acts with respect to election finance and other related matters which Alvin Bragg referred to at trial. So even though the conduct at issue that was charged against Donald Trump basically referred to conduct which occurred before he took office, some of the conduct actually occurred afterwards. So if Alvin Bragg still wants to rely on the evidence tied to Trump's conduct after he took office, then it's very possible that we need A, to delay the sentence, but B, we may need to reopen the trial in order to basically eliminate such evidence on which the jurors relied.

That, I think, is a very important issue. My legal judgment is, however, that more likely than not Judge Markan will simply kick this up to the Court of Appeals and say, Court of Appeals, you deal with it. We've had a trial, we've had a judgment, but I think the Trump attorneys were very, very sharp in not delaying issuing a letter within hours of the Supreme Court opinion. Because on its face, we even discussed that, it seemed as though it wouldn't affect it at all, but as the attorneys were able to pull out, there was evidence which should have been precluded because of this ruling. And now that is still a long shot, I would think, and I'm sure the professor agrees with me on that.

Absolutely. But it at least adds an element of uncertainty, and as of right now, it appears that the judge and Alvin Bragg is not opposing delaying that sentence which was supposed to be handed down next Thursday. Yeah, that was some of the news that came out this morning.

There are some phone lines open. If those of you on hold stay on hold, we'll get to you at 1-800-684-3110. And again, we are Day 2 of our Life and Liberty Drive. All gifts are doubled, so if you have an amount, whether it's $5, $50, whatever it could be, make that donation today and there's another donor on the other side ready to match that during this month. So again, Day 2, help us kick off this first week strong.

It's kind of a shorter week because it's a holiday week, obviously celebrating the 4th of July later in the week. So do it right now. If you're watching, you can scan the QR code. Also, if you're watching and you're brand new, hit that subscribe button if you're on YouTube or on Rumble and that thumbs up, that really does help. So if you see that right now, I know you've been saying, what does it do? It helps more people get this kind of message in their feed.

So do that right now. We'll be right back with C.C. Heil. We'll talk about Israel coming up. Welcome back to Sekulow, Senior Counsel for the ACLJ. C.C.

Heil is joining us and we're going to dive into what's going on at the ICC and what's going on in the world of Israel and how that's being connected right now. But I do encourage you real quick before we get started, phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. If you're on hold right now, we will get to you a little bit later in the broadcast.

We have C.C. joining us. Then we're going to come back. We have a second half hour. Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us. Then we're going to hear from you guys. We're going to take your phone calls. But we are at the very beginning of this life and liberty drive, day two. Be a part of it right now. I'm not going to give you the big pitch right now.

That'll come later on. But I'm going to encourage you, while you listen, while you get educated on what is going on around the world and how the ACLJ is involved, you can be involved as well. And I encourage you to do that right now.

So go to ACLJ.org. All donations, not only are they tax deductible, they are matched right now during this life and liberty drive. So again, whatever you give is matched by another donor. So we really appreciate that. Appreciate those who give to the match and people that support. You can also become an ACLJ champion that is a monthly recurring donor.

Just a little over 21,000, just hit over yesterday, 21,000 new champions. We'd love for you to be a part of that as well, if you could do it. But Will, give us a bit of breakdown of what's going on at the ICC and the International Court of Justice and what's going on.

That's right. So as we talked about about a month or so ago, that there was talk about the prosecutor at the ICC seeking arrest warrants for both Benjamin Netanyahu and the defense minister for alleged war crimes. And we spoke out against this and said we would do whatever we could to try and push back against this, what we thought was an egregious move by the prosecutor there. But the nation of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, decided that they also were not pleased with how the ICC was taking this and they requested to file an amicus brief opposing these arrest warrants as the ICC was weighing whether or not to grant them to their prosecutor.

Now, this has done two things. This is one, put on hold their decision on whether or not to issue these arrest warrants because they allowed Great Britain, the United Kingdom to file this. But in addition to that, they're also offering that opportunity to other parties to present their observations, which is filing an amicus brief in American terms.

And so, CC, what the ACLJ is now doing is we are going to try to capitalize on this moment to try and fight for Israel and support the state of Israel and oppose these arrest warrants by taking action at the ICC. Yeah, so it actually also did one more thing, this filing by the United Kingdom. It also took this whole procedure out of being labeled secret, which the court had basically had it secret, nobody could know what was being filed or see what was being filed. And now the UK has in its request for a leave to submit written observations, they also asked for it to not be secret anymore.

So that's actually a really great thing. So the court granted their application. And in that grant, they said other parties could now file because under the International Criminal Court, it's very specific that it's usually member states. So that's different countries.

Those are the ones that have the ability to file. But now that the court has opened this up, NGOs, which the ECLJ is our European Center for Law and Justice with United Nations, they're different NGOs, we can actually file. And so we will be filing again, on behalf of Israel, stating the fact that under the Oslo Accords, and this is where it gets kind of technical, and I'll try and explain it. Under the Oslo Accords, jurisdiction criminal jurisdiction was not granted to Palestinians or the Arabs in the Gaza Strip or West Bank. Israel has exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in those areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. So the argument is, when you become a member of the International Criminal Court, you can only grant that court the rights that you have. And so since the Arabs in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the Palestinians, do not have the right to go after any Israeli national for criminal prosecution, they can't grant that right to the court.

And therefore the court cannot grant the rights of these arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. And basically, it's just a determination of jurisdiction saying that the ICC does not have jurisdiction to allow these arrest warrants to issue. And this is an argument that we've taken to the ICC before. Your dad, Logan, has argued at the ICC about jurisdiction when the ICC was coming after Israelis, before when they were trying to find the jurisdiction to go after American soldiers. The United States, because they're not a party to the court, could not send people from the Department of Justice to go argue on behalf of American citizens. But NGOs that did have status were able to go and make these arguments, not directly on behalf of the United States, but on behalf of soldiers that were saying, look, you don't have the jurisdiction.

So we're very familiar with the argument here. We've been there before as the ACLJ and ECLJ to make these arguments of you don't have jurisdiction. This is just now another opportunity for us to use our expertise to go to the ICC and say, look, this isn't your jurisdiction.

You should not be issuing these arrest warrants. Right. And that's really, I guess, you know, that's the initial, that is the initial determination that they have to make. Do they have jurisdiction or not? And if they don't, then that shuts the case down entirely. So these jurisdictional, you know, debates are very, very, very important. And when we're able to go before the ICC and argue that they do not have jurisdiction, like you said, over United States soldiers, they do not have jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in the Gaza Strip or West Bank.

That ends the whole issue. So that's, again, what we're going to do. So we're following up.

We will file a leave to submit our written opposition, our observations to this question of the fact that the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction to issue these arrest warrants. And for those of you listening, when you say we are filing leave, that's asking the court permission to file then our substantial brief. And we hope to file this leave or asking the court to take our brief as soon as tomorrow. As soon as tomorrow.

Yes. So we first have to ask them the procedures. We first have to ask them, do we have permission to file our brief? And hopefully they will grant that since they've already granted the United Kingdom's and then we will file our brief addressing these issues.

All right. Well, phone lines are open if you want to be a part of this conversation as well. Obviously, ACLJ doing very important work right now all around the world. You can be a part of that work as well.

We want you to help us continue the fight, help keep us in the fight and join us in these fights. You could do that again during this life and liberty drive, which just kicked off yesterday. So be a part of it today.

Had a great first day. But we do this because all gifts are doubled, they're matched during certain times of the year. And this is one of those times. So make sure if you're going to give, you're going to give a one-time gift, it's a great time to do it because it's double the impact. If you're going to give on a monthly recurring basis, great time to start because your initial, if you will, donation will be doubled. So that'd be fantastic.

You can do it right now at ACLJ.org. Coming up later on in the broadcast, we have Rick Grenell joining us and then we're going to take your phone calls. I want to encourage you though, stay on hold if you're on hold. And if you don't get us, if you're listening on the radio, which I know a lot of you are, I'm looking at our phone calls right now, all our phone calls right now are from radio. If you're watching right now on social, stick with us. There'll be about a 50-second break and then we're back and we're going to be showing you some amazing stuff coming up in the second half hour. But if you don't get us or if for some reason your station doesn't carry us for the full hour, one, they should.

But two, there's a very easy way to solve that. Subscribe on our YouTube channel. Subscribe on Rumble. Follow us on Facebook or you can even be a part of the conversation happening on Rumble and as well as just go to ACLJ.org. We broadcast this show live each and every day, noon to Eastern.

So be there, noon Eastern to one, we are there for you. So be a part of it. If you're brand new also and you're watching online, we know about half the people who see this are brand new people, hit that subscribe button. The number I think we got from our team was over 700,000 brand new people watched this show last month. 781,590 new viewers on our YouTube channel. And we only have 417,000 subscribers.

So you know what? Go ahead and subscribe. We'd appreciate it. Second half hour coming up.

Just a one-minute break. Stick with us. Don't go anywhere.

Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We're going to kick off this second half hour with actually some phone calls. Will, you want to go to Jack, right?

That's right. We're going to go to, actually, let's go to Michael first in New Hampshire on Line 5. Michael, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Sorry, Jack. We'll get to you. Jack, Michael, go ahead.

Hi. All right. I'm wondering if this decision of the Supreme Court is such a victory for Trump. Doesn't it still leave open the possibility that one of the lower state courts, which haven't been very friendly to Trump generally, could still declare his actions such as took place in Georgia in the wake of the 2020 election as an unconstitutional interference in the election process and kind of allows him to be prosecuted then for that, you know, for that action? Yeah. So, Michael, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded this case.

So it does go back down. But what the judges are going to have to do, he's going to have to do is figure out if the acts, if Trump's acts were official acts or not. That's the question that remains. If they're official, then he's granted immunity from prosecution. And so that will be another thing. If they say that they're not official, then you'll see that that decision appealed as well of what is official act, what is not an official act that he has done on January 6th.

And it also would change the way things are presented. And in some cases, even the indictments may have to be redone, especially in the Jack Smith case. But as you look at the Georgia case, something that was brought up as well is one of the things that even in the opinion the Supreme Court declared was an official act was conversations that President Trump had with other members of the Department of Justice. And one of those individuals is actually a co-defendant in the Georgia case. So the Supreme Court said that their conversations were an official act on their face.

You can't even go there. So it puts the Georgia court in a weird spot where they're trying to prove a conspiracy because it was RICO statutes. So those were a conspiracy, corrupt organization statutes, where if one of the co-defendants that you're alleging was a co-conspirator, that's an immune conversation. Then it puts the Georgia courts and Fannie Willis in a very difficult predicament when it comes to how that would play out. That's if she even keeps her job on this case. But as Jay pointed out yesterday, he thinks that this actually does kind of end her case because of the complexities of a lot of the issues the Supreme Court raised. Yeah, and I think that's the truth. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday was truly a victory on many fronts. And not just in this case, but as you're saying, Will, exactly for the other cases that have implications of what's an official act. And so this case and then the January 6th case that they ruled on earlier, those are going to be two cases that now all these little cases that are against Trump are going to have to be reevaluated under these rulings.

That's right. All right, we got a lot more calls coming in. Let's quickly take one more before we head to break. Let's go to Jack who's calling in Pennsylvania online too.

Jack, you're on the air. Yeah, my question regarding the sentence to come up in, well, I guess later on in July, or who knows, August, whenever, what is the worst judgment that the judge and the folks that are opposed to Trump in this situation, what's the worst judgment they could make? And what do you think the response might be from the Trump team?

Jack, we've done a little research here, had our team look into this. It can go kind of many different ways. But what it seems to me is maybe the maximum could be up to four years in prison, though he could receive as little as a few weeks in jail, or possibly just probation, house arrest.

There's a lot of things that could happen. There's a lot of discretion that the judge has in sentencing. And as we said, it was supposed to be handed down next Thursday. In light of this, I'm sure we'll hear either today or tomorrow whether or not the judge decides to postpone that.

But Alvin Bragg, he's not opposing delaying sentencing. So we'll find out what happens there soon. That's pretty big news, but we'll keep you updated on that. But again, it could happen next week, but there's a good chance now it looks like that that has been bumped back.

What does that mean for the campaign moving forward? Give us a call. We now have a couple lines open. 1-800-684-3110. Rick Rinnells joining us in the next segment.

It's the work of the ACLJ during our life in Liberty Drive. All gifts are doubled. Become a champion. Why don't you do that? Go on there right now. Check that box.

We have a monthly recurring donor. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secular.

Rick Rinnells joining us, senior advisor for national security and foreign policy. This comes on the heels of an actually historic election happening, a parliamentary election in France. And I thought it was funny, Will. I'm not going to call out one of my friends who is more on the left.

But it shows you how disconnected maybe you are from the world. But they posted yesterday after the Supreme Court ruling, Presidential immunity, that how are things looking in France? That maybe that they would accept them because, you know, the Supreme Court has just gone so far right and they just can't take it anymore. But surely things are better in France. And of course, the first comment was clearly you're not paying attention to what's happening in France. And right now, Rick, I think it's something that should be interesting for us to see as we have seen this. We've now seen, again, the first round of France's parliamentary election, a blow to Macron and really what looks to be sort of a surge of a conservative movement. Yeah, look, I think ensemble is going to be the key here. Are certain minority parties going to be able to say, yes, we'll kind of come together and block the conservative groups?

Let's see. I think a lot of those discussions are very difficult because, well, it sounds good initially. The discussions are quickly going to be about, well, who gets what in our coalition government? Who gets the top job?

Who gets the finance job? And that's where parties are going to really begin to fight. I became an expert on this in German politics. The maneuvering to join together and to have a coalition government really breaks down between egos and jobs.

And so that's what we're going to be watching for in France. But the one thing that's clear, Logan, is that across Europe and even in here in the United States, the people are recognizing that things aren't going well. We have multiple wars in this country. Progressive woke left policies are not working and people are beginning to seek a change. Now, the one outlier is the UK because the current government is a center right government who hasn't been able to deliver and there's a lot of frustration with them.

So the people are going to throw them out. So I think change across the country, across the world is really going to win. And, Rick, that's a question I had to follow up is we saw back in 2016 when the Brexit movement happened, a lot of people looked at that and said, Donald Trump could win. If this is a global call for change of the status quo, a rebuke of the elites, he could actually win this. And then as history told us, he did go on to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. When you see this maneuver in France where Macron tried to call snap elections, tried to get ahead of this a little bit, and that clearly didn't work out in his favor, and you see what's going on in Europe, is it any sort of bellwether for what we could be seeing here in November in the United States?

I think the answer is yes. I think that it is a bellwether because people are very frustrated. We've got a major war in the Middle East. We've got a major war in Europe. Inflation is out of control.

They say if the United States sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. And so we're watching how this progressive far left radical policy by the Biden administration is really ruining economies around the world. So there's going to be a clapback.

There's going to be a pendulum swing. And I think that you're seeing that. Remember, too, I'll just finish with this, is that Brexit was about immigration. Brexit was the Brits saying to the EU, you can't get your act together when it comes to enforcing immigration law. You're letting too many people into the continent un-vetted. And that was Merkel. And I think Chancellor Merkel is the reason why the British left the EU. She couldn't control what was happening in terms of immigration. Too many un-vetted people into the continent.

The Brits got scared. Rick, changing topics here a little bit, I've got a soundbite I want to play for you and get your reaction. This is from the former Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Jeh Johnson, who was Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. He was also the boss of our current Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. And he actually said back early with the immigration things, actually was kind of a voice of reason on some of the outlets where he said, look, this is way more than we ever had and this is not a sustainable situation. So people even on the right and in the middle took him seriously to tell it like it is. But he had a reaction to President Biden's debate performance. And this is why he said he trusts President Biden. And I just want to get your reaction on it by 10. A presidency is more than just one man, one woman. It's an administration. I would take Joe Biden on his worst day at age 86.

So long as he has people around him like Avril Haines, Samantha Power, Gina Raimondo supporting him over Donald Trump any day with the crowd that was behind him on January 6, 2021. Rick, I know that those are some of your favorite people, Avril Haines and Samantha Power. I wish we had stayed on Rick's camera during that just to hear the response. That's right. Yeah. So, I mean, with friends like that and an administration like that, what's your take on Secretary Johnson's confidence in this administration? I mean, look, let's just be honest. Samantha Power has been a disaster at USAID. She's all politics. She's turned the place into one big DEI program. People know it.

They're not happy with it. She's spending money like crazy on all of the wrong issues. She couldn't be more partisan in her job. Avril Haines is missing in action. Avril Haines is somebody who came in and repackaged a whole bunch of intelligence to attack the Saudis in an effort to say to the Iranians, we're going to work with you. And we've seen so many leaks of misinformation from Avril Haines' intelligence community, and she's never corrected the record. She's not out there. People don't know what she thinks. They don't know what the intelligence was from, say, October 7. We're not hearing from her. She's not correcting the record.

I think she's really MIA. And so I would not put either one of these two as confident builders for the American people. Rick, also, as we head towards the next segment, in the next segment, we always take phone calls. We let people voice their opinions and their thoughts. We hear from experts like you.

We had on Harry and CeCe and great legal minds throughout this broadcast. But we are also day two of our Life and Liberty Drive Big Fundraising Matching Month, as you will. I think you know, because you've seen it firsthand, the work of the ACLJ, and now you've been a part of it for a number of years now, the impact that people can make.

Because unlike a lot of other broadcasts, maybe they're advertiser driven, or maybe they're driven by big grants or all of those kind of things. That's not how it works here. We are driven by the individual donor and those who give on a monthly recurring basis. But I want to give you an opportunity, because I know you speak passionately about it, because I know you've seen it firsthand. The importance of the work that the ACLJ is doing, obviously around the world, but in our country during these very crazy times. Well, one of the reasons I joined ACLJ is because it's action driven.

It's not just talk. It's not just people saying, you know, hey, we should be outraged. Are you outraged? We have offices around the world at ACLJ. We're at the UN.

We're in Geneva. We're filing lawsuits. We're helping people who can't file lawsuits. The action that is taking place is really comforting to me, because as we see government like the Biden administration go completely haywire or the globalist movement, we need to be able to take action and not just sit back and complain.

Too many people go to social media and complain, but ACLJ is a place where if you support us, you're a part of the action plan, and that's what we need. We need your prayers. We need your support. We need you to repeat all of the initiatives that we're doing, and we need your financial support.

Absolutely. Rick, thank you so much. Again, as Rick said, we are just now, day two, kicking off our life in Liberty Drive. Phone lines are completely jammed. Some will open up, so just stay on hold if you're on hold right now, and of course, if you want to call in, we're going to give you the opportunity, but you can also get in your comments. We have people monitoring our social media feeds. We're following our YouTube stream, our Rumble stream, looking at the comments, seeing how you all are reacting to all of this, so make sure you're always actively commenting.

If you have something, if you have a voice you want to be heard, make sure that you say it in the comments or give us a call. That all really helps. So even if you're brand new, which we know, what was that number, Will, that joined us last month?

Brand new number. That's right. We had— Just on YouTube.

That's right. We had 781,590 new viewers on YouTube. Yeah, that's just people who have never seen us before. Not a second of our broadcast. They're not subscribers.

They've never— But what that means is because so many of you are reacting, the algorithm of YouTube is now feeding it into more people's faces. They're seeing it. And that is incredible because that means these voices that you think maybe are marginalized or not being talked about or not being focused on the mainstream media, now using our incredible team here, by the way, who just does an amazing job of making sure that we utilize all of the tools necessary to make sure we get in front of those people, that we're able to do that. But we can't do that without your support.

It is the Life and Liberty Drive. It is a Match Month. Be a part of it right now. We just kicked it off. You've heard about the legal work we're doing. You've heard about the media work we're doing. Now, coming up in this next segment, we get to hear directly from you.

As I always say, the most important voice in the room. So put your comments in as well as the phone lines are jammed. Love to take some of those as well. We can pull some of those comments.

We've got nothing to say. Let me know where you're watching from or, as always, you can send in the clowns. Have some fun there. Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110 as calls go. And again, support the work of the ACLJ right now.

Life and Liberty Drive, if you're watching, if you're one of the amazing people that watch, I encourage you, listen on radio, start watching. Scan the QR code right now on your screen. Donate. Be a part of it.

It's matched. Right back with your voice. Welcome back to Sekulow. It is time to take your phone calls. Thanks to all the clowns for putting in your comments. I love seeing them.

It makes me laugh. Also, it just makes me happy to hear that you guys are all out there and still ready to go. Let's go ahead. We should go. Let's go to Brenda in California first. She's listening on the radio.

Brenda, you're on the air. With this court decision, it seems like some would be celebrating if someone wants to be President. No, if they want it, yes, be President.

Yes. But what they really want is to be king who is above the law, having immunity. People with this mindset will be celebrating this decision. Well, there may be people who think that they want to be king, but again, we have checks and balances here. We have impeachment.

Right. You have other branches of government. Things can be taken care of if necessary, if things got out of hand. So while I believe that there should be some Presidential immunity, I believe that you should be able to act as necessary, I do think that they got it right here, and this won't be treated that way now. Are there nefarious people who get involved in politics?

Yeah. And sadly, it's probably going to get more that way. And I think it's going to get more that way because who would want to subjugate themselves to all of this? If you're smart enough to be President, you may not want to be President anymore because you're going to end up in court. You're going to end up in jail. You're going to end up living like we're in a third world country.

Okay. So that's going to be the big problem here. I'm not worried about those who want to be king because I think the American people are smart enough to sort through that. What I'm worried about is all that's going to be left are the people who just want some sort of weird control because no one wants this job anymore.

That's right. And as one of our producers pointed out, kings don't have co-equal branches of government like a Supreme Court that have an equal power and a check on their presidency and or a Congress for that matter, which is a check on their presidency and can impeach them and throw them out of office. So there still is checks and balances there. Hey, I do want to bring up, there's a brand new CNN national poll that was just released and it has Trump up over Biden 49% to 43%. So that gap is widening. Is that a national poll? So it's a national poll. It was conducted the 28th through the 30th. So after that debate exclusively, and there's a margin of error of 3.7%.

So that's a lead outside of the margin of error by 2.3 points if you go all the way on that margin. Yeah. All right, let's continue on. Let's go to James who's calling in Texas online too, watching on YouTube. Thank you. All those on YouTube, hit that subscribe button, hit that thumbs up, hit me in your comments.

Tell me where you're watching from. Go ahead, James, you're on the air. So is this Supreme Court decision on immunity applied to the vice President also? We don't believe so. No, that was not addressed in the ruling and the vice President, you know, they obviously have a lot of responsibilities.

They have a lot of things they can do, but as well, you pointed out to me when we were discussing this during our breaks, we read through some of the questions that are coming in. That is not the branch. That's right. The presidency is a unique branch of government in the fact that the President is the branch of government. All the executive functions and things that flow from his office of presidency are an extension of him. But unlike Congress, which is made up of many people to make up that branch of government, or even the Supreme Court, which is the nine justices, the presidency is unique in that the President is the branch of government. Now, the question wasn't addressed by the Supreme Court whether or not that would extend to the vice President, but I don't believe it would. It was the official acts of the President because they are the decision maker. They are the one that is responsible for the actions. They are the commander in chief. So this was focused on the President.

And I also don't think if the Supreme Court were to get into that, that there is a blanket and assumption of immunity for a vice President. All right, continuing on. We got only, we have four calls and four minutes to see if we can do it. Bill in Wyoming, you're on the air.

Yeah, thanks for taking my call. I was going to talk about the fact of the President ordering a drone strike with the new Supreme Court. The thing of it is, is that I wouldn't want to even be in the military for even following the President because the new Supreme Court could call up and say, tell the ICC that it's okay to arrest me for any order from the President while I'm in my hometown. Well, and in your comment to the screener, you also brought up that President Obama in their drone strikes that he authorized killed civilians. Also, President Obama killed American citizens without due process in drone strikes. One was a minor and the Supreme Court actually in their decision would give him immunity from that because it was an official act. It was to protect the nation. And now I'm sure many groups like Amnesty International and things are decrying that conversation because they don't like that the President has that power.

But in reality, it does protect people like President Obama from decisions they took in their official capacity as President ordering a drone strike from prosecution. All right, thank you, Will. Let's go to Cheryl in Pennsylvania on Line 5. Watch it on Facebook. Welcome, you're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. My question has to do with the President doing all these executive orders, which go to, in some cases, like the student forgiveness, have been rejected and yet he continues to say he's going to do these executive orders. And in some cases, he's even said, I don't think I have the right to do this, but I'm going to do it anyway.

And I'm just wondering what this immunity decision and how that is affected with the information that he's giving and going at anyway. Well, and honestly, Cheryl, one of the things that never happens when the President does something like issues an executive order, when it comes to student loan forgiveness or blanket protection of a class of migrants, what you never see is the courts or prosecutors going after them for criminal liability. You can take it up in the civil side when there is a party that has standing to try and overturn it. In many cases that happens, but they don't go after the President criminally saying that you are violating the Constitution. And in one sense, that gives more credence to what the Supreme Court said, because the Supreme Court brought up those things. If you don't think a President is doing the best of his ability to uphold the Constitution, you can't go after them for these official acts. And if they didn't have immunity, then the prosecutors across the country would be trying to do that.

So in some sense, it actually gives more credence to what the Supreme Court found yesterday when it comes to immunity. All right. Hey, Joanna, you got like 20 seconds because we're running out of time. We've got a minute and a half left. Joanna, you're on the air. Okay.

Thank you for taking. Okay. My question is regarding Israel. Why is it considered our greatest ally?

We know that there are many dual citizen federal bureaucrats, congressmen, senators. Eight out of 10 major universities are run by Jewish people. Hollywood is owned by the Jewish people. The media is owned.

Six corporations that run media. Sure, Joanna. Okay. You know what? We've got about a minute left. The version you gave to our call screener was pretty bad, but it was not near as bad as what you just said on the air, which is essentially Jews control the media and control universities.

Therefore, they must be evil. Joanna, I appreciate you calling in and, you know, it's sticking on hold for half an hour. This is precisely why you need to support the work of the ACLJ because people like Joanna get force fed nonsense and believe it. I'm sorry, Joanna. I'm sure you're a very nice person.

Probably not. Maybe you are, but I appreciate all of you right now. You know what I'm going to say? Make your donation to the ACLJ and do it in honor of Joanna so that we can fight back again. You know what? I don't know if we can put that in the comments, but maybe you can put it in the comments saying this is, you know, in honor of Joanna.

So do that right now. Sorry. Goodbye. I hope you have a great day. Thank you all for watching and supporting the work of the ACLJ. We appreciate it.

Go to ACLJ.org. Man, I wish I'd given her more time now. I'm bummed out. All right. Scan the QR code if you can. All donations are matched. We love you. We'll talk to you tomorrow.