MAJOR UPDATE: NY Judge Delays Trump Sentencing

We've got a major update.

The New York judge delays the Trump sentencing. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments. Or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome to Sekulow. So folks, President Trump getting victory after victory following the Supreme Court case involving immunity. This time, remember Democrats said, well, you know, I even remember on the night of the debate on MSNBC, they were like, well, you know, it's not just the July 4th holiday. And I said last week, if we get through the July 4th holiday this week and come back next week, and we're still talking about how Democrats can replace Joe Biden, that is very bad news for Joe Biden. And we're still getting those news stories as of today. So going into July 4th, will it carry through the July 4th holiday weekend?

We will know next week. But with this immunity grant by the Supreme Court, which is very broad when it comes to official acts and basically tells lower courts, you've got to determine if you're going to bring charges, what is an official act? What's an unofficial act? And by the way, Alvin Bragg, you brought a lot of official acts within your trial of Donald Trump. So what does that mean?

Well, it could be, it means two things. One, initially President Trump, and a lot of liberals thought this could change everything because people forget about the debate because President Trump will be sentenced on July 11th, right before the Republican convention, and all the focus will be there. Well, that sentencing date has been vacated by Judge Juan Marchand, and the new date is September 18th. But Will, what is key here is that that new date has a big if. It says, we're going to adjourn to September 18th, 2024 at 10 AM for the imposition of Senate. And here is the key folks, if such is still necessary or other proceedings.

That's right. So what you're seeing here is something that on the face of the immunity decision, because this was a state case, it was alleged acts before he was President, President Trump, that, okay, well, this probably wouldn't apply. Nothing really should affect that case, just all of the special counsel's cases. But the almost tactical error that Alvin Bragg did here is that he brought into evidence as a part of this case, conversations and things that happened in the Oval Office while President Trump was President Trump. So this wasn't while he was candidate Trump. And when the lawyers, this was almost a surprise move to me, at least within hours of the Supreme Court decision had filed something in New York. And on the face of it, you're like, well, I mean, is that a last ditch effort?

Does it make sense? But because of the evidence in the case, which obviously the lawyers for President Trump were much more familiar with because they had been living that for months of their lives, it was almost a gift to them that he introduced us. He went so broad. It was the problem we said with that case from the beginning is how broad Alvin Bragg went trying to make what would normally be a misdemeanor accounting issue into these felonies that by going broad, he may have introduced evidence that could completely tank his entire case. And they filed a motion to vacate the jury's verdict. And that's what the judge, Juan Marchand, will be taking into account as well. Both sides have to file briefs and he'll be deciding on that in early September before that sentencing date. So he even gives that caveat, if it's such as still necessary, this one could be going away as well.

Yeah. I want to just encourage you, you know, we're going to get into this the next segment of the broadcast. We'll take your phone calls on that 1-800-684-3110, the far reaching impacts of this Supreme Court decision on the law fair that has been opened up against Donald Trump by Democrats, both at the federal and state level. We've focused a lot on how this has gutted Jack Smith's case.

How could it gut Alvin Bragg's case as well? Now, we also want to remind you, we just kicked off our Life and Liberty Drive this week where your gifts are doubled dollar for dollar. Only through your support can we fight for the issues that are crucial to hold on to our God given freedom. And despite the Biden's recent losses, he continues to target his rivals through a litany of cases with the sentencing of Trump scheduled again now, right before the next debate in the election. We encourage you to donate today at ACLJ.org. Double the impact, your donation to ACLJ.org.

Welcome back at your secular. So we want to, again, jump into a little bit more analysis of what this immunity case means for President Trump. Of course, we'll talk about Joe Biden as well. This decision-making there, his family gathering together. We're hearing that we should get some final decision from Biden. Now, so far he said he is running again.

So I don't expect there to be a big announcement if he is just going to stay on course, but obviously it would be a big announcement if he was to say that he was just going to finish out this term and open up the delegates in August and give people a chance to start campaigning internally inside the Democrat party for the Presidential nomination. There's a whole host of Democrats that we could go through, but I think first we want to kind of figure out is, and I'll go to Harry Hutchison on this. Harry, the idea that some are saying because of this, the ruling by the US Supreme Court on official acts and these cases by Jack Smith that basically they are now, this one out of DC is dead because the focus of that was how do you get to the federal law? And now the federal law would typically be covered by this official acts definition if lower courts agree with that. And if so, you've got a very weak case. You would have to go back to a grand jury and almost restart what you were charging it with.

I think that's precisely correct. And it's very likely that Jack Smith before the DC district court judge would have to reframe the charges. All of this would likely delay those particular cases. And now we have learned that the Supreme Court's decision on Monday with respect to immunity may also impact Alvin Bragg's case in Manhattan because Alvin Bragg decided to widen the case in Manhattan. Keep in mind that essentially what was charged in Manhattan had to do with 11 counts related to invoices from Michael Cohen, 11 counts related to checks, 12 counts related to ledger entries, essentially accounting entries. And so then Alvin Bragg decided to bring in White House staff and that then has implications with respect to the Supreme Court's decision making on Monday, suggesting that official acts of the President are entitled at least to the presumption of absolute immunity if not complete absolute immunity. Well that's what the lower courts are going to have to decide, which is why this puts the kind of intermediary courts in a holding pattern because all these cases have been sent back down, Harry, to figure out, okay, you've got a question if one's an official act, we've got to determine that if it's official or not.

And we kind of have to set a bar for that. If it's not official, is it then something criminal that we could prosecute? If it was official, is there something about that official act that somehow took it out of official act to be treated differently because it was such a bad action that it shouldn't be covered by official act? That is fact heavy analysis that Jack Smith was hoping not to have to go through. And now to bring these cases, as Judd Merchant said, because there might not even be a reason for him to rule on these proceedings on sentencing, like the whole case could be tossed out, he's got to go through an entirely new fact pattern.

I think that's correct. But part of the issue, of course, is Alvin Bragg's unlimited ambition. In other words, he took a New York State misdemeanor charges and then tried to bootstrap a misdemeanor case into a felony case. But in order to do that, he had to rely on a federal violation, which the judge declined to charge the jury with a focus on. So I think at the end of the day, what we have is an attempt to get Trump as opposed to an attempt to basically find a basis for justice.

Well, and Jordan, what can't be overlooked here is the politics of it all. One, the fact that both of these prosecutors, both Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith, were leading political charges the entire time, trying to elevate these charges because they wanted to have the most political impact against President Trump. But now you also have the Democrats in a tailspin, not just about the victories at the Supreme Court for President Trump, which you see. Well, and if you watched the press briefing yesterday with Carine Jean-Pierre, you expected it to be all focused on the immunity decision and how the White House was going to handle that and what that meant.

Barely at all. All of it about the President's fitness to run and serve another term because the carryover from the debate last Thursday is still so palpable that you're getting headlines like this from The New York Times this morning. Biden told Ally that he is weighing whether to continue the race. And essentially he told this key ally that he knows he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince the public in the coming days that he's up for the job after the disastrous debate. He's got a high profile interview with George Stephanopoulos. They're filming it on Friday. Portions will be aired Friday night.

And then the full longer, I don't, I say full, their full edited version will be released on ABC this week on Sunday. But he knows that he has to show up and somehow calm the fears of the public with a pre-taped interview with a friendly George Stephanopoulos. And he has two events in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

What's your read on the politics of this? He is fine when he has the teleprompter and he's in front of 10,000 people or 5,000 people, whatever it is, cheering his name with these chants, you know, four more years or, you know, lock him up and all these different things. He's laughing and they put a lot more makeup on him and they tan him up and he looks better. And he's standing at the stage. He's got the two teleprompters and he's a pro at that for the most part though. Occasionally he starts reading the words like, repeat it one more time. And he says it, repeat again. Long pause.

Yeah, long pause. I mean, you know, some of it you're like, oh, this is, but he certainly looks a lot better than what he did at the debate. So I think what his campaign is trying to say is, listen, look at how Joe Biden appears to be delivering the message the next couple of times you see him out over the July 4th holiday weekend. And if you like that Joe Biden, just remember he had a bad first debate. We can correct that.

We can figure that out. We've only got one more of those to get through and we can deliver on our policy and still scare people from Donald Trump. The issue is that, like we said, if key Democrats and more are coming out each day, I mean, supposedly they were having to talk Joe Manchin out of doing it yesterday on Sunday on the TV, and that came out today, but they are literally would love these key Democrats to have Joe Biden make an announcement that he will serve out the rest of this term, then open up his delegates to appoint someone who will be better to take on Donald Trump based off the debate performance and the fact that he has, by that debate performance, all of the characterizations by President Trump and the campaign and the conservative world became real. They came to life during that debate.

Jordan, another question. This is kind of the donkey in the room, not the elephant because it's the Democrats, but the leaked internal polling came out today. So, internal polls that are conducted by the campaigns really helped them make their decisions about where they're going to spend resources, where they're going to go, and it had disastrous numbers. He lost an average of two points in every battleground state, which puts him up in North Carolina, Georgia, up 10 in Arizona, up nine in Nevada, up seven in Pennsylvania, and seven in Michigan. One, how important are these polls to a campaign?

There's also someone did a theoretical within the margin of error. That's the map you see. That's how many states it could be if Trump wins in the margin of error states. How important are these polls to a campaign? And one, what does it tell you that this was leaked?

Because normally these aren't public. These are more important to a campaign like Joe Biden's than any other, because he had such a bad performance that people in his own party are saying, look, it's not that we don't like Joe Biden. It's that we don't believe Joe Biden has the energy or the competence to be the nominee, that Donald Trump is going to crush him, that he has characterized him as this, and he's put this characterization out that he doesn't have the energy, doesn't have the ability to really do this work. Sure, he can do rallies, but when it comes to actually going into a debate, talking on tough issues, couldn't look his opponent in the eye, didn't know where he was, couldn't finish his thoughts or his pre, tried to memorize those sentences. And so because of that, they are looking for any other savior to come in and try to give them someone they can be proud to vote for, not just because of policies, but they can trust that this person is going to govern effectively and be there when necessary to make the tough decisions. Harry, and I think that's what they, it's a very hard argument to make with Joe Biden, that he is going to be there all the time to make those tough decisions.

I think that's correct. And so I think the watchword over the next 24 to 48 hours cycle will be dementia, Alzheimer's, mental acuity, and beating Medicare, which has become Joe Biden's signature line. Beating Medicare.

I mean, I think that was it. I think Donald Trump handled it so well. I think, again, that's why you're hearing very, it's very quiet in the Trump world, because when your opponent is spiraling, let them continue to spiral. And right now we're prepared to submit a key filing at the ICC this afternoon to defend Israel from lawfare. We're filing a major brief to defund Planned Parenthood at the Supreme court on Friday. And we can't take any of these crucial cases without you donate today at ACLJ.org and have your tax deductible gift double be part of our life and Liberty challenge at ACLJ.org.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. You know, there's been a leaked poll from a Democrat firm, a polling firm connected very closely to the Biden campaign. We're not sure if it's been leaked by the firm or someone within the campaign will, but what it shows is how bad the debate was for Joe Biden. Let's give people some of these numbers.

That's right. So what you saw is an average of a two point drop across the board for President Biden. And you see in North Carolina they have him. Trump is up 11 in Georgia. Trump is up 10. Those are the least surprising numbers to me out of this poll, but in Arizona, a very heavily contested state Trump's up 10 in Nevada. Trump is up nine in Michigan. Trump is up seven in Pennsylvania. One of those key States that's always fought for Trump is up seven and then New Hampshire, Trump is up three, Wisconsin, Trump up four, Virginia, Trump is up a half point. And this one was the biggest surprise to me. New Mexico has Trump up a half point.

That is wild if that holds out. Well, think about what this does. This requires, this requires Democrats to start rethinking where they are going to spend serious resources if they're going to have a chance to win. And I think this is when your major donors and your supporters who really like you, if they're supporters of Joe Biden, they come to you and say, listen, we can't play in this many States, Joe, like we can get you a billion dollars here, but if you're down in every single swing state, and we've got to play in all of them, we are in serious trouble. So because of that, I think there is serious pressure on Joe Biden.

Here's what I've thought from the beginning. If this discussion about replacing Joe Biden continues through the July 4th holiday, so that gets us through until next week. And it's still kind of one of the top issues that we're hearing about in the political world by Democrats. So before the Republican convention, we're not going to see a sentencing of President Trump now. So that's not going to take things off the news. So until the Republican convention is all the political talk just going to be about whether or not Joe Biden should be the nominee for President of the United States, or should they bypass him and potentially Kamala Harris as well. And again, if that is the narrative, I think Joe Biden is in serious trouble.

So Jordan, this is another layer to that as well. They just released a second quarter fundraising numbers and President Trump raised $331 million in the second quarter. Now he had a lot of victories that came through in that second quarter, as well as he also, after the verdict in New York, was able to raise a lot of money. But the President Biden campaign, only $264 million.

So that's a $70 million difference between the two of them. When you're looking at a map, when the polling numbers for internal polling, which gives you the guidelines of where to spend your money, if you're that far behind in so many swing States, and you're also in the second quarter, $70 million behind your opponent. I mean, I know that Joe Biden is digging his heels in and honestly, I want him to continue to dig his heels in, but how long can he hold strong? I know he's the President of the United States and he's got a lot of people that are with him in staying in, but the pressure is going to keep building. The pressure will keep building.

And if his performance doesn't get better, basically when it comes to fundraising, even when it's on the stump, if he keeps looking like he's lost and he perpetuates the idea that he did at the debate last night, he may have been able to do a couple rallies, but is he going to be able to keep that kind of schedule up for 125 more days? Secretary of State, former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, member of our team here at the ACLJ is joining us now. And Secretary Pompeo, I wanted to go right to the issues because you tweeted out that Biden did so bad at the debate that we're still talking about. And almost a week later in your tweet, you said an interesting point that it's more than just politics and is he going to be the nominee? It's here and now a national security issue. Could you expand on that thought for our listeners?

Well, I certainly can. Look, first of all, I also think not only did President Biden fail, I think President Trump did a fantastic job articulating how it was that for four years, we kept peace. We didn't have these wars. And that's really to my point on national security, Jordan, which is every world leader, every parliamentarian, every prime minister, every king watched that debate as well, or saw the close notes of it. And they saw a commander in chief incapable of forming sentences. And if you're an ally of the United States, counting at this view, you can't have any confidence in that. And if you're an adversary thinking, you know, maybe I can roll the United States, either in war or, you know, or even in a commercial trading arrangement, I think they all saw a very weakened President of the United States to know this is their real opportunity to harm America. This is a national security danger that I think we all saw on display at the debate last week. You know, because of Trump's sentencing date also being delayed now until September, do you think there is a chance that the Democrats' lawfare against him has just begun to fail completely because of that decision by the Supreme Court?

I think undoubtedly. And I actually, I've been pretty consistent, Jordan. So have you and the ACLJ. We always knew this was deeply political and not in the tradition of the United States Constitution, the American legal tradition. And I think this is now playing out for the whole world to see, which in some ways, you know, I think it's a great thing they can say, you know, America hasn't completely lost its way. The system is not going to permit a President who is a candidate running against the former President to use the legal system to prosecute them for things that are just way outside the line. And so there's no doubt that the effort, this concerted effort from the progressive movement from the Democrat Party is clearly failing as a legal matter. And I think the American people can smell that this wasn't right.

And I think it's also failing as a political electoral matter as well. Secretary Pompeo, thank you for being the Senior Counsel for Global Affairs at the ACLJ. I want to go right to the calls. Appreciate Secretary Pompeo joining us at 1-800-684-3110. If you've got a call for us to be on secular, let's go to Terry in Texas on line three. Hey, Terry. Yes. Hi. Thanks so much for the work you do at ACLJ. I've been a supporter for over 10 years, not in a monthly way, but appreciate your work.

Thank you, Terry. Yes. I saw an article from Reuters quoting the Democratic National Committee that it would be Kamala Harris is probably the main person. It would be tough to get beyond the vice President.

They were quoted some sources inside the DNC. So I wanted to see what you what you thought about that. I mean, compared to like Gavin Newsom and some other ones, but I did want to see have a discussion because I think it's so important is that how can we get civility back into American politics again? I think we have to stop the law fair.

I'm going to the RNC. I'm speaking on a forum on political law fair. We're not going to have civility so long as we are trying to put our political opponents in prison or take all of their earnings or take their companies from them because they have different views on issues or they deliver messages we don't like, but the American people have voted for.

So the idea again that you're going to have civility is a long way away because the correction has to be made that we have to respect each other at a certain point where we can strongly disagree, but we're not always trying to criminalize each other's conduct and that is the serious problem here. We've seen another whistleblower report today that the FBI is using agents' political views to decide whether or not to extend their security clearances. Came out from the same group we worked with on those other whistleblowers.

So that issue is still very real. The weaponization of law enforcement against conservatives, both on the outside in the country but inside the agencies as well. It's why we want you to support the work of the ACLJ during our Life and Liberty Drive. You can double the impact of your donation at ACLJ.org. You can also become a member an ACLJ champion by making a monthly donation at ACLJ.org.

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

Welcome back to Sekulow. Let me explain ACLJ champions again. By becoming an ACLJ champion, you're making a monthly recurring donation that you're comfortable with at the ACLJ.

It's a $60 minimum gift to become again an ACLJ champion. And our champions, they give us that baseline for the number of cases we can take on. We know the resources we'll have automatically because of your commitment that we know what's coming in next month. Not just donors who decide to donate one time, and that's great too. Donors who donate when they can. But for donors who can kind of schedule us in their charitable giving, this is awesome for us at the ACLJ. Because as I said most, I can't think of a time the last time where we had to say, listen, we love this case, but we can't afford to do this case.

We carefully choose our cases. But one thing we don't have to do that other law firms have to do is to decide, is this going to be profitable? And is it going to take years? Are we ever going to see a return on this? That's not what we have to do with the ACLJ. We have to decide is, do we have the initial resources to get justice for those who we know you feel like have been wronged?

And then when we get that justice and the attorney's fees and the support from you, will we still be able to cover our costs? And the issue is, yes, at the ACLJ. There has not been a time yet this year where I've ever had to think about that. In fact, I'm thinking of my entire time at the ACLJ.

And I never remember that being a driving force. We definitely said, hey, this case is going to take more resources. This case will take less resources.

This case might have to bring some different kinds of attorneys on. This case, we can do it all in-house. But those are just discussions we have.

The discussion isn't, we can't afford to do it if we have to bring in specialists, Will. And that's why becoming an ACLJ champion is so important. That's right. And as an ACLJ champion, whatever you can budget and be able to do on a monthly recurring basis, that makes you an ACLJ champion. But it builds up that base where we know that we can continue to fight and address the cases where we need to. And that goes to any case, as Jordan mentioned. It's not just these high profile, filing in high profile cases like fighting for a whistleblower or filing in Supreme Court cases, like dealing with immunity or dealing with convictions in wherever they may play out. But also, when you have the small individual case, when it comes to sending our attorneys out to Nevada to fight for a student that was forced to read obscene content in her classroom and then retaliatory action from the school in that case, or whether it be a teacher who can't pray at the flagpole and said, you better not let anyone see you praying because that is in violation of our code of conduct. It's those cases that may seem small, but then reverberate throughout a community and throughout the school system, or whether it is the high profile ones you're seeing on the news. When you have a base of supporters like ACLJ champions, you can continue to take that fight each and every day, and you know that the champions stand with you and that you are able to take these cases. Let's take Aaron's call real quickly on Live 4 in California. Hey Aaron, you're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call and thank you so much for what you guys are doing. So quick question, is there such a thing as malpractice of law? And if so, what are the possible remedies, especially when done by public officials paid for by taxpayers? Listen, obviously we all have malpractice insurance as attorneys. So yes, there's malpractice of law, but these government attorneys are highly protected. In fact, they'll say that if they do have to change any of their charges, it wasn't because they did anything wrong initially. It's because they're now dealing with a new court ruling that has expanded the clarity on immunity for Presidents, both as Presidents and when they are no longer Presidents of the United States. And it is not the clarification that they were seeking. It is a clarification that gives broad immunity to Presidents for official acts, whether you liked the policy or not. And then you've got to go through that. I think a difficult analysis of what's totally an official act and what's maybe an unofficial act while you're President of the United States.

It's a very close line when almost everything you're doing has an official component to it because it's all policy related and related to governing the country. Folks, we encourage you to support our work. It was, we kicked off our life and Liberty driver gifts are doubled dollar for dollar. We want you to go to ACLJ.org right now and donate today. Make that a recurring donation, become an ACLJ champ.

Welcome back to secular. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. I want to bring in senior counsel CC Howe because CC work you've done at the United Nations on their independent commission of inquiry on unjustly attacking Israel. You prepared remarks before the UN human rights council. Let's play those now. And then we'll go to CC to explain what the ACLJ is doing, doing in advance of this work.

Thank you, Mr. President. Although the commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory is made up of independent commissioners. They are certainly not neutral. Even the name of the commission indicates the bias, but it only takes reading the reports to eliminate any doubt of the extreme bias that exists toward affirming a state of Palestine outside of meaningful negotiations with Israel. The reports rely on false assumptions without providing any basis in law or fact. Most importantly, the reports presume that a state of Palestine exists while it is clear under international law that there is not now, nor has there ever been a true state of Palestine. The reports claim that Israel is unlawfully occupying Palestinian territory, completely disregarding the fact that Israel was given legal title to that land by the league of nations before it fell under illegal occupation by Jordan and Egypt. Finally, as the reports wholly disregard the serious violations by Hamas and the PIJ, there can be no doubt that these reports cannot be relied upon. They've disregarded customary international law and statehood, the mandate for Palestine, the Oslo Accords denied history, law and facts, including October 7th. The loss of innocent lives on both sides is tragic.

At the same time, the law cannot be partially applied. As long as this commission continues to provide one sided legal conclusions and refuses to hold the perpetrators accountable, there will be no justice for the innocent. Thank you. So CC, I want you to tell people about our work at the United Nations when it comes to Israel and the ICC as well. Yeah, so as we've said over and over, the United Nations, at the United Nations, Israel is the one member state that gets attacked more than all of them combined. So there are more resolutions against and condemning Israel than any other member state. And so we are there at the United Nations to support them.

And literally, we're doing that pretty much on a constant basis. So what you just heard is going after this commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory. And like I said in that presentation, even the name itself, it's a commission of inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory. You already see the bias there. Tipping their hand to what they really feel about the situation.

Absolutely. And the most ridiculous thing, and I'm going to really have to read it because it is just unconscionable that they said this. When they're making their report, this is who they blame October 7th on. Now, October 7th, let's remember, this is when Hamas comes in and brutally murders and desecrates dead bodies and chops off heads and takes children.

It's terrible. This is what they say. Both the 7th October attack in Israel and Israel's subsequent military operation in Gaza must be seen in context. These events were preceded by decades of violence, unlawful occupation, and Israel's denial of the Palestinians' right to self-determination, manifested in continuous force displacement, dispossession, exploitation of natural resources, blockades, settlement, construction, and expansion, and systematic discrimination and oppression of the Palestinian people. Now, let me interpret that for you. They deserved it. That's what they're saying. On October 7th, Israel deserved it.

What happened? They brought it on themselves. So we have not only did the oral submitted the oral intervention, but actually submitted a response pointing out what a terrible position that is.

It lacks any kind of basis in history, on facts, or law. We're also preparing if we need to go to the ICC directly, the International Criminal Court, to defend Israel as specific Israeli leaders. We've done that, of course, multiple times before, including presenting oral argument there at the International Criminal Court. So we're on top of that.

There was a delay there, but we will keep you updated through the month of July. In our support, of course, they are filing the brief. It's hard for you to imagine they won't accept at least that, and maybe even the request as they are granting for some organizations and countries to present orally when that issue comes before the International Criminal Court on these indictments of Netanyahu, their former Secretary or Ministry of Defense, as well as some of the Hamas leaders. So they threw in some of the Hamas leaders to try and make it look like, oh, see, we're being fair. Except for Israel has a complimentary legal system that if their soldiers or their leaders were ordering war crimes, they would be charged inside their own country. And you would go through that process first because it is a system of law that is respected around the world. You ask a Palestinian on a number of issues, would you rather be tried in Israeli court for your issue, or would you rather be tried in a Palestinian court? And I think eight out of 10 times, unless it's involving some act of terrorism, you would want to be against Israel. You'd want your legal case actually heard before it is Israeli court because the law is clear, it is the equal justice under law, and it is a system that doesn't need to be replaced by the International Criminal Court.

That's right. And as you mentioned, we have been as the ACLJ and ECLJ before the ICC before, many times it's a jurisdiction issue. And so we have expertise here at this organization on the jurisdictional issues that go before the ICC. They've tried to come after American soldiers that fought in Afghanistan. They've tried to come after IDF soldiers before.

This time they're going after the prime minister and the minister of defense of Israel. And unfortunately, they are deciding to take what are the equivalent of amicus briefs from the court. You first have to file leave, you have to ask permission for the court to take that brief. And that is actually, our request is going out today to the ICC before July 4th holiday to get ahead of them. There's a deadline of July 12th to get these requests in. We don't want to wait.

We are getting it in early so that when they review these, we're at the top of the line and they see it. And the hope is that they will take our brief, they will accept, give us leave to file a brief where we can explain as we have before to this court, why jurisdiction doesn't belong to them to go after prime minister Netanyahu and the defense minister Galat. So we will go, we will fight at the ICC as far as and as much as necessary to get the right outcome and remind them you haven't had jurisdiction before, you don't have it now.

So that's what we're doing in conjunction with the work that we're doing at the UN. This is a great time to donate to our work because again, getting prepared for what could be oral argument at the ICC, the briefing that we're already filing, the request to file briefing at the ICC that's going in today. And that's not just done by one attorney at the ACLJ. So if you're able, become an ACLJ champion by making your donation a monthly gift. Our champions give us a baseline for the number of cases we can take on and we need you. But also if you want to make a one-time donation today at ACLJ.org and have your tax deductible gift doubled as we launch our Life and Liberty Drive today, we encourage you to do that as well. So if you're not ready to make the regular recurring donation or you don't have an amount yet that's right for that, maybe you want to make a bigger donation one time or a smaller donation one time, but you want to be able to give to these fights, I encourage you to do it now at ACLJ.org because you will be doubling the impact of your donation when you do it today at ACLJ.org and through the month of July.

That's right. And one other thing I wanted to bring up because much of the anti-Israel sentiment that you're seeing from the UN as they write their very biased briefs, you're also seeing on campus across the country, obviously we're in the summertime now, so a lot of the protests have died down, I don't think they've gone away, but there's a new report out that text messages between Columbia deans, so Columbia, one of the major centers of those encampments, it was the one that was on the news, everyone remembers when the NYPD finally went in, but the deans were mocking students, Jewish students, over anti-Semitism concerns. These are some of the messages that were going on between deans of Columbia University and saying, laying the case to expand their physical space, they will have their own dorms soon, comes from such a place of privilege.

Hard to hear, woe is me, we need to huddle at the craft center, huh? I'm trying to be open-minded to understand, but the doors are closing. And another dean said, amazing what dollar sign, dollar sign, dollar sign, dollar sign can do if only every identity community had these resources and support. Referring to Jewish students as an identity community, mocking them for their fear of safety on campus. Who are literally being physically attacked.

It shows why it took them so long to care. Yep, I mean listen, at Columbia they had, you know, they had a special celebration, graduation celebrations for black students, Asian students, Native American, LGBTQIA plus students, and Latinx students, but not Jewish students. See the Jews are treated separately.

It's a, we're going to treat them differently. We can be nastier about Jews. It used to be we were going to call them Zionists.

Now it's just outright Jews that they are talking about. And of course we've seen the backlash against Jewish professors. We've seen the backlash against conservatives inside the FBI. More of that is being uncovered by our friends as well. We're involved in two of those cases. Of course, one of those has been resolved in a great way for Marcus Allen, but we continue to fight on the O'Boyle case. And there are more whistleblowers who are coming forward saying it's true.

There's major political bias at the FBI. This is what we need you to do. Donate today at ACLJ.org and have your tax deductible gift doubled as we launch our Life and Liberty Drive. It's a great action you can take before the July 4th holiday. Go to ACLJ.org and donate today.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. If you got a call for us, you got to get it in right now to try and get it on the show in the final segment today.

Will, let's go to those calls. Yeah, we're going to go first to Jim from South Carolina. Jim's watching on YouTube. You're on the air.

Welcome to Sekulow. Hey, Jim. You still there?

All right. Looks like we've lost Jim, so we're going to move on. We're going to go to Bob calling on Line 2 in Michigan. Bob, you're on the air. Welcome to Sekulow. Hey, Bob.

Hey. Although I'm keenly interested in your take on what the future holds for the J-6ers, I'd like to first thank Jesus that your entire organization are so effective freedom fighting in our courts. But my comment is, is Judge Mershawn not obligated to explain because of his delay in sentencing and the new information from the Supreme Court? Is he not absolutely needful of explaining how the jury came to an unanimous decision on each count in order to clear that?

I can't do that yet. I think what he's really looking at, Will, is once he reviews all of this in light of that case, is there even a case anymore? Is there even a judgment to render or was Donald Trump prosecuted over something the Supreme Court has now found? Is that something he could be prosecuted for?

That's right. So when he moved the sentencing to September 18th now, it's not just like, I'm just going to think about it for a while. In the meantime, because the legal team for President Trump had requested permission to file a motion to set aside the jury's verdict, that's under the law in New York, law in New York, CPL 330.30. And what he's wanting now, he set aside a briefing schedule. So the Trump legal team will have to file briefs on why they think that the jury's verdict should be set aside in light of the Supreme Court decision. The prosecution will also have an opportunity to brief that. And then he will take time to read the briefing and come to a decision that he's saying he should be able to do by September 6th.

I'm sure that during the summer, the court's load may be also a little bit lighter. I don't think the judge has said it's not a hundred percent that it could impact the case, but he did not have to write that line that this is going to go forward in September unless it doesn't need to go forward in light of the Supreme Court decision. And not expecting a trial, one less than a week to be able to figure all of that out. But the fact that these judges who are out to get Trump are now will considering that the charges brought against Trump may have to be thrown out even after they went through lengthy trials that found President Trump guilty. They are analyzing this to see whether or not that was enough to say these charges have to go.

That's right. And this is the anomaly because the Jack Smith charges haven't been taken to trial yet. The one down in Florida, I mean, many arguments there, even whether or not special counsel is rightly appointed. And also we saw that Justice Thomas in his concurrence on the immunity, he even brought up like, hey, if this does continue, Jack Smith, I don't believe was appointed and should be able to continue the prosecution. You got to figure out, are there four justices like Justice Thomas who want to hear this issue ultimately on Jack Smith? Now that's different than just Presidential immunity, but on Jack Smith, so specifically the special counsels that are appointed outside the US government. So they, again, they have not been confirmed to have this kind of universal jurisdiction. Even a current US attorney will, is not confirmed to have jurisdiction over the entire country.

That's right. A special counsel can come out of the private sector with no government experience. Usually they have some and literally they can assert the same kind of jurisdictional power as the attorney general of the United States, though they are limited on some of the issues. When you look at these issues, they are so broad when you're talking about crimes on money, when you're talking about at crimes of action, but all of that, again, allows them basically to run the show. That's right. And that's, that's even the statute that the Department of Justice relies on to have the special counsel is that the attorney general is allowed to delegate authority.

And so they're taking that, extrapolating it out and saying he can delegate authority to basically whomever he wants by bringing on a special counsel. Now we're going to go to Anne in Pennsylvania on line six. Anne, you're watching on Facebook, welcome to Sekulow. God bless you guys. God bless you ACLJ. So I wanted to make a quick comment.

If back in the day, back in the days of the Bible, if we had the appeals system, if we had better courts, and if we had ACLJ, I believe at least half of the martyrdom incidents would not have been able to been lived out. Now here's my main point, okay? And I don't want you guys to have to comment on this, but this is very, very important to me. So Joe DeGenova on Real America's Voice the other day, he said that Bannon was not served well by his lawyers. And I have been feeling like this for a very, very, very long time about Trump lawyers, maybe not doing the job to the best of their ability. And I just want to say this, I just want to say this.

You guys got to step up your game, not ACLJ. You lawyers out there, you need to step up your game because I could go in front of a abortion clinic right now and get arrested and thrown in jail. Trump represents us all.

These lawyers are very, very expensive. Now, if I were to ever, I told your caller, if I were to ever get arrested and be thrown in jail, I'd hire you guys, because you guys are fighting for Israel. You guys are fighting for Liberty in this country. You guys are on the front lines and you're doing your job. Meanwhile, there's no reason today in modern day society for us to have the level of martyrdom. Okay.

And persecuted people. There's no excuse. This is a joke. The left is laughing.

The left is laughing. Okay. Bannon walked into the jail and he did so humbly and proudly, but there's no reason for him. There's no reason for Peter Navarro to be imprisoned. And there's no reason for Donald J. Trump to ever have to go to prison. Well, if you look at Steve Bannon, you look at Peter Navarro, they were following the advice of their attorneys who said, don't go forward with agreeing to these testimonies because you'll be violating a privilege that you have, executive privilege with the President.

These courts disagreed on both. So I think Navarro has already finished his time and now Bannon is about to start to start his time. You understand, they want to put you behind bars. Their ultimate goal in all of this is even if it's tough to put Trump behind bars, they want to dirty him up as much as possible and then scare you to think that if you become a top activist for Donald Trump, you also will be prosecuted for hate crimes and you could end up behind bars too. Well, it's also the selective prosecution of contempt of Congress. It always seems like if a Democrat or someone in a Democrat administration decides to Stonewall Congress and they hold them in contempt, the DOJ leaves them alone. If it is a conservative that decides that, I've been advised, this is privilege or whatever, and they hold you in contempt of Congress, you're going to jail.

That's a double standard. Listen, folks, despite Biden's recent losses, he continues to target his rival, President Trump, but also his rivals, all of you, through a litany of cases with the presidency of Trump scheduled initially right before the next debate. And now it'll be about six weeks from now. So the Trump team was successful there and that's because the judge said, I don't even know if there has to be a presidency based off what the Supreme Court just decided. So we all have to have time to review that. We're also filing a major brief to defund Planned Parenthood at the Supreme Court today on Friday. And we're preparing to submit a key filing at the International Criminal Court to defend Israel from law fair. I want you to be an ACLJ champion, a donor who says I can donate $60 a month to the ACLJ each month.

Go to ACLJ.org. Just donate today or be.