Today on Sekulow, Jack Smith seeks another delay in the Trump January 6 case. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright folks, welcome to Sekulow. Remember, initially it was Jack Smith who wanted to rush a case to the U.S. Supreme Court on whether or not President Trump had any post-Presidential immunity from acts that were taken during his presidency. The Supreme Court said no. Ultimately the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And when it did, it was a blow to Jack Smith. But there was a different case brought initially, remember, by one of the January 6, those who were in prison found guilty. And he challenged one of his charges. And that was the charge that it was an obstruction of an official proceeding. And the Supreme Court found that that was not in fact what that meant under the law. So that a protest would not be an obstruction of an official proceeding.
And this was someone who actually entered in to the Capitol. So they are still, I don't know if they're still in prison, but they were still found guilty on other charges that they were not successful in appealing on. But the Supreme Court tossed that charge, while two of the four charges Jack Smith brought in Washington, D.C. against Donald Trump would be thrown out then under that theory. The first is a lesser obstruction, which is a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, which of course you can't be part of if the act itself speaking at the rally is not the obstruction of an official proceeding.
So you take two out, what are you left with? Conspiracy to defraud the United States, which is very broad and pretty weak actually. And then conspiracy against rights, another one which is very weak, the two weakest charges. So they were supposed to have a joint status meeting on this case.
It was supposed to be in, again, August 16th, so pretty soon. And Jack Smith has said they need this to at least be no earlier than August 30th because they can't yet figure out what charges and how to bring a case against Donald Trump. Now, let's remember the ACLJ filed in both of the cases, a Fisher and the Trump case that Jack Smith on Presidential immunity at the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases which may ultimately undo Jack Smith's entire prosecution, remember in Florida as well, in Florida he was found to not be a valid appointment by the Department of Justice. That has been a notice of appeal, has gone to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, so that's certainly not going to be determined.
Anything probably finalized before the election in November. We're going to talk to my dad, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, Jay Sekul, we get back from the break. But Will, when I see a move like this from Jack Smith who was rush, rush, rush, he is the one that chose this strategy. We reminded people Jack Smith was good at getting indictments, he's hard, he is horrible, and sometimes good at even getting an early conviction.
What he's not good at is ultimately getting overturned. Well, that's right, Jordan, and what you see here is the judge, Judge Chutkin, had put this on the schedule for, it came out last Friday, that by August 16th they were going to have a status conference for the case. And when you see Jack Smith, who's had, by that time will have had a month and a half since the decision came out on July 1st to figure out how to move forward, asking for more time.
Saying that both sides need to be able to file their briefs on August 30th, so three weeks after the original date of August 16th, and then saying the hearing needs to be after that. You can tell that there's probably disarray within the Office of Special Counsel of trying to figure out what's immunity, what's not going to stand. And also there's the question of what happened with Eileen Cannon down in Florida, which threw out the indictment of Donald Trump because she said that the special counsel himself was unconstitutionally appointed.
So we'll see if that even plays in as well. Alright folks, we're going to take your calls, 1-800-684-3110. My dad joining us next to talk about the ramifications of this action by Jack Smith, what does it tell us the tea leaves there. But I want to remind you folks, we're here representing of course our colleague Tulsi Gabbard, her husband, and of course working with the whistleblower protections as well. This is a case against the, basically the entire Biden-Harris administration.
Department of Justice, DOJ, you've got TSA, you've got Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the list goes on. We need your financial support, we really do right now. Donate today at ACLJ.org.
Alright folks, welcome back to Secula. If you want to talk to us on air about any of these questions, one about, of course, and we're going to get to it further today because I wanted to lay it out for you yesterday. The whistleblower protections working with Empower Oversight and of course representing our colleague Tulsi Gabbard, her husband, and maybe more if we find out more about this Open Skies program used against American citizens. And it's supposed to be used against suspected or known terrorists utilizing commercial airlines. And we have congressmen now calling for hearings from the TSA. We will of course file a FOIA, but we're going to take other legal action, and we say other legal action at the ACLJ. We're talking about taking on basically half of the Biden-Harris administration because the Department of Justice will defend, but you've got to go up and go to the TSA obviously.
That involves the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, who's providing this info that would justify putting a former congresswoman and Presidential candidate and someone who was even being looked at as potentially a vice Presidential candidate with a big profile on this list. So you go through that and you realize the NSA, these are the toughest to litigate against. And so we looked and we said, you know, we need a real resource push at the American Center for Law and Justice. We always tell you the great thing about you, our donors, is that we don't have to think about taking a case. But what we do want to do is the more resources we have, the quicker we can take action.
If we need to bring on specialists, especially on an issue like this, we need you. So be part of our life at Liberty Drive. Double the impact of your donation today. I mean, if you can write $100, put out a $100 donation today at ACLJ.org, that's effectively $200. I mean, that's incredible for us when we've got this amount of casework going on in just one issue, but so many different elements to this.
Protecting the whistleblowers, protecting the rights of Tulsi Gabbard, protecting her husband's rights, and the rights of others that may come up through this as well. So donate today at ACLJ.org while our life at Liberty Drive goes on. Again, if you can donate $500, think about that. That's $1,000 to the ACLJ, but every donation matters.
That $5, that $20 is just important too. I want to go to my dad, Jay Sekulow, because this is another case that we've involved in with both briefs we filed in at the U.S. Supreme Court. Dad first was the Fisher case that we got the decision on June 28th. That case specifically knocked out likely two of the four charges Jack Smith wanted to bring against Donald Trump in D.C. The conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and the obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. So those two, Dad, I think were already DOA and now he's asking for more time to figure out if the additional two charges survive the Supreme Court decision either.
Yeah. And I think the answer to that is going to be they don't. And Jack Smith has come to the realization that his whole operation is just about up. I mean, we we know about these special counsels because we litigated and dealt with it with Bob Mueller. And the problem that you have here is the Supreme Court opinion, by the way, not only affected the situation down in Florida, but it also affects the New York prosecution, the state prosecution, because there in the Supreme Court opinion, the court said that you cannot have any evidence of wrongful acts, basically, if in fact it was official acts of the President.
The court can't get involved in that. So this idea in New York that they let in all of this evidence, as you know, all this evidence was let in that would now not be admissible, including the evidence of witnesses that worked in the White House. That is relates to the January 6th issues he's faced. Jack Smith is facing the same problem. What this comes down to, Jordan, at the end of the day here is they can't figure out under the Supreme Court decision how they can get their evidence in. And that's why they keep calling these opinions extraordinary. At what point, Dad, does someone like Judge Chutkin, who's accepted the delays, obviously, when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, that would be normal, but then sets a date for August 16th, and then Jack Smith comes back.
Usually he's trying to rush things, and now it's, oh, I need at least another two weeks. That's not like the Trump team doesn't want to give him that because it shows a lot. Of course, we're talking about it right now. But they're obviously having serious issues.
I mean, in one case, he's been found to be illegitimate as a prosecutor, and that's being, just the notice of appeal has just been filed there in the Eleventh Circuit. But the idea here that they were down to maybe two charges after June 28th, and then after the July 1st decision by the Supreme Court, they may not have anything. And they would have to almost restart. I don't think there's an appetite for that.
I don't think there is an appetite to restart. They'd have to call the new grand jury. They're not going to be doing that. I think Jack Smith's in a free fall, legally speaking. They had two cases go against them significantly, the most significantly. It curtailed their authority in one, and in the other one, the immunity issue raised so many evidentiary points for their special counsel that I don't think they can move forward on a case. And by the way, the Supreme Court took the position we advocated in our briefs that the President was immune from prosecution for official acts he took as President.
Which, by the way, you would think every President would want that same kind of protection. So the Supreme Court got it right. Jack Smith, in six weeks now, has not been able to figure out, Jordan, how to move forward on their case.
That's what this really is. Yeah, so let's say you give him two more weeks. So what is two more weeks really going to be for Jack Smith? There's just another two weeks to try and figure out if they can figure out something that they can file without looking ridiculous or having to tell the court that they've got to wait? Because I think at that point, I don't know that the court wants to keep waiting anymore on every single decision, especially the decision from the Supreme Court to say, listen, you've got to go through every specific act with a presumption of immunity when a President who's in office and then find determined, did it act like, at what point does an act cross the line where it's no longer official and could be criminal? I mean, that is a very fact-specific decision to make. I don't think there's just a rule that you can make on that. And even if there is, that's got to go all the way through the court system again.
Exactly right. So the acts, for instance, on election integrity issues, that would clearly be deemed an official act. So the actions taken in light of the election would be deemed official acts.
So I think what Jack Smith is trying to do in the next two and a half weeks, Jordan, is evaluate whether they can even move forward. I would not be shocked if there ends up being motions to dismiss. It's very conceivable that the government may not be able to proceed at all.
They may move on their own. I'm hard pressed to think they would do that. But you look at it, you think that's what's coming. We know what's coming from the left and the Democrats is going to be, this is why we have to pack the court, we have to put term limits on the court. So they've kind of set the stage for Jack Smith to do this by blaming the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's what he'll do. Yeah, because right now you've got Jack Smith, you've got one court saying that the appointment of the special counsel was unconstitutional. Which, by the way, we advocated for that when we had the Mueller probe going. And then, on the other hand, they're saying that the President is also immune.
And then you had, like you said, the opinion on the substantive crime of the official acts in Congress, and those were thrown out. So they are in very bad shape, the government, in these cases. I wanted to ask you too about, we're talking about resources today at the ACLJ, because yesterday we kind of laid out with the whistleblowers, with the Open Skies program.
And Tulsi Gabbard, our colleague, even her husband, still was tagged in this program. And we talked about generally the work, the FOIA work, but also the coming litigation and the amount of different government agencies this involves. And like Jack Smith said in his team in the court case in Florida, they have limitless resources. They don't have a budget, they have limitless resources. So when you take this on, especially in the national security sense that we are doing for our colleague Tulsi Gabbard, and you take this on, you are taking on a government that has limitless litigation resources. So we're actually taking on our taxpayer dollars, really. It reminds me very much of the cases we raised and made against the IRS for their unconstitutional targeting. It's a lot of the same issues, by the way. It's this kind of deep state targeting that's going on, except this time, again, they've been caught red-handed.
But you're right. So the support of the work of the ACLJ allows our team to do what is very, very sophisticated litigation. We've gotten involved in this case, you know, former U.S. attorneys on multiple levels working on this. Appellate lawyers already working on this. So our government affairs team working on this. So your support of the ACLJ, especially during this matching challenge.
And we are dead even where we were last year. I'd like us to see if we can pull ahead a little bit. So I encourage people to go to ACLJ.org and have their gifts matched. It makes a huge difference, especially with these new and complex cases. Yeah.
So, Dad, I appreciate you joining us. I think what you said there is key. We're coming to you today straight on this because, again, this was a case that, you know, you can't prepare for any of these. But this was a big one that was, you know, when you first look at it, you're like almost shocked that it's real.
Then you want to go through and make sure, okay, this is real. And then you realize, okay, we've done cases in the past similar to this, so we know what the resources are like. So let's go to our team today and let all of you know who are supporters that the more resources we can put on this case is protecting your rights too.
I mean, again, this program has never stopped a single act of terrorism, a single crime, or led to an arrest of a terrorist, the Open Skies Program. So I need you to take part in our Life and Liberty Drive right now. Make that donation at ACLJ.org and your gift will be doubled. So, again, if you can make that $100 donation today, this is the day to make that $100 donation. If you can make that $25 donation, this is the day to do it.
$50. Every donation matters. Maybe you can donate $1,000. Because this is going to be a massive case taking on the government, and it's not just for Tulsi Gabbard. It's for all of us and all of you.
Donate ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. All right, folks. Welcome back to Secula.
I want to remind you we are taking your phone calls too at 1-800-684-3110. These issues, you know, they love talking about, you know, President Trump convicted felon on the campaign trail. And now you've got, you know, Jack Smith and these issues really bubbling up about whether or not any of these cases can even move forward. And so Jack Smith can't even file a joint status report on August 16th. He's asked the judge in Washington, D.C., to again delay this case because of the Supreme Court case. And the reason why he can't file, as my dad said, the joint status report, they want two more weeks, is because they're not sure they have any evidence that would be allowed under what the Supreme Court just issued.
And, of course, there's part of that Supreme Court decision that said you've got to go back through and look at each act and go through a fact-specific kind of program put together. And then the Supreme Court would have to OK the constitutionality of that program, which is if it was while the President's in office, you have to assume, the Supreme Court said, that if it's an official act, that they have immunity from criminal prosecution, both while they are President and after their presidency. It doesn't make any sense to give it to them only while they're President because if the immunity was gone the day after your President, which is something they wanted to argue in court, then you would be a President that would feel felt like you were totally hamstrung and that, again, if there was a switch in the power politically, they'd bring criminal charges against you for your official acts. And, surprise, surprise, that happened to President Trump exactly. They didn't say that you could never, by the way, do anything you want as President. So don't hear that from the left.
They said you have to give the presumption of immunity that if it's done as President, it's an official act, and then you've got to determine at what point does it become a criminal act that would be outside an official act, not just a policy decision, even one that's a radical policy decision that you might not like does not make it criminal. And so, again, this affects all of the charges Jack Smith is trying to bring. But what we also know as well, and this is what I want to take your calls on at 1-800-684-3110, is that the deep state is alive and well, and they are going after the top folks who are willing to speak out. I think the reason why they've targeted our colleague Tulsi Gabbard is because she left the Democrat Party. She, remember, delivered a very stinging kind of attack response to Harris during that initial Presidential debate back in 2020.
And then Harris gets the Presidential nomination. Tulsi does an interview on Fox News, and by the way, I will say, not different than anything different than what she would say two weeks before that. It wasn't like she made some claim of some special information. It was an opinion on now Harris as the nominee, and she was on stage with Harris, of course, so she had to debate her, so she has knowledge about that.
And then the next time she goes on a plane, which is two days later, she goes through the Quad S. She has air marshals following her around and on the plane with her. We now know from whistleblowers as well, we've got to protect them with Empower Oversight. So the resources at the ACLJ, well, I mean, we talked about just the broadcasting resources to tell the story, to get you all educated about it. While we've got an entire legal team, obviously the FOIA is in movement right now, but we know that we are up against not one government agency, but maybe half a dozen or more.
That's right. And really, I want to point back to something your dad said in the last segment about it has a lot of aura, if you will, of the IRS case. So to take people back, that was back, the Tea Party movement during the Obama years, it came out of really the push against Obamacare and those midterms. But what we started seeing is that individual Tea Party groups, they reached out to us that they were getting these very broad, weird probing letters about the content of their prayers, wanting backend access to their website, wanting a list of members, things that just weren't right. And when we first saw it, you had to look at it as, is this an anomaly?
Yeah, that's almost what you felt like. This has to be a one-off, just moronic move by someone at the IRS, and how could this possibly have gone out to what we learned was thousands of the letters sit down. Right. And then as we dug at the ACLJ, as our attorneys got to work, we realized this was a systematic effort to try to silence the voice of the political enemies of President Obama at the time. Totally bring criminal charges against them. And Jack Smith was running the office that Lois Lerner went to to see, and she wrote in the email, if we could bring a couple of criminal charges against these groups, that shuts them down. No one's going to want to be part of the Tea Party group. So it wasn't even about tax-exempt status, ultimately. It was about putting grassroots Americans in prison. What else has that been done because of people that attended a rally?
Even their folks are trying to be done to a President because they spoke at a rally. So support the work of the ACLJ. Again, I'm making this big push today because this is one of those highly involved cases because you're taking on so many different levers of the federal government. So you've got the security state, you've got the NSA side, the FBI side, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees TSA, of course, Department of Justice, because they're going to litigate it, but they've also got the FBI under them. So you go to the FBI. And then, of course, the State Department as well.
Was there something here that was foreign? How was this triggered? Or was it completely done as a targeted political act? And we know this program hasn't been very effective, so is it just being used as another way to spy on conservative Americans or Americans who, again, are speaking out against far-left policies that aren't working in a totally legal, constitutional way? This is why we need your support for these resources because, again, we want to move on this as quickly as possible. This protects constitutional rights long-term, not just of Tulsi Gabbard, but of you.
If you're listening or watching this broadcast right now or support of the ACLJ, again, we might not have as big a profile individually as Tulsi Gabbard, but if they could do it to someone with as big of a profile as Tulsi Gabbard, how much easier is it for the government to come after you? So we want to make sure they can't do that. And we believe we can, but we need the resources to be able to bring this quickly. And if we have to bring specialists on, because we've got whistleblowers here too, we want to protect them because they always try to criminalize their whistleblowing, even though there are statutes to protect them. So we need you to go to ACLJ.org today, and if you can make a donation, if you're someone who really loves the broadcast because you like the updates we can give, the fact that we worked for President Trump in our individual capacity, did the impeachments, did the Mueller report.
So we really have the expertise there. And, of course, you maybe like the other work we do, the government affairs work, but you've never made that donation to you. It's more of kind of a show to learn. That's great. And we appreciate if you want to just join it, listen and watch every day. Maybe the one thing you could do is share it with your friends.
Does it cost you anything? Or make sure you subscribe on the channel that you like watching the most, whether that's Rumble or YouTube, on Facebook. And then, of course, if you're in a spot, and I know everyone's not in that spot right now, but if you're in a spot where you can make a donation to the ACLJ, this is something we found out about Sunday, Monday. So, I mean, again, we are moving very quickly now by the end of the week in how to bring forward these actions you may have seen. Tulsi last night on Sean Hannity's broadcast, she was, of course, on our broadcast yesterday as she is regularly because she is on the team here at the ACLJ because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. And we're able then to utilize the expertise of people like Mike Pompeo, a former Secretary of State and CIA Director when we bring a case like this. He was also an attorney. He went to Harvard Law.
And Rick Grenell, who was the head of the Director of National Intelligence. So support the work of the ACLJ during this Life and Liberty Drive. It's a coincidence that it happened during the drive, but it's great because the impact of your donation is doubled. That could be $500. It could be $100. It could be $10.
But do it at ACLJ.org. It all matters. Donate today. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, folks, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls too.
We'll start taking those in the second half hour of the broadcast if you want to talk to us on air, 1-800-684-3110. If you've got more questions about what we've talked about with Jack Smith, and we'll update you about that just in case you're just joining us. And my dad was joining us earlier to kind of break down why this request of Jack Smith to get more time to file his joint status report with the court in D.C. in light of the fact that two charges he wanted to bring against President Trump have fallen apart because of the Fisher case, which was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court. Those charges on conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and the obstruction of an official proceeding, those were thrown out by the Supreme Court, and so those aren't going to survive that against President Trump because of the way that they were defined. It also kind of met the same definition, you know, going to a rally, this kind of thing being a speech. So the last two were conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy against rights.
Those were kind of like the broad ones to kind of get the case in the door. The main meat of it was the obstruction of an official proceeding and the conspiracy part, you know, trying to make it look like this was some grand scheme to not follow the results of the election. And what the Supreme Court said there is there's a presumption of immunity of acts not as President, and that doesn't fall because a President is out of office. So that stays with them. You then have to analyze if you were trying to bring a criminal charge against a former President, did that official act cross some line that it would make it no longer official but criminal?
And it can't just be that it's an act you don't like or that you find is distasteful or that you find a speech that you don't agree with or political issues that you don't agree with. So now Jack Smith, who was trying to rush all of these cases, is now asking for more time. I mean, the Trump team, of course, said, yeah, give him more time because he's obviously, again, can't figure out if he could even bring the charges he initially wanted to bring. So that is huge, and we will follow that very closely as we've been involved in all of these cases at the U.S. Supreme Court because of your support of the American Center for Law Justice protecting really the rights of Americans because it's your vote that elects these Presidents and that they're trying to figure out different ways to remove Presidents or take people off the ballot and not allow them to run or somehow hamstring them while they are President and think that every decision you make is going to be reviewed by some Department of Justice in the future that's going to try to put you behind bars because they didn't like your politics.
That's right. And once again, back to the Tea Party case, the entire objective of the IRS was to silence conservative speech when you take that as an analogy of what's happening with Tulsi Gabbard. And once again, that's part of the reason we're doing the FOIA angle, too, not just litigation, is to find out how broad this is against conservatives. Because if you're being followed because of your political affiliation, your speech speaking out against corruption, speaking out against what's happening in the deep state, and all of a sudden you have three air marshals on every flight with you, extended security, bomb dogs at every gate you leave from, that's a real concern.
And the objective may not be to put you in jail, but the objective may be to silence you, to intimidate you, to use the strong arm of the government and the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Air Marshal Service to make you quiet, to shut you up. And we know that they have a bloated budget in TSA as well. The Inspector General in 2019 wrote this in a report, a status report, said we identified $394 million in funds that could be put to better use within the Federal Air Marshal Service. So the very people that are being tasked with tracking Tulsi Gabbard in an OIG report, they're wasting $394 million.
Imagine how large that budget is to continue this type of deep state spying on American citizens and labeling them as terrorists. My lord, she's on our broadcast, she's on Fox News with Sean Hannity, she's active vocally on all the issues on places like X, formerly Twitter, social media, and yet they still feel like they've got to send out TSA agents to intimidate you and take out all of your luggage and kind of embarrass you every time you go to an airport. This wasn't just random, like one time. Sometimes that happens. This was every time.
So it's an extra 45 minutes of going through the airport and having that happen to you in front of people who likely recognize who it is. Donate to the ACLJ right now. We need your economic and your financial support. This is going to be a big one. ACLJ.org.
We're getting a little politics here. We'll get to your phone calls too. 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. So, you know that Vice President Harris and the nominee now, soon officially for President for the Democrat Party, and the vice President's initial nominee on that side, Walt from Minnesota, the governor there. They've been doing events across the country. So they were in Michigan and Detroit and that was one of the states where 100,000 people signed that uncommitted national movement. So that may have been one of the largest states where they had that kind of uncommitted national movement. It was pretty big in Minnesota as well, which is why they said Walt was actually a leading pick, was they thought that because he's got the support of people like Ilhan Omar and AOC, that that would hit at the heart of those 100,000 that didn't like where Joe Biden's policies were specifically when it comes to supporting Israel. So this group wants a arms embargo imposed by the United States on Israel, which means no more that we would not provide weapons. I mean, could go so far as to say that we would, you know, sanction other countries or they would be ramifications for other allies of the United States if they provided arms to the state of Israel. And so Harris, you know, briefly did meet, you know, the vice President, they said shared her sympathies with the group in Detroit, expressed an openness to a meeting with the uncommitted leaders to discuss an arms embargo.
And this is not a leak. This is because she was there and they were at the event and the uncommitted national movements leader and co-founder, Leila Alabed, as she said and told that she told Harris, I'm a Palestinian. I'm one of the founders of Uncommitted. Michigan voters want to support you, but we need a policy that will save lives in Gaza. They are supporting, again, this arms embargo and they are willing, both Harris and Walz, to meet with this group to discuss the issues and, of course, even the idea of a embargo against arms to Israel.
Now, I want to go to Jeff Balaban who oversees our office in Jerusalem. Jeff, Harris, of course, in the campaign tries to quickly walk back and say all she said was she would talk to the group. She doesn't support an arms embargo.
But this is how radical it's gotten and this is the 100,000 they keep talking about they believe is so key to beating Donald Trump is to mobilize this group of 100,000 voters maybe in Michigan, another 100,000 in Minnesota. There are the Ilhan Omar types that have this very anti-Israel position and we now know, I mean, why would, I think, Jeff, even going to a meeting where there's an openness to even hear about an embargo against an ally like the U.S. is a slap in the face to that ally. A hundred percent, Jordan. So first of all, unless something has changed very recently and I haven't heard about it, she didn't walk it back. She's the one who said it directly herself. She's the one who said she was open to an embargo of arms to Israel whilst fighting this existential war against a terrorist organization. She's meeting with the terrorist organization's proxies all the time. She's surrounded by Hamas proxies all the time. And they're welcoming her.
They're greeting her. The campaign is setting that up. And it's again, as far as I've heard, the campaign is trying to do damage control about what she said because they're trying to walk this fine line between being genuinely anti-Israel but pretending they're not because they don't want to be perceived as being overtly anti-Semitic.
And the situation is nuts. But I don't think she's backed off this. I think she's the one who said it. Her campaign is trying to back off it. But she, the candidate, expressed an openness to withholding arms from Israel as though Israel is the enemy. By the way, in contrast to the fact that she and her party have been leading the call for what they call humanitarian aid, which we know, we've tracked, is being used by the terrorists to fight against Israel.
They called humanitarian aid, but it's funding up Israel's genocidal enemies. That's where the Democrats candidate is today. And I think, Jeff, where this could be important now, and we were going to get into this in the next segment, is that now we know at least there's been one debate agreed to. President Trump was willing to do an additional two debates before the election.
But now that we've got the spokesperson, it was actually interesting. It was the spokesperson not from the campaign, but it was a spokesperson from the vice President's office, her national security advisor, Phil Gordon, who said on social media that she does not support an arms embargo on Israel. It's not even her campaign yet. It's the, you know, again, that's the administration she currently serves. And that's also, she's not yet the President of the United States, and that's their position.
So it serves up really, Jeff. I mean, they have to ask this question in the debate. I mean, we kind of have to remind them when we get to that debate because, Will, what's the date?
It's September 10th on ABC. Okay. So it's like we need to do a push to ABC when it gets closer to ask her directly, why are you willing to meet with a group about imposing an arms embargo? And would you consider imposing an arms embargo against our ally, Israel? Yeah, I mean, again, it's she has been very vocal about the poor victims of Israel who are not the victims of Israel at all. And it bears repeating, Israel has waged a war, which is unheralded in in in modern human history, where there's, it's close to say almost no meaning it's a one to one ratio of what they call civilian deaths to combat and deaths, usually it's nine civilians or five civilians killed.
And here it is, you know, these are our enemies, their death to America enemies, and she is completely on their side. Yes, this question. Absolutely. You're right, Jordan, this has to be asked. And you're right. Also, very important point. The current administration is playing footsie over here and trying to have both sides of it.
But she and her campaign have not have not come out and said that she will not consider an arms embargo very important. Jeff, as we've been talking about all day today, just kind of the scope of the work that we've got going on right now, whether it be filing briefs at the Supreme Court on the immunity issue, whether it be defending Tulsi Gabbard, who's been targeted by the TSA. But we wanted to have you on today to also talk about this issue, because it's very real, it's happening right now. But you as our director of our ACLJ, Jerusalem, that as we look ahead, we're under 100 days from the election. And there's going to be a choice for the American people. About how we further our relationship with our greatest ally in the Middle East. And the work of the ACLJ isn't going to stop on November 5, though. So if if the administration that is incoming is more friendly to Israel, as the Trump administration was in the past, with all the accomplishments, and would presumably be in the future, versus a ticket with Kamala Harris, as we've issued these these whole issues about potential embargo.
But also you look at who her choice for a running mate is someone who praises Ilhan Omar, who says it makes him happy to think about that she is in Congress, and also know that he was one of the first people to speak out calling for a ceasefire aligning himself with what Hamas is propping up and pushing around the country. What to you with your work that will continue, no matter what happens on November 5? How important is it right now that we continue this fight?
It's a great question. You know, I see going back and forth, really from, you know, Washington and Jerusalem and spending, I guess, more of my time really in Jerusalem. But at this moment, there's so much going back and forth, because it's tragic and painful to hear Israeli media and members of the Knesset, you know, the Parliament there and government ministers, who they at this point, they have to think of America as an enemy. And that's the words that are being used by the media there. Now, and what we need to reassure them and explain to them, and what we need to work on here is to ensure that America, it's not America, that's the enemy. We have an administration that has indeed become a tactical enemy and now an existential threat to Israel, by funding up those who are trying to destroy Israel by withholding arms from Israel while it's trying to wage a war by diplomatically inciting against Israel. So they need to understand that's not America. This is an anti America coalition.
Honestly, that's that's that's impactful. And so we're in the midst of hell right now. Obviously, so much rides on this election for Israel as well. And Israel perceives itself as they have to fight.
It is existential, there is no choice. And they just don't get it because they know that they're manning the barricades. They're what stands they genuinely are what stands between America and these jihadis who have sworn death to America who burned the American flag. And so it's important for them to understand, as an American, we're the American Center for Law and Justice in Jerusalem, not the Israel Center for Law and Justice that they see. And they understand that America, God bless the 10s of millions.
of Americans for whom this is a major issue, and will make us an issue, hopefully, God willing in this election, Jeff, we appreciate you joining us. And again, you see the radical nature of who this campaign is willing to even take brief meetings with and then ultimately says, you know, we'd like to meet even further. And we'll discuss with you the potential openness to an arms embargo against the Jewish state of Israel, then they walk back quickly, not the campaign. But as Jeff pointed out, it was her national security advisor who walked out, it said quickly, we don't support an arms embargo against Israel. That's a lot easier for the administration right now to currently say that it would be her campaign who doesn't want to have to say that they want to have these behind closed door meetings. And well, they said, the reason they picked, you know, waltz, and the reason they're moving this progressive way is these 100,000 uncommitted voters that were not going to vote for Joe Biden. And they think, you know, that's how they put up their blue wall. And so they're willing to take on our ally Israel, just to win an election. And you don't think they'll cave to those? I mean, because look what they already did with the favorite for vice President was Shapiro. And why couldn't he be the vice Presidential pick?
Because he was Jewish. So they've already caved to the Hamas caucus once in this campaign, this short lived campaign. You don't think they'll do it again? I think they probably will. And again, you know, we're fighting back and because your resources on this issue standing with Israel, United Nations in Israel, with our office in Jerusalem, in Washington, DC, wherever we have to at the Hague, the International Criminal Court, supporting the Jewish State of Israel, who's on the front lines against the same enemies we have, and the idea of Islamic terrorism, support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org, double your impact, your donation today, ACLJ.org.
We'll be right back. running with a very radical vice Presidential candidate on issues that you care about, whether that's Israel or life. I mean, this is the most pro abortion ticket in definitely in history. Well, she was the first, I think, now Presidential candidate to visit a abortion clinic, at least publicly, and guess who visited with her at the time, Governor Walz, who's now going to be her VP, the candidate, and he has said, you know, he famously, do we have the sound about Nancy Pelosi? Yeah, I mean, you know, he said, and we played it yesterday, that Nancy Pelosi even said to tone down how pro abortion he is.
So they think, you know, they're anti-Israel radicalism and meeting with those kind of groups, even sitting down with those kind of groups, but being afraid to be too closely associated with Jewish supporters of Israel, even if they are liberal Democrats, because of what that means to these activists. Again, on and on we can go, but I want to get to your calls. Let's go to the phones, Will. Yeah, let's go to Joanne calling on line two from Ohio. Joanne, you're on secular.
Hi, guys. I have a Jack Smith question. If Judge Cannon in Florida deemed him unconstitutional, why doesn't that apply in DC? Is it a matter of court filings?
Or is it? It's, you know, so this was at a district court in Florida, the trial court, they filed a notice of appeal that would go to the 11th circuit. So then it would go to the circuit and then you would then ultimately who wins or who loses could appeal to the US Supreme Court. And they would probably have to take this case because there have been a number of special counsels appointed, not just Mueller and Jack Smith, but you had Durham, you had the one who was going through the classified documents of Joe Biden as well, who said he was going to be like the grandpa.
Yeah, Robert Herr. So, I mean, I don't think the Supreme Court would ultimately, depending on what the 11th circuit does, if they say its special counsels are okay, the Supreme Court could leave it there because there's been some history of having special counsels. If they say, you know what, now that you're challenging it, we don't think it is because if you're a US attorney, you have to go through confirmation and you still have limited jurisdiction. How then can the Department of Justice pick whoever they want to have unlimited jurisdiction to bring these criminal charges that a US attorney could not if it was outside their state or if not even their state, but their region within a state.
And in her order, she... So ultimately it does impact nationally, but that's why he can still move forward in some regions of the country. And in her order, she specifically said this pertains only to these proceedings. Sometimes you will see an activist judge that tries to say, I'm making law for the entire country, I'm making a ruling. And those quickly get, typically, you typically see a injunction very quickly from the appeals court on something of that magnitude because the appeals court wants to make sure they get their eyes on it before they're setting national precedent. And a lot of times those do go straight to the Supreme Court relatively quickly when it's something that a district court judge is trying to make a national injunction or make national precedent on.
So that was a good question, though. We do have that sound from Tim Walz if you want to play it. Let me just replay it for you because just in case you didn't hear the broadcast yesterday, we call Tim Walz the most radical pro-abortion nominee for vice President to be part of the executive branch in history. Nancy Pelosi is the one who believes that as well.
Take a listen to Walz in his own words. My record is so pro-choice Nancy Pelosi asked me if I should tone it down. I stand with Planned Parenthood and we won.
Okay. Just the joy of abortion is what also is just so troubling always to me. The Democrat Party in the past, even those who supported a pro-abortion agenda weren't celebrating the idea of having to make these very difficult decisions.
They would actually acknowledge that will. Now it's I love abortion. I mean, Nancy Pelosi is like, whoa, whoa, whoa, man, like you're going to get us beat because that's not where the American people are. Where we've seen after Roe, there's been, you know, there's been obviously a lot of debate about where people want to set the limits and these kind of education we need to do. Where they don't want to set the limit is no limit at all. I mean, that has been clear in all of the polling. So if that's what you're going to go out with a message of no limits on abortion whatsoever, the American people don't support that. And yet what they're going to try to do is say, no, it's not that it's we just want to make sure the government's not involved at all.
But the government has to be involved in moral decisions sometimes. I mean, that's why we have crimes. We say, okay, this is criminal. This rises to a level of, you know, a misdemeanor. This is what rises to the level of a felony. And on and on we go. Those are not just decisions based off what we think is good or bad, but it's also decisions based on morals.
I mean, you can't, you cannot divorce that from governing. Exactly. Let's go to the final call of the day. Bill calling from Wyoming on Line 1. Bill, you're on Sekulow. Hey, Bill. Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
I got a question. This business, Harris visiting these groups wanting to embargo weapons to Israel. Israel is fighting against terrorism right now. And if they have no way of fighting, who's going to take up the fighting for the rest of the world? Well, listen, I mean, ultimately it ends up coming to our doorstep and us fighting it again. So it's a bad policy for the U.S. because the easier it is for those terrorists to exist in the Middle East and have those places where they can organize safely. That used to be like, you know, remember they utilize Afghanistan.
Before that it was Sudan. And then now that we saw, of course, that, you know, Qatar would take some of the Hamas leaders' political wing, but now the Hamas leader is a military, is a militant who's inside the Gaza Strip. So Iran could not protect Ismail Hanae, the former leader of Hamas, from being killed in Tehran when he left Qatar from once to go to the inauguration of the new Iranian President.
When the former Iranian President had this random helicopter crash that killed like half of their, you know, their administration, their cabinet there. So again, if we're not fighting it with Israel, we're going to be fighting it alone. And I want to explain to you, when you impose an embargo, you would then go to the U.N. and ask other countries to impose the same embargo or else face some wrath of the United States. And remember, we've got countries that are pretty big supporting the other side here, like China and Russia to some extent, who would be willing to get arms into enemies like Iran, who are the ones really now the lead fund. They are the number one sponsor of terrorism. We know that financially. They're kind of running the whole show now of terrorism. And instead of promoting the Abraham Accords and putting together peace plays and really kind of encircling Iran and bringing on a Russia and bringing on a China and saying, listen, let's keep them out of the nuclear power game. You may have them, we may have them, but we don't trust these guys.
You really can't. Honestly, China and Russia, you really trust these guys to have nuclear weapons? Have you looked at what their beliefs are and their willingness potentially to use this in an Armageddon style move? Again, this is not just kind of just rhetoric right now. This is realities of who we're voting for, the elections, election integrity, of course, that we are concerned about. And right now, the targeting of Americans continuing, whether it's President Trump, whether it's Tulsi Gabbard, our colleague. You know what we're doing at the ACLJ? We fight back and we use all the resources that we have available to do that. And this is a time where we're asking you because we really need the resources available to fight the TSA on this program, to fight back on the FBI and DHS to preserve not just Tulsi's rights, Americans' rights. Go to ACLJ.org and donate today.
