BREAKING: Shocking Jack Smith Details Revealed

Breaking news today on Sekulow is shocking details from Jack Smith's superseding indictment revealed. 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. Hey everybody, welcome to Sekulow.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. My dad, our chief counsel, will join us in the next segment of the broadcast to break down this new superseding indictment by Jack Smith. I know the guys here yesterday were talking about the case out of Florida. That is a case the ACLJ, by the way, is filing in at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Filing that Jack Smith and this special counsel office is, in fact, unconstitutional. It's an issue we've faced before with, of course, the appointment of Bob Mueller as special counsel. Even though there is no longer an independent counsel statute available to the Department of Justice through Congress. And that Congress, the DOJ has U.S. attorneys, but they have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate and they can be given extra territorial power, I would assume, by the Attorney General. If necessary to conduct, working together to conduct these kind of potential investigations and prosecutions. But here you get to pick and choose whatever lawyer you want to bring back into the government to serve in a role that has this unlimited budget so long as the Attorney General approves.

So that's out of Florida. But then we learn Jack Smith just hasn't been beaten up enough in Washington, D.C. by the U.S. Supreme Court. So he files a superseding indictment. Now he says this is being filed 10 days before Election Day. But folks, we know that Election Day is only about 50 percent of the people vote on Election Day. When do the other people start voting? Well, in North Carolina, ballots go out in 10 days.

So guess what this would definitely violate? The Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy advisory white paper that's been in place that says you don't file criminal charges against active political candidates running for office 60 days before an election. And technically in 10 days, people in North Carolina will start being able to vote on ballots they receive by mail. But get this. Listen to Will about how much of the country is voting way before we get to Election Day.

So again, we have a point here about all the redefining terms, but we'll tell people about that. That's right. When you look at when states early vote in or have absentee no excuse voting, it covers over 90 percent of the country. Forty five states plus the District of Columbia have early voting or non excuse absentee voting or mail in voting at least 10 days before the election. So we know just from that, that over 90 percent of the country is within the 60 day window that he was trying to avoid by filing this yesterday. So it looks to be clear in election interference.

It is a redo of James Comey interfering in 2016 as the Democrats hated. But now we're seeing Jack Smith go after Trump when 90 percent of the country is already within that 60 day window. Ninety percent of the country already within the 60 day window.

The earliest being in 10 days in North Carolina would ballots go out. So this is what you have to ask the left. They like talking about we talk about Election Day. They talk about election election periods of time, you know, because of the early voting. I am going to ask our ACLJ FOIA team to send a FOIA to the Department of Justice to ask just point blankly, have you redefined what that white memo stands for?

It does it no longer stand for an actual election when people are voting, but does it only stand for Election Day? And is that why you, Attorney General Merrick Garland, would approve something like this? And by the way, same charges, two of which the Supreme Court dismissed against a client in a case we were involved with, a J6 client that we were involved with the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the time to support the work of the ACLJ, because this is about your constitutional rights and your right to vote and the integrity of the elections. We're involved in every single one of these cases at the ACLJ. You know why? Because you donate to the ACLJ. We need you to donate today.

Double your match at ACLJ. Welcome back to Secular. We are going to take your calls too if you've got questions about why on earth this case has been refiled other than the fact that it's been filed for political purposes. Which, by the way, at this point, folks, if that really truly is the case through our FOIA, that Merrick Garland's approved a filing when people are voting in 10 days in states like North Carolina where they start receiving their mail-in ballots. And in 45 states, again, people are voting before, you know, it's 10 days versus 60 days.

That's what we've talked about here. Because, again, this idea, 90% of the country begins voting within 60 days from when this new superceding indictment was filed. So it completely goes against the Department of Justice white paper.

But I want to bring in my dad, Chief Counsel to the ACLJ, Jay Sekul, because, Dad, we have seen time and time again, especially this year, a redefinition of terms by the Harris and Biden administration, whether the term was abortion, whether it's now election. And now it's not, now they want it to go back to election day instead of what they used to define election as, which it was election season. Yeah, well, let me tell you what this new superceding indictment isn't. It isn't any new allegation on anything, zero, nothing. It's the same allegations as before recast in a way to try to get around a Supreme Court decision that was a complete defeat for Jack Smith. You brought up the point about the Department of Justice-owned policy.

That policy through the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the advisor, the legal advisor to the Attorney General, has had a policy for decades saying there can be no legal action taken within 60 days of an election because it could be deemed interference of putting your thumb on the scale. What they've done here is redefined interference. So no longer is it interference if you just destroy a person by filing indictment after indictment after indictment, even when you've been losing, which they have, and they get away with that.

So that's where that is right now. And you believe that this, the only way, because of these policies, and we're going to instruct our ACLJ FOIA team to add to FOIA Department of Justice with a real direct question so that everybody knows, not just for Donald Trump, but for everybody who's running for office because it's important to know in these election seasons what the real rules of the game are, have they redefined the Office of Legal Counsel memo to not include actually when people are voting, but to only include that window for election day? Or have they thrown out the entire 60-day rule at the Department of Justice? Have they written a new white paper that has been widely distributed? It's not about top secret information. That's information that they, again, usually produce in a public way and discuss in a public way.

But I want to go to the second point here, because you said, you know, it's like a copy and paste. They just cut a few pages out where they absolutely couldn't keep bringing the charges because of the Supreme Court case. And we were involved in the case, in the Fisher case, and yet two of these charges out of the four are still there. And these were two charges the Supreme Court said on January 6th, one of those protesters who entered the Capitol illegally, while it could be charged with other crimes, could not be charged with obstruction of or the attempt to obstruct an official proceeding or a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, because they said that's not what this was.

And, of course, now they're trying to apply it to President Trump for giving a speech when the Supreme Court wouldn't apply it for someone who was actually in the building when they had to actually stop the counting for a bit of time. Right. So you've got the entire process of which Jack Smith is still proceeding. And you got to say without question, he is trying everything he can do to bring these cases, these criminal cases to fruition, because there's another aspect of this. This is the taxpayers money.

And I think the latest indication was he spent something like 14 million dollars in the last like eight months or so. And then on top of that, add to it, and this is to me is the other aspect of it, there's going to be an election in, you know, basically two months. So to go through all of this, when you know there's going to be an election, how is it not election interference when you continue to bring motions and superseding in diapers? Well, I think that what people, too, want to understand with this, they see obviously Jack Smith has got, and I want to explain for the ACLJ, we're going to be filing that, you know, in the case at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on October 3rd, that's what our amicus brief is due, that we agree with Judge Cannon that Jack Smith was an unlawful appointment and we need to throw out this whole idea of special counsel. And if Congress wants this, if DOJ wants this, they need to pass a law, they need to establish an office, someone needs to be confirmed, that you should not be able to basically pick out of thin air and give unlimited budget to a super U.S. attorney that has never gone through the congressional U.S. Senate confirmation process.

But on top of that, we're also going to look at the FOIA here. We filed in Fisher to get those charges thrown out. I mean, Jack Smith is not getting a case done before people are voting. So this debt, I can only imagine, this is why I said, I think we are entering now the actual Banana Republic territory because Merrick Garland would have only approved this because of the political damage they think this could cause President Trump.

The case is not moving. There's no way this case is done, obviously, before the election. People are voting, start voting in 10 days.

So in 60 days, the election, you know, I mean, so this whole idea, you know, in 45 states are all going to be voting within the 60-day window from when this was filed yesterday. So the whole idea here is this is not about seeking justice. This is about seeking political points against your opponents. Well, it's really like it's like political retribution, because what they've really done here in bringing this super shooting indictment yesterday, while the candidates are out, while we're a few days away from the first Presidential debate again, and to kind of repeat.

But the fact is, Jack Smith still was desiring to pursue it. So when they talk about election interference, like you said, the Democrats always would argue that any interference with elections, including early voting, should all be allowed. But now it no longer constitutes, under this Department of Justice guidelines, an election when you can start voting in four weeks. This is why, I mean, when you go through this, why it's so important right now for people to support the work of the ACLJ. I mean, we've been on this since the 14th Amendment cases. We look at this case again as election interference and part of election integrity as well. We were involved with the Fisher case at the U.S. Supreme Court. We're going to be involved with the Jack Smith appointment case. So we're filing that October 3rd at the 11th Circuit. And I am going to have our FOIA team look at going right to the DOJ on this, whether or not the white paper still is in existence. And how did they, have they redefined the terms like we have continued to see this administration do? Now, this time around, redefining the terms not more broadly, but in a more limited way when it suits them. No, I think, look, the reality is also, I think, you talk about the work of the ACLJ here, how critical it is.

You said you're right. I mean, we were counsel in the cases where the 14th Amendment attempts to take former President Trump off the ballot. We won that at the Supreme Court of the United States. We were involved in, I think, five or six of the ones of district court on all this.

And this is just another interference. In Judge Cannon's order, Andrew McCarthy, who was a former U.S. Assistant U.S. Attorney, called her opinion scholarly. And by the way, Clarence Thomas has already opined the same position. So this is not some novel thing. So you may have a situation where the prosecutor himself, as we've always realized, should have never been there in the first place.

Folks, this is the time, and, Dad, I appreciate you joining us on the broadcast for that update, and we'll keep going back to you as this kind of progresses. I mean, it's not going to progress a lot further because, again, the elections are going to begin, so this is all just done to take political hits. And when you start using the legal system to politically try and damage opponents, you are in a banana republic. Whether or not you're putting those opponents behind bars or not, we'll see that with the sentencing with Judge Mershawn as well, because so far he has not agreed yet to the request to that delay yet, has he?

Correct. Yeah, and even though both parties are okay with it, because they want to appear like they're not always trying to interfere with the elections, you've got to support the work of the ACLJ. We're down to the final three days of our Life and Liberty drive.

I mean, your gift will be double dollar for dollar. Your support can't come at a more critical time as Biden and Harris continue their unconstitutional prosecutions against Trump. We've jumped into action, as you know, and are preparing to file an amicus brief to remove Biden and Harris' special counsel, Jack Smith. As we gear up for that, our legal teams are still in so many other crucial battles. We've submitted FOIA requests and are preparing lawsuits over the targeting of Tulsi Gabbard and anyone else targeted by the Quiet Skies program. You could be next. The weaponization of government against conservatives, well, we're already seeing it impact you. That's why we have to defeat it as early as possible. We're fighting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the abortion industry for their smear campaign against pro-life sinners.

We have less than three days left in our drive. Please go to ACLJ.org to have your gifts doubled, dollar for dollar, no matter the amount. Keep us in the fight and have your gifts doubled today at ACLJ.org.

And let me just appeal to you directly right here, folks. If you're someone, again, who is saying, you know what, is my $10, that I can give that $10, that's going to affect me negatively, which is important. And we don't want you to give donations if it will. Really going to matter? Well, absolutely.

Because that's in like 20. And think about all the other donors making that donation and it adds up and it adds up and it adds up. And it's why we have the teams that we do ready to fight for you. Go to ACLJ.org, donate today. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow.

As I said, we're taking your calls too at 1-800-684-3110. Tulsi Gabbard will be joining us in the second half hour of the broadcast, so you don't want to miss that as well. We're going to talk about her endorsement of President Trump. We're also going to talk about, again, the Harris interview to agree.

But it's not really just Harris. It's taped. And she'll be there with her VP nominee, Walsh.

So it's like, you know, it's not really the same thing as taking a live interview or even doing a solo taped interview. We'll talk about that with Tulsi as well. But I want to get to the phone calls, Will, at 1-800-684-3110. If you got questions about this, and I understand why you would, because, you know, Jack Smith, you think after that Supreme Court case would say, you know what, I'm having to fight for my life as a prosecutor down at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which, by the way, ACLJ filing it on October 3rd.

Just want to underscore that we're involved in all of these. We filed in the Fisher case, which led to the fact that he had to now file a superseding indictment. But just by the way, he didn't have to do.

He could have realized, you know what, we lost this one. It's not a strong enough case. Prosecutors are supposed to make those kind of decisions, even if they feel so strongly that Donald Trump did something on January 6th that they want to prosecute. If they get a case back from the top court of the United States that makes it basically impossible for them to bring the charges that they wanted to bring, they can't just keep bringing them and then changing the terms around and say, well, let's not call him President Trump, even though he was at the time.

We're going to call him Candidate Trump. I mean, that's one of the differences in their brief. But he was the President at the time that he was making those speeches. Because as the Supreme Court says, you got to find all these terms. What is an official act?

What's not an official act? That's not so easy in the middle of a presidency, even towards the end of a presidency when you are the actual President and you're speaking in front of the White House, for goodness sakes, about the election and election integrity. Seems like all things that a commander in chief would have authority to speak on in their official capacity.

So let's get to the phones, Will. And before we do get to the phones, I want to follow up on something you said about kind of like the timeline for people, because many people watching the show or listening on radio have probably never heard the term superseding indictment. So essentially, is the way I understand it, is the superseding indictment is a brand new indictment that's going to replace the one he already indicted. It went through a grand jury to get a superseding indictment, a completely different panel. So he basically charged again Donald Trump in the same case. But if you think about how long it already took in this case with the expedited review by the Supreme Court on immunity because of the Presidential election, take that category out of it, all of the motions, all of the motions to dismiss, all of the motions to get rid of certain evidence, even the judge looking at what's immunity and not immunity related to the Supreme Court case, even if it were to play out. This is years long. It's hitting the reset button on this case and looking years into the future to ever get to a trial.

Yes. I mean, again, Jack Smith has got to go through and you got to explain this to the district court judge, the district court judge. They would have to be OK with, you know, you get the replies from the Trump attorneys and then you go back and forth, back and forth. Then you may start a trial, maybe, but then there's going to be those same issues pop up about defining which of these acts that you're alleging are action. Just because Jack Smith says they're not official acts doesn't mean a court is going to agree or that a three judge panel in the D.C. circuit is going to agree either. Just like you saw the Supreme Court say that you've got to go back and check that first. So it doesn't matter that he did. He can't just claim that.

He'll have to fight that out. So, no, none of this. First of all, if President Trump is elected, these cases are gone. All of them. What would be interesting to see is if if the special counsel case remains just to see whether or not special counsels are or not legitimate and can be appointed or not.

I think we'd all like to know that one. But this case? Gone.

Gone. So if President Trump is elected, if he's not. Harris can let this case continue. They can continue this political persecution of President Trump, even though I think the actual prosecution completely fails.

But it's up. It costs a lot of money, takes a lot of time and resources. And by the way, remember, we're also ACLJ was involved in the immunity case at the U.S. Supreme Court. I just want to keep reminding you all the steps of the way the ACLJ has been involved in defending your election integrity. Since this attack, an assault on election integrity began by trying to remove President Trump from the ballot because of these actual cases themselves, cases that had not come to a final agreement.

And when they did, they lose. And so they've got to come back and start over, even though, as we pointed out to you, they are well within that window of time where they should not be filing new cases. Will, let's go to the phone. Let's go to Ann in Pennsylvania on line one. And you're on secular.

Hey, gentlemen, thanks always for your amazing work. Before I make my quick point and I do have a question about Jack Smith, you know, I really fear something going on with our election that's about to take place in just a few months. To me, there's specific special circumstances in voting early. And if voting early wasn't bad enough, meaning continuing to count the ballot, it was the night of 2020 that they continued to count ballots after Election Day. And this went on for a week and two weeks.

And then they finally called the race for Biden. Well, this is one of the reasons that I'm so thankful for you guys, because the fact that you're going after the Fisher, you're following the Fisher case, you're supporting the day six. There is just amazing to me because I'm telling you, if we don't have an election with integrity, if we're not able to have one one man vote, one woman vote. OK, yeah. And we don't get rid of this fraud.

We lose our country. That's that's number one. And as far as Jack Smith is concerned, he's basically bringing the same case back.

I mean, when you look at it's the same four charges, same four main charges. He took out a couple of the others. But that's because he had to.

And it really he didn't really take out the charts. He redefined a couple of the others by like saying, for instance, and instead of calling President Trump President Trump, he calls him a candidate in the 2020 race when he did this because he wants to imply that he was doing this in a role as candidate, though he was President at the time. And will you point out the Hatch Act, which prevents federal executive branch officials from getting involved in politics in their official capacity? Does it ever involve the President? The President's completely excluded from that. So they can always be both in their official capacity and acting in a political capacity.

That's right. The President doesn't abdicate his duties to the vice President so that he can give a speech at a rally. Exactly. The President remains the President of the United States even while campaigning for President. And so just that notion in and of itself that he's trying to delineate between a speech about election integrity that the President was giving on that day and trying to say he's a candidate only and not the President United States. I think it's a very hard sell for courts. Obviously, the district court has given a lot of leeway, but the appeals and Supreme Court, I don't think are going to be too keen on that analysis from Jack Smith. As you know, folks, we've jumped into action.

We're prepared to file an amicus brief to remove Biden Harris's special counsel, Jack Smith. That is important. That is on October 3rd. The weaponization of government against conservatives will impact you. As we were talking about with Ann, that's why we have to defeat it. We have to have election integrity. We have to believe in our elections. We have to believe in the rule of law and that, again, even those who disagree with us are not enemies in that sense, because it's going that way.

It's going the way of the Banana Republic. We have less than three days left to go in our life and liberty drive. We really need your financial support at the ACLJ where you're running behind. I need you to donate if you can. Your gift will be doubled. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We need that donation.

Donate today. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

I just want to lay this out for you, folks, because yesterday, I was out of the studio. The team put forward that Jack Smith, again, has filed the appeal in the case out of Florida to try and keep his job as special counsel. We will be filing our brief to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States versus Trump on October 3rd, so very soon.

A reason why to support the work of the ACLJ. And then yesterday afternoon, we get this new filing. It's a superseding indictment. All that means, basically, is a new indictment involving the January 6th charges. The same charges, by the way, two of which the Supreme Court has said it can't bring. So I don't know why Jack Smith is including them and thinks that he's going to sneak that by the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately when the Trump team will appeal it, just like the Fisher team appealed it, which we supported at the ACLJ and filed that those charges were not the right charges and were unconstitutional. But then we get the news about the superseding indictment will.

And we did our research because there's all this talk in the news. The mainstream media said, well, this is 10 days before the 60 day window that they were rushing down to of the Office of Legal Policy memo, which says the Department of Justice that you don't file against active political candidates. You don't file criminal charges 60 days or less before elections, except for they forgot early voting.

That's right. And they expanded the definition of election when we went through what we went through in 2020. The states as they they made it no excuse mail in balloting across the board. And we saw how well that went in 2020.

There were no questions about that at all. But now what we're seeing is that they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too, by saying, no, the election is election day. So we're inside that window. So let's say just one state like 10 days from now, North Carolina sends out their mail in ballots. Let's say they even tried to play that card of like, well, it's only a few states that would be within that. So it's not really like outcome determinative of the country.

No, it is 90 percent of states. It is 45 states plus the District of Columbia that have early voting that already would start within 60 days from now. So you are already inside that window, Department of Justice.

The election starts effectively in 10 days when North Carolina sends out the mail in ballots. I think this should be brought up by the Trump team immediately. We are going to file a FOIA as well. And I've got our team on that because, again, it's not just for President Trump. It should be for anybody who's elected official.

Has there been a change in the Department of Justice? Have they redefined election now to only mean election day, even if there is early voting? So you're still within the window, even if people are voting, as long as you file before the actual election day. And so you're not in violation, even though, of course, you couldn't like — there's a lot of election crimes you would be charged with if you prevented these people who were getting their mail ballots or their early voting. It's 40 — how much do you know — 45 states, 90 percent of the country, begins voting already within 60 days of this filing.

It's 45 states total. The vast majority of the country is already going to be voting well within 60 days of this filing, and yet they do it based off election day. But I thought that really didn't matter anymore because election day is really election season. But now they're back to election day when it serves their purpose.

You see, again, why this is such a dangerous team that is obsessed — obsessed — with taking out Donald Trump. We get back. Tulsi Gabbard is joining us. And then we will take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

So Michael, Kate, Ronald, Melissa and Lynn, hang on the line. We are going to have an entire segment where we take phone calls. And I am encouraging you to support the work of the ACLJ right now, the weaponization of government against conservatives. Lord, we know it's going to impact you. It's why we must defeat it. And we're filing also in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to stand up against the abortion industry for their smear campaign against pro-life sinners. We need you right now to be part of our ACLJ Life and Liberty Drive. We are behind, so we've got to raise more. We need your financial support.

We really do. At ACLJ.org. Double the impact of your donation.

That's ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secchio. We are joined by our colleague and a member of the Secchio broadcast team, Tulsi Gabbard. She's been in the news a lot this week. And Tulsi, I wanted to — and last week as well — just to have that first opportunity to talk to you about your time with President Trump and the official endorsement that you made, which I would say is trending all over the social media. And I think following RFK Jr.'s official endorsement is very powerful in the sense that you can — whether you want to call it the Republican Party or the Trump campaign — is a big-tit movement and that it really is bringing in people from various backgrounds who are starting to see through kind of like the media haze that's about Donald Trump and say, you know what, we agree with a lot of what he's saying. You're never 100 percent really with anybody, but I agree a lot with what he's saying, so I'm going to work to get him elected.

Tell people about that. Yeah, Jordan, this election — and I think both Bobby and I coming out in the wake of the Democratic convention and endorsing President Trump — points to the opportunity that we have as the American people, as voters and as a country to come together. There's a very clear choice and contrast in this election. It's a message that I look forward to continuing to bring to voters across the country over these next eight weeks. Election Day is coming up quick, and as you pointed out, people will start early voting much sooner. But really, the choice for us as voters is between President Trump, who is a person who has shown through his record that he stands for freedom, peace and prosperity.

As you know, you cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace. We cannot live free so long as we have people in our government so willing to abuse their power to retaliate against political opponents and violate free speech, as we've seen happen over the last three and a half years under the Harris-Biden administration. On the Kamala Harris side, a vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for an increasingly tyrannical government, one that undermines our free speech, the rule of law in our democracy, more war continuing to push us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war, where we are already closer to that point than ever before in our country's history, and continued hardship and a lack of prosperity in our country. We've already seen this with the few proposals that Kamala Harris has put forward with, you know, government price controls and government handouts that will only further increase inflation, further increase the cost of living and the hardship on everyday Americans. That's really what this election is about. It's not about Democrats versus Republicans. It's about our freedom and what is in the best interest of the people of our country, not the Washington elite, not the swamp in Washington or the deep state of the national security state.

What is in the best interest of the American people and our ability to live in a truly free, peaceful and prosperous society? Yeah, and I think that is refreshing for people because I think people are concerned. I mean, you know, it's getting tougher and tougher with people, whether it's the cost of goods, and they hear, well, there's going to be price controls. So it's like, wow, the Harris team is just, who cares about inflation?

They're throwing out, they don't think they can do anything about that, so it's going to put price controls in and hurt more small businesses, which then means middle class and below workers are going to be making less money or having less opportunities to have jobs or even start a business. But, you know, the second point to this, too, is this kind of, it's like they saw the Biden strategy back in 2020, which is, you know, the campaign from the basement kind of strategy, and now Harris has agreed she's going to do her first interview. You're someone in the media a lot. You give a lot of speeches, you do an interview right now, and you're with us, you know, at least once a week on our broadcast as part of the team.

People see you on Fox News, you can host broadcasts. Okay, so she's the vice President of the United States currently running for President of the United States, and she's been criticized a lot for not sitting down and doing an interview since she became the Presidential nominee. And now that she's going to sit down and do an interview with CNN and Dana Bash, it's pre-taped, and I think it airs tomorrow, right?

So it airs tomorrow, but she's not sitting down and doing it by herself. She's got to have Waltz next to her. I mean, there's jokes out there like, here's this strong woman running for President of the United States, and she's got to have, you know, Tim Waltz, the guy next to her, to make sure she can get through an interview.

I mean, it's a joke, but it's also kind of sad. Yeah, you know, it's one of the many proof points that we've seen not only over the last three and a half years, but frankly, just since Joe Biden stepped down as the candidate and announced his endorsement of Kamala Harris, of how unfit and unprepared she is to be President and commander in chief. It is unconscionable that, and frankly it's a slap in the face to the American people, that she does not feel the need to go and speak to the people, answer questions, put herself under the kind of scrutiny that every Presidential candidate must endure. You look at how she is staying away from the press, staying away from any unscripted moments and opportunities. She's not holding public town halls and answering questions from voters who are in that room. She is going and delivering very rehearsed speeches that are written by her pollsters and political controllers who are telling her, here's what you need to say to try to win votes and keeping her away from any opportunity for voters to really get to understand what is your record, where do you stand, truly stand, how will you solve the great problems and challenges that we face. So, you know, the fact that this one interview is being so hyped up, like, oh my gosh, she's going to do one interview in the entire month since she was essentially the presumptive Democratic nominee is just crazy. I agree. The fact that she's got to go there, you know, kind of holding hands with Tim Walz, I assume it will be to deflect and detract away from any tough questions that Dana Bash might ask.

He's got to be there as her sidekick. It does not inspire confidence, even from an objective standpoint, nor does she deserve any confidence. It is so bizarre.

I don't even know if she'll do any others, but if this is the way she's going to do it, I mean, it's just, again, they want to use the term weird. This is most bizarre is that as a politician, you can't sit down for interviews, pre-taped interviews. I mean, that's a pretty low bar for any body running for office, nonetheless, President of the United States.

So I want to kind of go to Jack Smith. Right. So Jack Smith, and I'm not trying to get into all the legal stuff with you because we've done that here in the show, Tulsi, but, you know, Jack Smith puts forward a superseding indictment, this continued political persecution of President Trump. Nothing's going to happen before election day on that case. It shouldn't have even been brought again.

And there's a case moving forward that's trying to get rid of the special counsel because it's not approved by Congress and they don't go through Senate confirmation. And we'll see where that goes in the ACLJ. We support the removal of that. But, you know, we've talked about the Quiet Skies program.

We're representing you as a colleague here at the ACLJ involving you. But I mean, can you imagine how that kind of political persecution would ramp up under a Harris-Waltz administration? I mean, it scares me.

And it should scare every American. And again, you know, the hypocrisy and the lies and the phoniness of Kamala Harris stares us in the face on a daily basis. She stands there on the debates they are on the Democratic convention stage, and she's got all her surrogates saying Kamala Harris is going to be the President to defend our freedom, to defend the rule of law, to defend democracy. And yet all we've seen under the Harris-Biden administration over the last three and a half years to include this latest attack by special counsel Jack Smith with more indictments against Donald Trump is weaponization of our government institutions and the use of lawfare against their political opponents, those they deem a threat. So, yes, I have been experiencing this with their adding me to their secret domestic terror watch list. But there has been no bigger target and recipient of their political lawfare than Donald J. Trump.

And we're seeing this continue now. So there's no question about the fact that Kamala Harris, if elected President, will not hesitate to use every lever of power available to her to silence, smear and destroy anyone who dares to challenge her authority or her positions or her decisions. And that that for everyone watching and listening, that is something that is not about Democrats versus Republicans. That is what will turn and is already turning our country into something that more resembles an authoritarian dictatorship and banana republic than it does one where we as Americans in a democratic republic can have confidence that our justice system will be fair and equal to all and that we don't have to think before we exercise our right to free speech and wonder, gosh, I wonder if I say this, will it trigger my own government to come after me?

That goes against the vision that our founders had for our country and the vision that they had for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Tulsi, we appreciate this. We're proud to stand with you in that case. We're proud that you're a colleague with us on the broadcast and of your statements this week, too, in support of President Trump. And I think you're right.

Listen, we're at a point and I appreciate you joining us today. We are at a point where we if Harris and Walz take this and do as Tulsi and I expect, we cross over into the land of it's no it's no equal justice under law anymore. It's banana republic. And this Jack Smith filing is banana republic style.

Now, I hope it's the last one of it. And this becomes history and not reality. And the way that happens is, again, we fight back. We win elections. You support groups like the ACLJ. You stand with people like Tulsi Gabbard.

You come together and you fight the big issues. And I'm asking you today to donate and support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ dot org through our life and liberty campaign. Your donations are doubled at ACLJ dot org. Again, you know, we're running a little bit behind and we're able to bring you a team like Tulsi Gabbard, the team that you see here at the ACLJ because your financial support.

So let me encourage you. We got three days left on this campaign. Donate today. We need that financial support at ACLJ dot org.

Welcome back to secular. So we will, of course, continue to take now your phone calls. Thank you for holding all one eight hundred six eight four thirty one to the phone lines are full.

Let's go right to a will. Let's go to Kate calling on line three in Colorado. Kate, thanks for holding on. You're on the air.

I thank you for taking my call. It appears we all know the definition of insanity, which is exactly what Jack Smith is portraying, as far as I'm concerned. But on another simple level, what in heaven's name is in it for this guy personally? With all the history of failure that he's had in prosecutions and being overturned and he's a political hit man, though, Kate, he doesn't care if he gets overturned. He cares that he ruins you politically. So these individuals who ultimately get vindicated, Bob McDonald, even John Edwards, North Carolina, who got vindicated and overturned. What do you think happened in their political careers, though, Kate?

Destroyed. So he's a political hit man. He's not a legal hit man in the legal sense of the term. He's not killing anybody.

So I'm saying. But, you know, that's his job. That's why they chose him politically. He's a destroyer, not legally. He doesn't he's not he's not the legal genius who is going to take you out because he's going to get you prosecuted. And the conviction is going to be upheld all the way through all these court processes and appeals. In fact, he's got the worst record on that. What he has a great record on is he'll bring the craziest charges against you that sound really bad. And he doesn't mind losing later in court. So he's a political hit man.

That's what he is. All right. Let's keep on with phone calls. We're going to go to Melissa calling in South Carolina on line five, watching on Rumble. Melissa, you're on the air. Hey, Melissa. Hey, Jordan. Hey, Will.

I have two questions. Number one, can the people of the USA petition or do something to get Jack Smith removed? And the case is ongoing. So that's great question because the ACLJ is involved in it. We're actually filing the brief in the 11th Circuit on October 3rd. Judge Cannon has already issued that in the district court in Florida. That the case there are the J the documents, classified documents doesn't move forward because Jack Smith is not a constitutionally is illegally appointed. There is not a office, you know, of actual this special counsel that this is created and that because Congress does not authorize it. And there is no Senate advice and consent. So there's no confirmation process that the attorney general could not just let anyone become a super U.S. attorney. And why not use the U.S. attorneys that had to go through the process? Why do you have to waste the taxpayers money on these other individuals, whether it's Bob Mueller writing reports, Durham?

I don't care who it is. Both sides, you know, like we've got all these U.S. attorneys and their deputies use them. But you know what? A lot of them wouldn't be willing to look this foolish in court. OK, that's that's the problem. So we are fighting to have this shut down and have Jack Smith shut down.

I'm glad you called because that is an actual possibility here. But we're likely to have to fight that out, not just the 11th Circuit will. And also we're going to file October 3rd. It could be going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope even if President Trump wins just for the sake of the future, we could get some clarity on that one because it'd be nice to know. Or else we know what's coming, which is potentially more special counsels going after President Trump.

That's right. And you had long predicted that that that angle would be something that ends up at the Supreme Court. And we saw that Clarence Thomas obviously has argued that in dissent as well, that he believes that that angle should be looked at. Let's go ahead and go to Michael calling on line two from Florida. Michael, you're on the air. Michael, we have people need to be resolute and vigilant in getting Trump voted in to the White House. Even when we get into conversations with people who may be on the fence or disagree, we need to let them know, do not be deceived by this infomercial style campaign. These people are wolf.

They're vicious. And they're doing everything they can to try and put on sheep's clothing until November 5th. And remember, socialism is sadly very easy to vote in. It's impossible to vote out. Yeah.

Well, look at these countries like Venezuela, what they're going through right now in the streets and again, trying to remove socialism because of its horrible effects on a country which has unbelievable natural resources that could get to the people, except it only gets to the communist socialist elites. Surprise, surprise there. Second, I think you're right about talking to people. Listen, this is another one of those elections where they want to make you feel like you should be embarrassed for voting for President Trump and J.D.

Vance. In fact, I've got the bumper sticker on my truck. I did it last time around.

I put it on this time. I have actually had a number of people, and I live in a pretty conservative state, come up to me and say, you know what, you're a brave person for putting that. I live in one of the more conservative areas of this state, so I don't feel like I'm a brave person for doing that. I just think it's, you know, I see all the people with different sides in their yard.

That's fine. Again, we're getting a little closer to where you'll start seeing more and more, but I encourage you to live out what you're telling people. You know, if you're going to support President Trump, don't be afraid to tell your friends.

Certainly don't be afraid to tell your real friends and family, and especially if they come to you for questions or if they bring up politics to you, which more and more people are going to start to do the closer we get to actually voting, and some people are going to get ballots in 10 days. Well, let's go back. Let's go to Lynn calling from Nevada on Line 6. Lynn, you're on the air. Hi, fellas.

My comment today is mainly to the audience. I'd just like to say that this war that is coming is bringing bondage with it. We here in the United States of America have a better chance of a nation than any other nation on this planet to fight this yoke of bondage off that's coming. We've been blessed.

God has bestowed many things in our country for our people, for ourselves, for our lives. It's time now to get your foot in the game, and the game is the fight of your life. Well, listen, I appreciate your support of the ACLJ, and I think you're absolutely right. And listen, generations believe their elections are most important, but you look at the powers of government right now, the powers they can utilize even against former Presidents of the United States who are running for President. I mean, you see the failings of our security apparatus even around the President of the United States, a former President of the United States while they are campaigning, and they're someone who is able to shoot them.

I mean, with all the technology, with all the security state we have, we see these failings, but yet the prosecutions continue. We've got to fight back. Listen, we're down to the final three days of our Life and Liberty Challenge at the ACLJ, okay?

And I'm just looking at you directly right now. I'm going to make this pitch to you very clear. You know, we like to say at the ACLJ, we are blessed by our donors because we don't ever have to think when a potential case or client comes to an end, right, when the issue at toll sea arose. We don't have to think, oh, wow, this is really complicated, it's going to involve FOIAs, it's going to involve court cases, civil cases, lots of these security apparatuses, all these different agencies. I don't know if we can afford to take it on because we might have to bring some experts in.

I don't have to think about that. And that goes for if you've got an issue too, then we're going to work on it at the ACLJ. And that's because of our donors. So when you hear that we are down a little bit and we need your support if you can make the donation financially, it's because we always want to be making decisions that way. Not about can we afford to do it, but how can we get you the best to defend your rights? And it's because of our donors and supporters who know even if they don't ever need us, they want to make sure that we're there for all of you. Donate today at ACLJ.org. Be part of our Life and Liberty Challenge. And again, triple, double the amount of your donations. We've got three days left. We are behind. Donate today at ACLJ.org. Talk to you tomorrow.