TRUMP: “Not Guilty”

Today on Sekulow, President Trump pleads not guilty in superseding indictment. 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, welcome to Sekulow, folks. So, the case in Washington, D.C., the election interference case brought by Jack Smith. That he had to, again, issue and refile a superseding indictment after that Supreme Court case, granting a lot of immunity to President Trump. So people were kind of watching to see how would he change it.

Of course, a couple of the changes he made were really just kind of ridiculous. Like, instead of calling him President Trump, they referred to him in this case now as Candidate Trump to try and, again, distract from the fact that he was President at the time they are trying to bring these acts occurred. Of course, there were some charges they had to drop completely, but if you actually look at the charges they brought, two of which in a different Supreme Court case that we filed in were tossed out by the Supreme Court as charges that would not be relevant in these cases. Even to those who entered the Capitol illegally on January 6th remain in this case.

And then, of course, they're explaining today kind of a timeline. The judge says she will totally, this is Judge Chutkin in D.C., is trying to totally ignore the election. But here's the issue. There's issues within this because, for instance, the discussions with Vice President Pence. Is that part of his official, you know, job as President? Seems like it because when you talk to your vice President and your President, even if you disagree with each other, that would appear to be official actions. Well, who gets to decide if that's official or not and thus could be used in court against President Trump or is caused, is covered by immunity? Well, of course, President Trump's attorneys asserted, this was made pretty clear by the Supreme Court, that that would be covered already, that he'd be immune from that.

You have to toss that communication out. Judge Chutkin said the Supreme Court says she gets to make the decision on whether or not there's immunity there. So that issue alone is ripe for appeal to go to the D.C. court of appeals, then ultimately likely I see another trip potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court. So what does it mean for the timeline? Well, it's interesting, Will, because she said, I don't care about the elections.

I'm not considering the elections at all. President Trump, by the way, he pled not guilty to all the charges, all of the counts. It was a pretty simple, he did not have to be in the courtroom today.

And of course, there's not cameras allowed in federal court. So these are reports coming in from a journalist as they come about. We don't have a timeline set from her about this case. So we'll see if her timeline is as bold as her statements were. Like, does she actually try to start a timeline in the middle of, you know, less than two months before a Presidential election? We've got the debate next week. We're five days away from that. But she has said, Will, I am ignoring the election and I am the arbiter on whether or not immunity stands.

That's right. And as you mentioned, there aren't cameras in the federal courthouse. So these are quotes that we're getting from journalists that are inside there for these proceedings today. But Judge Shutkin said, this court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. That is not something I'm going to consider. I'm definitely not getting dragged into the election. So the fact that we already brought up that it appears Jack Smith was violating Department of Justice regulations and guidance already with bringing the superseding indictment at the time he did. Now we know that the judge in this case is not going to even consider that in her scheduling. Once again, it appears more election interference from the DOJ.

And this is the day after we see them have the attorney general parade out there complaining about what Russian interference in the election. And again, we will talk about that. We will talk about new information in the Hunter Biden tax case at the U.S. District Court in Southern California.

We'll talk about that. We get back from the break. There's some big news on that and likely how that will unfold.

We will get back to we come back to you. And folks, just again, we know the Biden-Harris administration will continue to weaponize this deep state. I mean, look at this, folks, and they continue right up through the election to undermine your freedom.

And it won't stop until we do something about it together. Tulsi Gabbard is going to be joining us on the broadcast today. She served her country, still does in the military for over two decades. She's been targeted by that TSA terror watch list and the Quiet Skies program. We're filing our third round of FOIAs because we represent her because of your support at AC.

Welcome back to Secchios. So we have breaking news involving Hunter Biden. If you're not following the news while you're also watching our broadcast live, Hunter Biden has decided to plead guilty in that tax case out of California. So I think it was hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes.

He ultimately had someone, a friend, pay those taxes, back taxes for him. But instead of going to trial, he is going to plea not guilty. This would set up a much easier way, I think, for his father, the President of the United States, to issue a pardon on his way out because the case, even though he could do it now and he could do it even if Hunter was in the middle of a trial, it would have already worked its way through. There might be a penalty phase of this, but they've obviously believed with whatever plea deal they've come up with, it's not going to involve any kind of jail time.

I don't think they would have agreed to any plea like that. So Hunter Biden starting to also clean up and kind of shut down his legal issues because his father's on the way out and on the way out a lot easier if you're not up for reelection to issue pardons to family members. And I think Hunter will be at the top of the list.

No surprise there. I don't think it'll be a big part of the election because Joe Biden is no longer, other than the policies that Kamala Harris was a part of, Joe Biden himself and these kind of personal decisions are really kind of taken off the field by taking him off the field of the actual election. And I think, you know, by next week and the debate and maybe the only debate we get next on the 10th, you know, I think that the issues are going to be the issues that affect the American people. I don't think even the case out of D.C. by then, even if on some crazy timeline, is going to be something the American people are paying much attention to when they decide who they want to be President of the United States. I mean, if President Trump wins, these cases fall apart. If he loses, I think the cases fall apart as well. It's like you don't have a stomach to continue to prosecute a former President if he lost a second election cycle. If he does win, all he has to do is instruct the Department of Justice to drop these cases.

And everybody expects that to be the case. I don't think there would be any surprise there that that would be done. But the fact is that until that moment, the DOJ, Will, is trying to politicize their role as much as possible. So I think with moving forward with the superseding indictment as quickly as they could, even though the Supreme Court slapped them down so hard to try and get back into court like they did today, get the not guilty plea again from President Trump on this superseding indictment. They've already gotten that once on the initial indictment and rewriting it. And then the Merrick Garland coming out with the Russia again and having the Russian disinformation coming through, I guess, websites and they supposed to look real, but they aren't real and they're trying to mislead American voters. It's the exact same playbook. They are restarting it once again.

That's right. And in this case, as as we mentioned earlier, Judge Chutkin is the one who's going to have to be the arbiter of some of these immunity issues. We know that the Supreme Court gave very feels like very strong guidelines about what many of those are, many of them outright. They were like, if it was a conversation with someone that is in this department, in the executive branch, that's immune. But there are some of the other issues that she's going to have to parse out. And the attorney here for President Trump, John Loro, he's actually asking for an evidentiary hearing because Judge Chutkin said immunity needs to be dealt with as early as possible.

And he wants a full and robust record on that early. So that's what people refer to almost as like the mini trial. It's where the prosecution has to bring forward and kind of present their evidence to the judge so that she can make decisions on what's allowed and what's not allowed.

So that is something, though, that we'll find out when she sets this schedule, maybe even later today. But whether or not that's something that could happen before the election, if there's an evidentiary hearing where Jack Smith has to go in there and kind of lay everything out on the table and the judge then needs to parse out what things are allowed and not allowed based off the immunity ruling of the Supreme Court, we could see something like that if she, the judge in this case, is wanting an accelerated timeline to try to get this going because she opened the court at this hearing today with almost a joke of, oh, I haven't seen you guys in a while. You're looking good because it's been nearly a year because of the Supreme Court's action on this case that put everything on hold since really late last year. So even that, the judge was kind of making a joke to try to crack the ice, break the ice a little bit as they came back into court for the first time in many, many months. Yeah, I mean, again, I think what you're honestly looking at here is probably the next most interesting thing as we're going through the Trump legal world is back in New York. It's, again, that the Judge McCann, the sentencing date, which is on the 18th, so that's right in the middle of, I mean, you're talking about eight days after the first debate. This, again, I think all of that will be appealed.

None of that's going to go into effect immediately, and in fact, that could even be delayed as of right now. So I don't know if that 18th date will stand. We will see.

A lot of people thought it would not. But many conservatives believe that Murchin has also politically motivated and wants to issue a guilty plea and kind of cause chaos pre-election and maybe even try, that's what they're saying, even try to issue some kind of prison sentence for Donald Trump. So, again, I think it's a time not to get too distracted. We want to update you on all of this, of course, because it's coming back and, of course, with Hunter Biden trying to close out some of his legal woes. I think because of where his dad stands now, not seeking reelection, get the legal cases finished and get the pardons and ultimately whatever plea deals you've made and whatever decisions, probably anything there, it gets wiped out. So he's doing that. Donald Trump, on the other hand, I think if you're the Trump campaign, you focus on the campaign.

You let the legal team handle these legal cases. And again, I don't see this tracking with voters the way Democrats wished it would. In fact, we know that each time that they focus on this, President Trump has gotten more support. This is actually what unified early President Trump's Republican support. It was why other Republican candidates, when people were saying, is there some option other than President Trump? It was after the Mar-a-Lago raid.

That was like it. People said, you know what, if this is what they're going to do to Donald Trump, we're going to unite behind him. And in fact, that stayed with him the entire primary. Jordan, the other news that you were talking about, the Hunter Biden plea change here in Los Angeles. So for people that are just watching, they were supposed to be jury selection today. That's why they were at court. The trial is about to begin. And there's now reports that the DOJ wasn't aware that the attorneys were going to go in for Hunter Biden and try to make this last minute change. They were moments away from beginning jury selection.

So prosecutors were there today prepared to start the proceedings with jury selection to move forward with trial. And now they're coming up with a kind of a switcheroo for the prosecution. And they're reporting that this is going to be an arrangement like an Alford plea, where it's a it's a guilty plea on paper. But the the defendant is acknowledging that they could be convicted. So they're avoiding trial, but not necessarily. They're they're saying they're guilty, but not necessarily saying they're guilty.

A lot of people that listen to the serial podcast back in the day heard much about the Alford plea back in those days. But do you see this of the attempt to avoid the trial as a way for Hunter Biden to get out of this soon? Say I'm guilty.

They hand down a punishment and then Joe Biden can claim whether he commutes a sentence or pardons him outright on his way out the door. I didn't interfere with the judicial system because I didn't interrupt a trial. I didn't stop the trial from happening. This case was closed and now I am going on my way out the door to pardon or commute the sentence of my son.

Absolutely. I think that's what's happening here. I think that's why you see the team probably surprising even the DOJ accepting this kind of putting forward this kind of plea deal.

Now, we have seen that a number of times. We are seeing that the DOJ didn't know about this plan at all. I think, you know, sometimes, again, his legal team has got a totally new calculation. His father is not up for reelection.

So you're not thinking that he's got to basically survive another few months. I think if Joe Biden was reelected, he would have done this too very early after being reelected. I don't think it would have changed the timeline that much, but it would have definitely caused some more political damage to Democrats because he'd still be in office if he won.

And, of course, the Democrats are up for reelection in the House, the Senate, places like that in a couple of years. So you'd have to keep talking about Hunter Biden. I actually think that was part of the calculation of removing Joe Biden. It was not just — I think it was mainly Joe Biden's performance, but on top of that, it was the distractions caused by his son and family members, including his brother, in these cases. And so now I think he's freed of a lot of those concerns and those pardons are going to be issued. And you know what? We're going to be maybe mentioning them or we might be so far away from that mattering that it's barely mentioned in any kind of news because it's just not relevant to the broader category of who is governing our country and the laws of our country.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Are you surprised at all by Merrick Garland, the DOJ, to start bringing up Russia yet again as, you know, they're going to interfere and they're going to interfere. They're going to try to support, you know, President Trump and they're going to try to confuse Republicans. They're going to try to confuse Americans so that they vote for Trump.

It has to be, of course, that can be the only way they interfere, right? They can't actually do what Vladimir Putin said, which is that he wants Kamala Harris to be President. He'd rather her to be President of the United States. He came right out of the Senate and he also talked about her unique laugh, which was interesting in a press conference that Putin gave.

But more press conferences and statements than Harris has done herself. Folks, support the work of the ACLJ and we're taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110, Tulsi Gabbard joining us later.

We take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. We've got more Russian news, not about Russia and Ukraine, which you'd hope that conflict would be coming to an end. But Russian, you know, involvement in our elections. So we're supposed to believe while they're engaged in this ground battle. And again, that they are misleading millions of Americans, that this somehow is going to change the vote.

We've seen this so many times, both as attorneys for President Trump and our role at the American Center for Law and Justice. Listen, I'm not saying the Russians don't put out misinformation about our politics and try to play inside in an illegal way or confuse voters. But the extent to our focus on them instead of China and some of the bigger players you think in the world who have less, maybe less distractions going on. You know, they're not at war. It's a war that's getting deeper inside Russia.

But take a listen. Do we have the video from Putin, the statement from Putin to play for people? Yes.

Yeah, we have Byte 16. This is Vladimir Putin about how he feels about the way the election is going. Let's go ahead and roll it. He advised all his supporters to support Mrs. Harris. That's what we'll do. We'll support her as well.

That's the first thing. Secondly, her laugh is so expressive and infectious. That means that she's doing well.

There you go. He gets to dig in on the laugh. He also says, you know, he said Biden is supporting Harris, so we will too. I mean, again, but when you hear Merrick Garland, it's the opposite. Now, I get that Vladimir Putin's playing us with those comments. He's joking around. But it's also, again, it's just they think this works.

Take a listen. This is their attorney general of the United States still, Merrick Garland. In a separate enforcement action, the Justice Department is seizing 32 Internet domains that the Russian government and the Russian-sponsored actors have used to engage in a covert campaign to interfere and influence the outcome of our country's elections. As alleged in our court filings, President Vladimir Putin's inner circle, including Sergey Kirinikov, directed Russian public relations companies to promote disinformation and state-sponsored narratives as part of a program to influence the 2024 U.S. Presidential election. An internal planning document created by the Kremlin states that as a goal of the campaign is securing Russia's preferred outcome in the election.

Which is Kamala Harris winning the election, now that we know. We've heard it straight from Vladimir Putin, so I would think that would be Russia's goal as well. And listen, they've handled the United States pretty well these last four years. Do you really think they want Donald Trump in? Because he said he thinks that the conflict would come to an end before he was even in office if he's elected again.

I guess you would call it a re-election still. But because of the conversations you would have during the transition, that the Russians and the Ukrainians would figure something out and it would be over. Because of his relationships and their concern about dealing with other issues they may face with a continued conflict that the incoming President of the United States is so against. Now you can believe that or not believe that, but I certainly think if you're Russia and you're Putin right now, Harris, I don't think he's actually playing us that much.

I think that he wants you to think that. But I think Harris obviously much less experienced, including with Walz, a lot less experienced dealing on the international stage. We don't even really know what she is responsible for internationally.

She gets all these different roles and then she says she doesn't have these roles. So I'm guessing she doesn't want to own the Russia-Ukraine matter. But President Trump's been clear, and so you can hold him to it, that he believes he can bring that conflict to an end very quickly. And with the threat of other actions by the United States that would not include US troops or more military assistance. That's right, and it's so ironic to me that they keep pushing this Russia narrative. They've been pushing it since 2016, well probably before that, when the dossiers were written up and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. But what you're seeing is Merrick Garland, who is not a voice of confidence when you see him out there talking about this Russian interference. But I think the one thing that they keep missing is they just so badly want to believe that Russia wants Trump to win that they can't realize that what Russia really wants is a weakened United States and a destabilized United States so that they can continue to do whatever they want around the world. And what has happened in the Obama administration, they moved into Crimea, the Russians.

Why? Because of the status of the United States on the world stage. During the Trump years, they held back on their adventurism.

What do they do? As soon as Joe Biden goes into office, they invade Ukraine and they start a land war in Europe based off of what? There's no resistance from the United States. Yes, we are spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to prolong it by propping up Ukraine.

Just enough propping up to keep it going without anybody winning. And winning in this case for Ukraine I think would just be Russia withdrawing from some parts of the territory and saying, okay, this is where it stops and we're going to stop shooting at each other. But Ukraine has tried to also prolong the conflict. They've gone into Russia. And remember, initially, all of our aid came with the asterisk that you cannot use this to go on the offense into Russia. Well, somewhere along the line that changed. Right, because what do you see now?

Well, we've seen it all along. We saw drone attacks and missile attacks where they attempted, but now we're seeing that Ukraine has taken some territory in Russia. And according to the President Zelensky, whose term ended quite some time ago, but he hasn't left office in a democratic way, they're not going to let that go.

They are planning on keeping that land in Russia for as long as they want. Which means it kind of prolongs the conflict. It prolongs the shooting conflict that there has been basically going on with the Russia-Ukraine border on the eastern side. Even since the annexation of Crimea, there was basically a no-go zone where people were still getting killed, not at the numbers we've seen during this conflict. And it wasn't going as deep inside Ukraine. It wasn't going into Russia.

But now it's like you've set up both sides to continue this conflict indefinitely. It appears that you do need someone new to come in with a new strategy of how to back Putin off as well as deal with the Ukrainians so that they feel like, again, that they are, I guess, awarded in some sense for their ability to hold back this massive Russian invasion. Everybody was wrong on what would happen when the Russians invaded. There's been some weird moments in this, you know, when you had the Wagner group and their leader who died in a blown-up private jet. Remember, they turned on Moscow and then turned around simultaneously and said it wasn't about Putin.

It was about some of the leaders of the military and that too many of the Wagner group's soldiers, which is the private military group they use, were getting killed and they didn't like the strategy of Russia. I mean, it's not like Russia has seen great success in this conflict, which is why I think if you're the Trump policy team on this, you can look at different off-ramps, which is what you want to find, for Russia. It's like looking for off-ramps with Hamas and Israel. The main off-ramp would be release of all of the remaining hostages.

Right now, that seems like a kind of, not a pipe dream, but very difficult because Hamas thinks they can get more out of this administration. What I know is this, we are going to fight at the ACLJ and right now we are fighting with our colleague Tulsi Gabbard. Today we're filing our third round of FOIAs to get to the bottom of this and defend Tulsi as well as her husband. We're preparing further litigation to defend your rights and protect your freedoms. Tulsi is going to be joining us in the next half hour of the broadcast, but we need you to take action with us. Sign our petition to defeat the Biden-Harris weaponization of government against conservatives. They are just 24-7 on this right up through the election at ACLJ.org slash sign.

We've defeated the deep state before with the IRS-targeted conservatives. We can do it again. And please keep us in the fight month after month by becoming an ACLJ champion at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, so I want to get to this quickly just to update you because there's some Trump legal news. Of course, you've got, again, the trial restarting in D.C. today.

It's not really restarting because they're coming up with a schedule. Judge Chutkin, this is the D.C., this is at the district court level, saying she doesn't care about the election. She's not going to think twice about the elections. But let's see if she actually does schedule a lot that's going to really lead up to and around November.

Because, again, people are voting very soon at early voting. We know that occurs. We know the debate is five days away next week on the 10th. And then we also know that there's issues within this superseding indictment that are going to be appealed. So whether or not you put forward a jury, but even the pretrial issues. If she comes down on, then I think you see appeals. And so this case is not going to be moving forward before, I can't imagine, to any kind of real trial before election day. Whatever decision she makes. We'll see when she actually issues her schedule and we'll see on these issues that have to be decided. She says she's the arbiter based off the Supreme Court decision. I think some on the Trump legal team believe that she is not the final arbiter on those. And she can't reopen issues when it's a discussion between a President and a vice President in office. That you can suddenly make that somehow an event that is not covered by privilege. That was not done in the official capacity. I mean, between the two, again, leading executive branch leaders. If they have those conversations as President and vice President, how is that not covered by the privilege?

Almost kind of like regardless of what they're talking about, if they are, again, talking about it in their roles, which they were. And the Supreme Court was pretty clear on that. She said she will get to decide about that. But she did decide one way or the other. She'd say it's definitely not privilege.

It definitely is privilege. But these are the kind of issues that can take and go all the way back to the U.S. Supreme Court. We also know Hunter Biden's issue has come forward to the DOJ with a plea deal. The DOJ and the court have called a recess. The DOJ didn't know about this plea deal. They have not yet said they were going to accept the deal or reject the deal. There's some indication they don't love this deal and they could reject it.

We'll see. But ultimately, I think this is a move by Hunter Biden to try and clean up everything he's got legally, try to finish it all out, get it kind of wrapped up, have the sentencing come down, and then you get your pardon because your dad is not up for reelection anymore. So those pardons are going to come even quicker and have much less political consequences. I think the most difficult thing you could do as a Republican is try to put pardons that Joe Biden makes of his own son onto Harris and Walz. I don't think people are going to even be paying that much attention to it.

But I want to bring your attention to it because these are interesting moves that start getting made when you have a change in who's at the top. Let's go to the phones, too. 1-800-684-3110. Remember, Tulsi Gabbard joining us live in the next segment of the broadcast. Let's go to Bill calling from Maine on Line 1. Bill, you're on Sekulow. Hi, how you doing?

Hi. Could the biggest reason for Joe Biden not wanting Hunter to stand trial be that some of the evidence that would be introduced into the court might incriminate Joe Biden? I don't know about in this case because this case specifically has to do with his taxes and taxes that he didn't pay and that he had paid these back taxes.

So that issue was resolved, the actual money that was due. He just would be in his plea deal. He would be admitting that there was enough evidence you could convict him that he knew he owed these taxes, that he intentionally, I guess, did not pay the taxes instead of going to trial. And thus, again, it's not like the taxes haven't been paid. He's not trying to fight back.

I don't know that that would have had a great deal of crossover with his father. But what it does do is, like the other cases, like the gun case coming to a close, is you just try to close it all up so that when his father does leave office, it issues these final pardons, all of these legal issues. If you're Hunter Biden, you want as the broadest pardon possible so that even if there's something else that could pop up later by the Department of Justice, that that's not going to affect you because of the pardon you received, at least federal pardons.

These are all bid of federal cases. We'll continue to take your calls, especially in the final segment of the broadcast. Tulsi Gabbard is going to be joining us live in the next segment of the broadcast, but hold on through if you want to talk to us on the air or maybe have comments on what Tulsi has to say to 1-800-684-3110. We're going to ask her about Russia as well as her new video on X.

Welcome back to Seqio. We're joined by our colleague Tulsi Gabbard, who has spoken out about, of course, her involvement with, again, this Quiet Skies program, the Quad S. And we'll get to that in a minute, too, because she's got a new Tulsi Truth episode out, which has got, I think, over how many millions of views now? Close to 20 million views.

Close to 20 million views already on through the X platforms. We'll definitely talk about that. But Tulsi, I first wanted to talk to you about Merrick Garland has decided yesterday, you know what, let's put Russia back in the news. So we're going to, again, warn the American people about sprawling Russian election interference.

He doesn't talk about China, doesn't talk about any other countries. And again, it's this kind of idea, and he says it indirectly, that Russia has their preferred candidate that they want to win and that they're putting this information out. I mean, it's the exact same playbook we've seen tried to be used by the Department of Justice and this administration and the past administrations to try and dirty up the Trump team. Yeah, you know, it's so familiar.

This is like deja vu happening all over again. And the fact that you have the Harris Biden administration once again, you know, sounding off with Russia, Russia, Russia, it reminds me of what we've been through already over these last eight years. What we went through when President Trump first ran for office. But the first thing I thought of when I saw that news is, well, they must really be getting worried because this is the usual play out of their tried and true playbook of what to do when they are under threat.

Try to foment fear. The second thing is that's interesting is they're saying that Russia is trying to come in and influence our elections. Well, we have seen a video this morning of Vladimir Putin saying that his Presidential candidate of choice is Kamala Harris, that he hopes Kamala Harris gets elected. Why aren't the headlines about Vladimir Putin trying to help Kamala Harris get elected? Instead, if you go on CNN right now, it says Vladimir Putin trolls U.S. Presidential race with, quote, unquote, endorsement of Kamala Harris. Imagine if if he had said the words Donald Trump, that headline would be very different. And the third thing that I think is important to look at with this is the fact that you have the Department of Justice, the Merrick Garland going out there and sounding the alarms on this. And you actually read the details of this.

It's a bit of a joke. But also, why isn't he sounding the alarms about how Amazon with their Alexa is trying to influence the election and interfere in our election? When people ask, hey, who you know, which candidate is the best candidate to vote for?

Is it Kamala Harris? And Alexa has a whole bunch of nice things to say about Kamala Harris. But if you ask the same question about Donald Trump, Alexa says, well, we don't participate in any kind of political activity. This is one of many examples of how big tech and some social media companies, how the mainstream propaganda media in many cases is trying to manipulate and influence the outcome of our election by by telling people what they want us to hear rather than telling people the truth.

That's what Merrick Garland should be investigating, not not not fomenting fear and calling out Russia, Russia, Russia again. Tulsi, you've come on our broadcast. You've talked about very openly. You did also on your the Tulsi and the X truth video that you did for X. Again, it's almost got 20 million views and kind of outline for people the treatment you've received since speaking out against Kamala Harris.

Talking about when you were debating her and because leaving the Democrat Party, you could even find the kind of date. You can kind of tie it to the exact date that both you and your husband started getting this enhanced screening, which is this Quad S, which you get on plane tickets. People may have seen this before. And like you say in the video, you know, if you get it once or twice in your regular traveler over years since it's been in place, you can say, OK, that's that's that's just something that's random. It means secondary security screening selection. But there is something that is above Quad S, which is the Quiet Skies program, which utilizes the Quad S screening, but then adds to it, you know, federal air marshals directly following the individuals that they have on these like a terror watch list. And and and you believe and we believe you at the ACLJ as we represent you, we're filing another for you today with TSA on behalf of you and your husband for more information as we receive information.

And by the way, they've responded more quickly to these four years than any other four years we've ever filed different departments. But but you outlined for people in that video and I encourage people to check it out. Elon Musk also retweeted it. So it's an easy place to find us on our on our social media accounts, too. You outlined the program once again for those who might not have seen it and heard about it on our broadcast or one of the interviews you've done on Fox News about it, about how invasive the program is.

And again, even when you thought maybe it was over representing you, you know, it would come right back. Yes, and we don't know how many people are on this list. I may be the person with the biggest platform who's been added to this list, but there are thousands of other Americans who are on this quiet sky secret domestic terror watch list. And who knows how many other secret domestic terror watch lists there are in our government.

And that's really the point here. And I'm so grateful to all of you and the team at ACLJ for the work that you were doing in challenging the unconstitutional nature of what they're of how they are targeting and surveilling everyday law abiding Americans. And how this administration is using once again the national security state as as a weapon in their efforts towards political retaliation. And I just want to take a moment to point out here that what's at stake is is our fundamental rights and freedoms.

My First Amendment right to free speech and my Fourth Amendment right to privacy and against illegal warrantless search and surveillance by my government. You at ACLJ you guys have had so many years, decades really of experience defending free speech defending whistleblowers who are calling out the truth and exposing this exact kind of abuse of power in our government and I'm so grateful to be standing shoulder to shoulder with you and and just want to encourage your listeners. Please help and donate to ACLJ because of the work they're doing not only with me but with others whose name may never be in the headlines but who are also experiencing this very same kind of unconstitutional targeting in many cases simply for exercising their right to free speech. I appreciate you for that Tulsi and I appreciate you for talking about us in the video as well because and actually being brave enough to speak about it publicly like you said you may be the most high profile person that is and it has a platform that you can utilize to bring attention to this program but we know it's being used against other Americans and we also know it's a program that just hasn't worked. I mean one thing we found out about Quiet Skies is that it's led to zero, zero arrests, zero findings of terrorists. They haven't been able to stop, it hasn't been linked to stopping any terrorist attack, it hasn't been linked to actually finding any terrorist but it is a process in which American citizens without any kind of legal processes are put on a list and treated as though and surveilled as if they may be a terrorist. That's the line they use you know it's for potential terrorists and then they use that Quad S security screening to do that and I would imagine that most Americans and we've called on people to say you know if you're like a regular traveler and it's happening to you let us know. But that again the fact that they would do it to someone high profile like you Tulsi I mean to me this is why we have to fight back because they feel like they could do it to anybody. That's exactly right and that's their hope is that you know I don't know that they are bothered by the fact that I'm exposing the truth about them because they want to send a very chilling message to people which is if you stand up against the Democrat elite, the Harris Biden administration, we're going to come after you just like we went after Tulsi we're going to make you look over your shoulder every time you travel to see whether or not you've got government agents surveilling you or following you around or watching you while you sit on the airplane.

Based on what they won't disclose any of the reasons why I still have not heard as you know very well at all directly from anybody in the government about why I've been added to the list why I'm still on the list according to some people who are who are in touch with those who know. And so the lack of transparency the lack of due process and the complete unconstitutional nature of once again our government targeting law abiding Americans, even as we know there are known terrorists running across our country came across our border illegally. And we cannot allow this to continue and and that's why I'm grateful to all of you at ACLJ because you have the courage to stand up and fight against some of the most powerful entities in the country to do what's right.

Do we appreciate you being part of our team on the secular broadcast so we appreciate again. It's an honor to represent you at the ACLJ in this fight as you said, we're not afraid we take if it's the IRS it's Department of Justice. If it's FBI or Homeland Security. If the constitutional rights of Americans are being violated the ACLJ is going to stand up. And in this case I think they picked on the wrong colleague of the ACLJ. They picked on Tulsi Gabbard because it got us right into getting very quick information from these federal government entities but we're not going to back down until Tulsi and her rights are vindicated as well as her husband's rights. And let's not forget that Tulsi also is serving as two decades in the National Reserve two decades Lieutenant Colonel, and none of that has been impacted, by the way, so they use this to follow you around but it doesn't impact your military service. We'll take your calls, we come back on secular 1-800-684-3110 as Tulsi said, support the work of the ACLJ, you can go to ACLJ.org it's easy to do that you can become a champion of the ACLJ that is a, where you pick an amount that you donate automatically each month.

So it's a great whatever amount you feel comfortable with if you've got an amount you want to set that with you go to ACLJ.org slash champions, we'll be right back. All right, welcome back to secular we are going to take your calls now 1-800-684-3110 I want to make sure to people check that video out from Tulsi Gabbard over 20 million views in a day that has gotten Elon Musk has shared it through the X platform we've got it on our social media accounts as well. It's a great way to if for those who are trying to share that story where from beginning to kind of where it stands now and even the ACLJs involvement she's able to walk through it about 14-15 minute long video of this entire process and what she's gone through so you can find that on our social media accounts and her social media accounts as well.

Elon Musk so it's not hard to find if you go and you just search I think it's Tulsi X truth you'll find that it's the second video she's done through that program I want to go right to the phones let's go to Tony online to in Tennessee hey Tony welcome to secular you're on the air. Thank you so much for taking my call I really appreciate it. I look forward to hopefully calling in a lot more and weighing on certain things real quickly please give my best to your father.

You know the percussionists need to stick together so please do that. But what I want I get so angry continually hearing about this and our government leaders harassing us my question, and I respect great legal minds I'm a big fan of that I've been to the Supreme Court I've said in session as a member of the audience and whatnot. But I want to ask you as a lawyer and people representing her what can we do to put the fear of God into members of the from Merrick Garland on down to the continually harass the citizenry what can we do to make.

We have to do two things Tony what is you have to fight these out. These are long battle so we deal with the IRS, and we got those individuals the IRS fired the ultimately it cycles through right so like a decade later, you can't just rely on that so you see this kind of program like quiet skies, being misused and a misused and then you see it but there is someone willing to speak out so Tulsi was able to speak out that's always the first step is that we have to have a client, we have to have someone who's willing to put their name to the issue of that process. It starts with FOIA gathering evidence that ultimately that those foils could lead to lawsuits, even regardless of the election outcomes here, because what you what you need to do one is you have to vindicate the rights of the individual who was willing to stand in the case of the tea party cases it was those leaders of tea party groups that were willing to come forward and say this happened to us, and we are going to make it know that it happened to us we're going to participate congressional hearings, we're going to sign our names to these foils and we're going to be part of these lawsuits, and of course that that's a decision making process so that's number one. Then number two is there's got to be people held accountable at the IRS they were held accountable, it means likely that people need to be held accountable if they are putting people on these lists for unconstitutional reasons they've got to have a process I mean if this program is even constitutional at all. They've got to have a process where you are again, violating the rights, both First Amendment rights and the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans by putting them on this list, willy nilly just because you don't like their politics. That is not going to hold weight in court so you also need a team that goes inside these agencies and and guts out the bad actors draining the swamp was the name and remember we said to drain the swamp especially Department of Justice, that's not a four year job. And unfortunately President Trump only had four years I think it's it's an I think it's an eight plus year job, which means we could start that process once again with President Trump, but it would need to continue post his presidency I don't, or they just come right back there swamp creatures they're tough to fight and they don't they don't just go away they don't run away just because you got elected, they they will still try and thwart you even if you are the duly chosen President of the United States, so you got to fight hard, they fight back and I think you're going to have, you're going to need more than one term to actually see the swamp creatures go, but the only way you even start the battle, where it's not just a theory that's out there like they're probably doing this or it feels like they're doing this is when people with a profile are willing to speak out and put their name to what's happening to them and Tulsi going through that process of the embarrassing process of how they search through all your closing search through all your items to do it again in front of people putting agents on planes, and that's that will is always the first step is we have to hear from Americans and find clients who we this is happening to and cut through that issue it's no longer just a theory at that point, it is a fact that it's happening.

I think it shows you how desperate the deep state is at clinging to power that they will utilize these tools against people like Tulsi Gabbard because they're afraid of the truth. Let's go ahead and take Fred calling from Tennessee online for Fred you're on Sekulow. Thank you very much. Thank you for my call.

I'm a long time donor to you guys and my family keeps you in our prayers all the time. Now what I find very interesting about the Tulsi Gabbard incident is that she is a member of the United States military susceptible to classified information probably up to SBI if not top secret to begin with. So how can she be on a terror watch list and still be a member of the military?

Great question Fred. That's exactly what we're asking in court and that's why it looks like it's all about politics. It has nothing to do with any national security issue whatsoever. Because if in fact the government had good reason to put, they don't, but to put Tulsi Gabbard or her husband on this list you'd think that the first people that would be notified would be like the National Guard where she serves Lieutenant Colonel and she's served for more than two decades and she's continued to climb the ranks even during her political career in office in Congress in her role when she was a Presidential candidate and now as a private citizen she's continued her government service in the military. And it's had no effect whatsoever on her military career or her service which leads you to believe that they're not sharing this information because they actually believe it's a threat.

They are utilizing a system which it feels like is way too easy to put down Americans that these government bureaucrats or even political appointees believe they just don't like their politics, they don't like who they're talking to and so you know what let's make their life miserable, let's treat them like a potential terrorist. So we'll just do it through our agency, we won't go too far and wide because we actually have no information that could back any of this up but let's make their life a living hell every time they try to travel knowing that Tulsi is traveling the country and now has been, you know, has now confirmed and made the official endorsement of President Trump. And so that again I think is what you have to look at. Do we have time to get Norm's call quickly? Norm, quickly, you've got about 20 seconds.

Norm on Line 1 from Washington, D.C., you're on the air. Yeah, thank you. Hey, I just want to know, is there an opportunity for President Trump, should he get elected, to have a righteous retribution, not a vindictive, but a righteous retribution against the classified documents, Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, to investigate these people to show that there was an abuse of power and then do something about it.

Thank you. Yeah, I think it would be better just to start firing people, honestly. A lot of them will lose their jobs but get rid of them than just try to start, you know, criminal convictions. You see how long that can take. And again, there won't be a lot, most people, they're worried about their pocketbook, they're worried about wars going on. But so what you need to do if you're President Trump, you come into office, you've got to drain the swamp, it starts with the top, you get rid of these bad actors and then you get rid of their associates and you've got to do everything possible, including working with Congress to make it easier to remove some of these bureaucrats. You put political appointees in that are going to get this job done and help you and assist you, not try and thwart you in this process. We want you to support the work of the ACLJ. So much of this comes to light because individuals like Tulsi Gabbard know and can trust that to work with the ACLJ, they trust our legal advice, trust the decisions we'll make and working with them. Support the work of the ACLJ, you can become an ACLJ Champion at ACLJ.org slash champions.