BREAKING: Fani Willis Just DEFIED Subpoena on Trump Case

Breaking news today on Sekulow as Fannie Willis justified a subpoena on the Trump case. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright folks, we've got a packed show for you today on Sekulow. Don't miss any of it. My dad will be joining us in the first half hour of the broadcast to discuss a brand new ACLJ lawsuit and a writ going right to the U.S. Supreme Court that impacts Americans' right to vote and election integrity and fighting back against Democrats. So you don't want to miss that as we announce what we're doing there with my dad who will be joining us later in the first half of the broadcast. In the second half of the broadcast, Rick Grenell will be joining us as well to talk about issues involving the campaign. But I want to go first to the news that is breaking out of Georgia.

Two important things are happening. First, Fannie Willis has defied the Georgia State Senate subpoena ahead of their hearing today. It's an oversight committee, the Senate Special Committee on Investigations, chaired by a Republican State Senator, Bill Kousser, who subpoenaed Willis to compel her testimony related to the committee's investigations into the misuse of the taxpayer funds, the $865,000 she sent to her friend, that special counsel, who then had to leave the case after admitting to the fact that he had no experience at all to do the work of a special counsel in this kind of RICO investigation. So again, it wasn't about the entire case. It wasn't whether or not she should be bringing charges against President Trump or not.

It was about the misuse of taxpayer funds, and yet she refused to show up. Second big news, though, out of this case, Will, as well, two more charges have been dropped against President Trump. Now, more charges remain, the racketeering charge being, I think the RICO charge being the biggest charge. But two more charges have been dropped by Judge McAfee before this case heads to the appellate court in Georgia to determine whether or not Fannie Willis is even the appropriate person to be prosecuting this case because of her connection to the Democrat Party and the move she made with Wade and her comments, of course, on President Trump and trying to put him behind bars and all of that moving together. But Will, at that same time, while the appeal's moving, the trial court judge has dropped yet more charges against Donald Trump that he will not be taken to court over.

That's right, Jordan. And as we see this case move forward in different avenues, it's important for the audience to remember that this case, because it is a state action, that there is a difference between the cases with Jack Smith that are going on. This one is still important to follow and to make sure that we stay on top of here at the ACLJ as well. We filed in that original motion where they were trying to get her removed from the case. Judge McAfee wrote that order that laid out all the reasons she should be removed but then declined to do so. That appeal, there will be oral argument in Georgia on December 5th. Because this is a state action, if the November election were to go to Donald Trump, he doesn't have the ability to pardon himself or to tell the DOJ to drop the case, as he could in the already beleaguered Jack Smith cases, which don't seem to be going anywhere.

But this one we still need to keep our eye on. We see that two more charges were dropped. They were attempt to commit false filing of documents and conspiracy to commit false filing of documents because the judge said the state didn't have the authority to bring these charges because the allegation had to do with a federal court filing, not to do with a state issue. Folks, just this week the ACLJ sent a demand letter to Ashley Furniture regarding their employee who was forced to choose between keeping their job or attending church. In Ohio we filed a writ of mandamus, as you know, to the Ohio Supreme Court to protect those 1,700 families that have taken part in the school choice program in just Columbus, Ohio, and their school district and school board refusing to pick the kids up on the school buses when more money was provided by the state to do just that. We've got that letter into, again, also to Walmart, because again they're making it difficult for people to attend their religious services. We've got a Praise Act, a veto override there, and another case we'll be talking about in the third segment of the broadcast. Alright, welcome back to Secular. We are taking your calls as well. 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110. My dad, Jay Secular, our chief counsel, will be joining us in the next segment of the broadcast.

This is a brand new case. Timestamp delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court last night up around 10-12 p.m. Eastern time. So we literally had attorneys working, yeah, there it is, at 10-14 p.m. Eastern time, and we've had attorneys working on it for about 36 hours straight at the ACLJ, but I want to make sure he's on with us as we go through that action taken directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves election integrity, the right to vote, and of course these attempts by the Democrat Party to try and thwart anyone's attempt to vote for anybody except Harris. Remember, they tried to do it against President Trump.

The ACLJ led the charge there with the Colorado Republican Party with the 14th Amendment. This case is different but just as dangerous, so you don't want to, again, if you don't want to miss this coming up when we announce this also with my dad, and you want to share it with your friends and family if you're watching on places like YouTube, Facebook, so if you watch the broadcast, anywhere you do, make sure you're sharing it with your friends and family, subscribing as well, and of course for those listeners, whether you're on radio or Sirius XM, don't change that dial. But we do want to break down the news involving President Trump in the case out of Georgia because there's two parts to it. First was, if you're just joining us, Fannie Willis was supposed to testify today, she was subpoenaed to testify, to a Georgia Senate committee. The Senate committee is set up really to look at the use of taxpayer funds. And the questioning was not going to be about prosecuting Donald Trump so much as it was the use of $865,000 of taxpayer money to pay Wade, that special counsel she had a relationship with, who had no experience prosecuting a RICO case. And in fact, it is not uncommon in a very complex piece of litigation for a DA to bring in someone from the private sector to assist.

But usually you would bring in someone from the private sector who is an absolute expert, and the reason why you need them is because you didn't have someone within your office who could do that. But what did she do? She defied the subpoena and said, I'm not coming, I don't care what you ask.

Of course, this comes in light. Now remember, this case is now on appeal. The appeal will not be heard until after the election by the Georgia Appeals Court. We have already filed our brief. The ACLJ is involved here. We have filed our brief to the Georgia Appeals Court on this issue of whether Willis herself should be and continue to be able to prosecute this case, or have there been so many missteps by Willis, including what she has said publicly, what she has done as DA, and of course how the case has progressed, that she should be taken off the case. So that has been filed and our brief has been filed at the Georgia Appellate Court. But while that's going on, I just want to remind you, if you're just joining us, Will, three more charges were dropped against President Trump by the trial court judge who said, you know what? This is the state of Georgia. You are a DA in Fulton County. You can't bring federal charges against President Trump.

That's right. And Judge McAfee had previously dismissed some other charges. So now President Trump was originally charged with 13 counts. Now he's down to facing eight counts in Georgia. So they're chipping away with these motions filed by the attorneys in this case at even the broad case that Fannie Willis had brought originally, now down to eight counts against President Trump. However, the case still lingers there and it's in a sort of legal purgatory as we wait on the appeal at the Georgia Appeals Court. As you mentioned, Jordan, we filed our brief in that appeal on the disqualification of Fannie Willis, which will be heard in an oral argument on December 5th.

We probably won't get an answer to that until early 2025, after the inauguration of the next President of the United States. And what we're seeing here, though, whether it be the way that this case continues to get whittled down at the trial court level or the Fannie Willis determination to just go ahead and not show up after being subpoenaed by the legislative body of the state of Georgia. It shows that she herself holds a two tiered system of justice for individuals in the state of Georgia.

She the entire time tried to preach that Donald Trump wasn't above the law. No one's above the law when it comes to the justice system of Georgia. But however, when the Senate of Georgia issues a subpoena after you declined to voluntarily show up and then you're subpoenaed by the Senate, things that an investigative body, an oversight body in the Georgia State House can do, you defy it by not showing up.

It shows that you don't really believe that no one is above the law. Fannie Willis herself thinks she's above the law and can justify a subpoena by the Georgia Senate. Now, the Georgia Senate is saying that they are going to go to court and try to compel her through a court order to obey the subpoena, where they would receive documents and testimony from her. But it seems that at a time where she probably doesn't want to be making more waves as we await this oral argument in December, she's going to continue to do her own thing.

I almost half expected her to bust into the Senate chamber and say, here I am, just like she did in that hearing. Not that before, but her attorney communicated that we actually said that she was going to pull some stunt again and show up in a half hour while maybe we're still even on the air, like she did in court in that unprecedented way that has likely led to why there's this case that's scheduled for December 5th on whether or not she is even properly, she should be disqualified from this case, which would effectively likely in this case because it would maybe a different DA. Her entire office, so Fulton County's entire DA office would be disqualified. And then you'd have to look at would another DA in Georgia want to actually take this on and start from scratch with all the mess that she has caused?

The answer is likely not. But she's brought a lot of this on herself. What was interesting though today is that we did want to make sure that she wasn't going to pull some kind of stunt. It's kind of sad, Will, when you think about our legal system and even the next case and the next segment we're about to announce that the ACLJ has gotten right to the Supreme Court because my dad is going to join us for that special announcement.

So Jay Sekul will be joining us on the air is that we even have to think that way about prosecutors that they may tell you one thing and then run downstairs and show up in court to testify or maybe run across from their offices into a state Senate committee and end up testifying. And I think what our audience will learn if they haven't figured this out already, I'm sure many of our audience actually has. But when it comes to the political parties in this country, the Democrats are not the party of choice. The Democrats are not the party of democracy. They are the party of control. And that's their endgame, whether it be in elections and who can vote for whom or it comes down to when you're going to show up to a subpoena in the Senate or who you're going to prosecute. They don't care about choice, democracy or any of the things that our Constitution lays out and protects in America. They just care about control. And we've been seeing that for years. But now more than ever, I feel like it is brazen and it's on full display and they're not trying to hide it anymore.

Yeah, I mean, this is again, you're going to see it in the next segment of the broadcast yet again. Remember, they tried to prevent you from even being able to vote in the primary for President Trump, who was easily leading all other candidates in the primary to the point where we had to go all the way. The ACLJ representing the Colorado Republican State Committee all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to guarantee that President Trump would remain on those ballots and that the American people would be able to vote for who they wanted to in the primary. Not to guarantee that he would get their votes, but just that you would have the option to vote for the candidate who is the leading candidate in the party's primary. And of course, victory there at the Supreme Court. Another similar case, but it's going to be a little surprising for you, I think. But we are committed at the ACLJ when we say we're committed to an election integrity and your right to vote for the candidate of your choice. And when you look at politics in general, I think a lot of you are thinking right now with our colleague Tulsi Gabbard and people like RFK Jr.

Looking into the future, that there really could be the potential for a third party to emerge, but it will never really be able to emerge if they are constantly treated differently than the two major political parties. And you're going to find out about how that impacts this case as well, that our team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last night at 10. Was it 10.14?

10.14. 10.14 p.m. Eastern Time, and I'll give you this as we're going into the break. Because you may be saying, okay, Jordan, who are you guys representing here? First, let me tell you this. We know who's back. In this case, let me tell you who we're fighting. The Democrat Party and the Democrat Secretary of State in Nevada.

Who are you representing? Interesting enough, the Green Party. It is the Green Party who the Democrat Party decided on the final day that they could to try to exclude Jill Stein's name from being on the ballot in Colorado. And if you believe in the principles that we do, that they should apply to all Americans and all political parties so that we all have the right to make the choice we want to. I thought the Democrats were the party of choice, right? No, they are the party trying to limit your vote to only Harris because they wanted Trump off the ballot as well. Will he explain it for you when we get back? But it shows you just again, our team was able to turn that around, working with a team from the Green Party in 24 hours to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Go to ACLJ.org. We need your support. Donate today. All right, I told you not to turn that dial and to keep watching the broadcast.

Let me give you a second here. If you are watching the broadcast, share it with your friends and family right now because it proves that what we say and preach at the ACLJ, we live and work. That when we say we want to defend your right to vote, we want to defend election integrity, it's not a partisan issue. It's an issue that all Americans should be concerned about, especially when you see one major political party bullying these other smaller political parties only to play politics.

I mean, for no legitimate other reason. And, Dad, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, Jay Sekio, is joining us. And Dad, what we're seeing again is the Democrats, they're back trying to tell Americans who they can vote for, this time in Nevada. Yeah, this is a trend we've seen, and that is these attempts to deny the American people choices that are really put in place by duly authorized campaigns. The fact is, as you said, Jordan, we're representing the Green Party. And, by the way, this is not the first time that we've represented groups that ideologically you may not line up with. We've represented the Hare Christians, we've represented the National Democratic Policy Committee at the Supreme Court.

So, I mean, you do cases where it impacts, as you said, you put your money where your mouth is and you live the principles that you believe in. What happened to the Green Party in Nevada is so outrageous that the Democrats did this. And that was, they were about to submit their form that they used to get candidate signatures so you can get independent third parties on the ballot. They got enough of those that the state certified it. The state actually sent them, the Secretary of State's office sent them a form. And that form that they used was the form that the state wanted them to use to gather the signatures and had certain designations on it. They used that form. They originally were to use a different form, but they used that form. And then when they turned it in, the National Democratic Policy Committee filed the lawsuit and the court says, oh, yeah, the form that the state told you to use, that was the wrong form, therefore you're off the ballot.

You talk about outrageous. That's about as outrageous an election as it gets. Yeah, so you've got the Democrat Party comes in on the final day to make challenges to those who have applied to get the signatures, petitions that you need, signatures to get on the ballot. And the Democratic Party comes in to say, nope, the Green Party, they used the wrong form. The Secretary of State's office, they actually sent in the form, Dad, to the Secretary of State's office.

It was actually the correct form. And then the Secretary of State's office sent back and said, no, you need to use this form. The Secretary of State is an elected Democrat and a party in this case that we brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. And so you've got a Democrat Secretary of State and the Democrat Party hand in hand trying to stop the Green Party from after following all of their rules, which is important to our case. And because of the constitutional arguments we make, I mean, let's walk people through that. The first one, due process. The idea here that you go before you ask the Secretary of State, you show them what you're planning to use, and they say, actually, you should use this document.

And courts have said over and over again, you can't be punished by following the state who had the correct authority there by following their rules. Here's what it means. It means the state of Nevada told you to use a particular document. You use the document pursuant to the state of Nevada's demand. And then the state of Nevada, the same officials tell you, oh, you used the wrong document.

You cannot have your votes counted. I mean, that's what they've done here. And that's why we were joined with, of course, representing the Green Party and with two other advocacy groups that, again, don't line up ideologically.

But this is not ideological. This is law. Can the states do this? And the answer better be, when this is done at the Supreme Court, the answer better be no.

We're at the Supreme Court right now, like you said, Jordan, we got there in 24 hours. There's also the equal protection argument here, Dad, as well. Again, this idea, when you go before these courts, like on this matter, and you've relied on all from the secretary of state, and then you're completed, and they used in this section that it didn't have this one area where it said you have to verify or believe, not verify, believe that the person signing is a registered voter. But the form they got, it was for if you want to get like a constitutional amendment or something put forward in the state, that language isn't there. Now, that language was there when the Green Party filed with the secretary of state. And the secretary of state said, no, that's the wrong form. Here's the form back. But it really doesn't matter that language, Dad, on the equal protection side, because the county board of election, the registrars have to certify that those signatures came from real registered voters.

Correct. And to put a referendum on the same ballot in the same process in Nevada, you don't have to have the form as the secretary of state gave us. So this is where the equal protection comes in. So this is a violation of due process and equal protection. It was a five to two decision to, it's interesting, the two dissenting justices are Republicans.

I don't think this case necessarily falls legally on ideological lines, but I thought that was interesting. It's going to move very quickly, as I told our team last night, Jordan, once we filed, as you said, a 10-14. Now the court has it and they will set the pace and it's going to go very, very quickly. Yeah.

Talk to people about that as well, the speed here. I mean, our team, by the time we got everything signed and done, I remember getting the phone call in the evening to say, could we assist? I said, yeah, I think we can.

As long as they want to partner up with us, I think we'd be great for this. And when we got the official sign off that we could represent the Green Party with our co-councils here, but be the counsel of record as you are. And this was turned around to the US Supreme Court in 12 hours. And what we're asking, let's tell people what we're asking the court to do, Dennett, because this is something where time is very important.

Yeah. So because the ballots have to be printed and early balloting starts very soon, we've asked the court to take the petition that we filed. The application is actually an application for a stay and a summary reversal, basically. Turn it into a cert petition, which means then the court takes that application, the same court, and says, no, we're going to consider this a cert petition, grant a cert petition and get the case over with maybe with no additional briefing. There may need to be additional briefing.

That's going to be totally up to the court. But our team moved in record speed and filed a great document. So, again, this just shows people, I think, Dad, it's a great example as we go into this next break, our first half hour, about where people's donations go. They go into a legal team that can take on a brand new client and those kind of clients, even with those ideological differences, reach out and are glad to partner with us because they know about our legal expertise. They know we did the 14th Amendment case successfully and they know about the speed. And, you know, about the ACLJ, Dad, and the fundraising aspect of it is that to have that kind of speed and to be able to not have to worry about having the funds, that's always because of our donors. Yeah, and I want to encourage our donors to support the work of the ACLJ by going to ACLJ.org right now. We filed just this week at the Supreme Court of the United States and at the Supreme Court of Ohio.

That was just today, this week. So these petitions are already up. The legal work's been done. Your support of the ACLJ makes a huge difference and we encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org.

Dad, thanks for joining us. And, folks, there is now information up at ACLJ.org too on this case. If you want to find out more about the case, the brief, what we are doing to defend election integrity, check out ACLJ.org and we encourage you, again, support the work of the ACLJ. This might not be the last time we're having to go 24 hours to get to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Americans' right to vote for the party or the candidate of their choice and to protect the election integrity of this such important election. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Second half hour coming up. A couple of more big wins for Donald Trump in court in Georgia. Not a great day for Fannie Willis as we explained and we can get into later in the broadcast if you've got questions about that.

We've been talking about that at 1-800-684-3110. A new case. The ACLJ just got to the U.S. Supreme Court last night. Can we show people the brief?

Do we have the image of the brief we filed? It's a pretty unique one because this is the Nevada Green Party versus the Secretary of State and, of course, the Nevada State Democrat Party, who the Democrat Party in the state, on the final day they could, sued to have the Nevada Green Party taken off the ballot. And, Will, you know, we have callers that are calling in about other situations which are a little bit different what Democrats and the left are trying to do with other third-party candidates.

It looks like we actually just lost that caller, but Jeff from North Carolina was calling asking about in other states you see the State Democrat Party suing the State Secretary of State to keep RFK Jr. on the ballot when he's trying to get his name removed. So Democrats in some places are suing to keep someone on the ballot that's no longer running and in other parts of the country, like Nevada here, where a candidate still is running, they're suing to keep them off the ballot. It once again proves they don't care about democracy and your right to vote for the candidate of your choice. They care about what's the best outcome for them to get control. And that's what you're seeing, whether it be suing to keep RFK Jr. on so that it hurts President Trump because now RFK Jr. has dropped out and endorsed President Trump, or whether it is in Nevada where the Green Party may be more damaging in a very important swing state in Nevada this election. The votes going to the Green Party are probably more damaging to Kamala Harris. We got to make sure that people don't have that choice. And that's what they're doing here. And it's so, again, this is why when Harris can get up there, they start redefining terms like, what does freedom mean?

What does choice mean? Well, you know, in some states that means, oh, no, you've got to keep RFK on the ballot. You can't take him off.

He has to be on. He qualified, even though he's asked to be taken off. And there is a process to do that because he's no longer a candidate for President of the United States. And yet when it's Nevada, they say, oh, no, no, no, take the Green Party off. They followed all the rules from the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State, who's a Democrat and a Democrat Party member, told them to use forms that were wrong. And so because of that, the National, the Democrat Party of Nevada said, you got to take them off.

So in their situation, though, they did everything right under what the state told them to do. You can't let them be on the ballot. And that's because they think they'll take votes away from Harris.

But they would make the opposite argument if it was RFK because they think he will take votes away from Donald Trump. It doesn't work that way in the United States. It shouldn't work that way in the United States. It's like that 14th Amendment issue.

If you follow the rules, you should be treated equally, whether you are, as they call them, a minority political party or one of the two major political parties, because the Democrats see what they're trying to do first. As we said, they try to ban President Trump from the ballot. We defeated at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Takes a lot of resources to do so. Then the Democrat establishment forced Biden out of the race to make way for Harris. Now they filed a lawsuit to clear the field in Nevada, a key battleground state, to remove the Green Party from the Presidential ballot to ensure a Harris victory. That is a threat to our democracy, folks. We are taking urgent action. I just want you to understand this.

I know we walked through that timeline, but people join at different times watching the show and hearing the show. We're taking urgent action at the U.S. Supreme Court. We are representing, as counsel of record, the Green Party here in Nevada at the Supreme Court to defend the right of every American to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is the biggest fight to defend the Constitution and your right to vote that we've ever engaged in. It's going to take immense resources, already has, to get that done so quickly at the Supreme Court. Please support us now at ACLJ.org with your financial contribution. Last night, we made that emergency filing at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Green Party to defend the right of every American to vote for their candidate of choice. This case could move.

It will move incredibly fast. We urgently need your financial support. Go to ACLJ.org right now. Donate today.

It's how we move at this speed. It's how we have these excellent attorneys and minds on our team. ACLJ.org, donate.

Alright, welcome back to Secular. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We have a final segment coming up, too, and that's what we'll do is we'll take as many phone calls as we can if it's about the election integrity case.

We filed it at the U.S. Supreme Court at 10.14 p.m. Eastern Time last night. If it is about, again, any of the political issues going on or what we discussed as well with Fannie Willis in Georgia, and if it's about what we're about to discuss with Rick Cornell, a senior advisor to us at the ACLJ and a former member of President Trump's cabinet. Rick, I want to go right to you on this situation because we're seeing it happen where there's not as much attention on decisions Joe Biden is making right now because, you know, this is the height of the Presidential campaign and he's no longer involved. And the New York Times has a report out that the U.S. is poised by President Biden to approve Ukraine's use of long-range Western weapons in Russia.

What do you make of that? Look, I'm all for peace through strength. I think it's an important concept, but peace through strength means that the State Department and diplomacy wins. It means that you have a very strong Pentagon and a prepared military, and yet the diplomats go in with a peaceful solution, and I don't see that strategy coming through from the Biden team.

There's no peace through strength. It's literally just more war and more war funding, and that's what's troublesome to me. We want to have a U.S. military that's capable. We want to be able to stand for democracy and freedom, but we don't have to do that just by causing war and doing war. You know, Dick Cheney, who is probably the epitome of someone who immediately goes to the war solution rather than the diplomatic solution, he's endorsed Kamala. He likes Kamala Harris's ability to look at the situation and immediately say, well, let's send in the military and where's the money for more war?

And while it has its place, again, I support peace through strength, but the whole concept of peace through strength is a celebration of the State Department and diplomacy and peace. Rick, we're now, what, 53 days away from an election, and when you are giving the green light to Ukraine to use long-range missiles that can strike deeper into the heart of Russia, which had been long the policy of the U.S., saying, hey, we're going to keep giving you aid as long as you're not doing attacks within Russia. We've seen Ukraine take over some portion of land in Russia, now the green light from Joe Biden. Why would the Biden administration feel like it's okay to escalate a war with Russia and potentially draw NATO deeper into this with 53 days left to go to a national election?

I think it's because they're just listening to one side of the equation. They're not listening to the diplomats. We don't have enough diplomats that are strong. Look, even during the Cold War, we didn't give Europeans the right to strike inside Russia, to somehow start an offensive campaign inside Russia. I think you lose the narrative, you lose the entire narrative of trying to say, we didn't start this war, we didn't cause this war, we're just defending ourselves.

I think you lose that when you immediately use U.S. taxpayer-funded equipment to start an offensive war inside Russia when Russia has nuclear weapons. To me, I don't understand where the diplomats are who are saying, we've got a country that has nuclear weapons and a guy who runs the country that's a madman. How about we slow down and try to talk about peace agreements?

And I'll finish with this. I actually think the Ukrainians are looking for peace agreements. I think they're tired.

They're running low on men and women who are going to the front lines. And so they would like to have a third party come in and knock some heads and bring people to the table to say, let's try to find a peace agreement. I think they're looking for that.

Russia's looking for that. But there's no U.S. person who's able to stand up and bring the two parties to the table. Rick, we know the United States Senate and Congress, both the House and Senate, are looking into what went wrong in Pennsylvania on that assassination attempt of President Trump just before the Republican National Convention. Some of that has been made known to people about the lack of actual Secret Service sharpshooters there and some of the other wrong decisions or decisions that were certainly questionable. But there have been behind closed door hearings ongoing and ultimately there will be a report issued. And Senator Blumenthal, a Democrat, he came out of the hearing yesterday, Rick, and I just let everybody watch and listen to his words. I don't have to say it's shocking.

He does. I think the American people are going to be shocked, astonished and appalled by what we will report to them about the failures by the Secret Service in this assassination attempt by the former President. But I think they also ought to be appalled and astonished by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security to be more forthcoming, to be as candid and frank as it should be to them in terms of providing information. And we are going to absolutely insist on the truth and the whole truth in documents and testimony as members of the United States Senate, but also as citizens. What did you learn new today when you said they're going to be appalled? I'm not going to go into what we have learned in specifics.

I'm giving you my reaction. And we will have a report very, very soon that I think will absolutely shock the American people, or should, about the lapses and lags in the protection that was afforded that day and the breakdown in communication failure and responsibility. I mean, Rick, he used the word shocked, astonished and appalled. And this is one of the more partisan Democrat members of the U.S. Senate. He has no love for Donald Trump politically, but he is concerned about the protection of Presidents and former Presidents by the Secret Service and the failings, he said, by the Department of Homeland Security to even be candid with the U.S. Senate about this. I mean, it seems to me that, you know, we're talking about a former President you think they would get about as good of protection as you can get unless you're the actual current President of the United States, and yet you don't usually hear these kind of senators come out and say shocked and appalled by what they've heard.

Well, let's summarize what we just heard. What we just heard are Democrats attacking the Biden administration for being ill prepared on protecting President Trump. No one on the Republican side of the aisle is shocked by that. But I think that when you have a Democratic senator speaking out and challenging the media, it's an indictment of the media. You know, they should be having daily press conferences on the updates.

We certainly have never in our lifetime, in our recent lifetime seen such a brazen attack to kill a former President and the person who is running for President as the standard bearer for one party. This is shocking and we need to get to the bottom of it. But the media completely are disinterested. They've shoved it off the front page.

There's no press conference on a daily basis. And yet now we have frustrated Democratic senators speaking out about the failures of the Biden administration. I think this is an indictment of the entire process in Washington. Do you think they'll actually get this report out before the election?

I mean, he says it's coming soon. It's going to be shocking and appalling. As you said, it falls on the Biden-Harris administration. Look, if we if we had a Washington, D.C. devoid of politics and just trying to do what's right, this report would have already been out. People would have been fired.

We would have known the failures immediately and we would have had daily press conferences for what the fixes are. But now that we're this close, I don't think that they will allow it to come out before the election. I think that they at this point now in mid-September are going to just say, well, let's just wait six weeks until after the election.

They shouldn't. They should have had this report done in August. And we should have seen firings because we do know that there was a shooter within close range on top of a roof that is unacceptable, unacceptable, no excuses. Who's to blame?

Fire people and fix the problem. That's that's what the American people want. We have seen some news, too. Rick, just final question real quick from President Trump on not participating in another Presidential debate.

What do you think about that? Look, I think that the focus should be on Kamala Harris going to the media and talking to reporters who are going to ask follow up questions and dig deep on her policy positions. The debates have become a show and we're not getting moderators who are doing their job.

It's just literally a show. And so we need to put the pressure on Kamala Harris coming clean. Why does she want to cut ice? Why does she think we need to eat less red meat? Why didn't she shut the borders?

Why do we have two wars? Answer the questions. I agree. If it's not going to be if it's just going to be the same thing where it's an attack on Donald Trump and it's a moment where Harris can say whatever she wants, use whatever kind of general explanation she wants to do for our country and not even get a follow up question. That's not going to help the American people. It's doing no service to the American people.

Of course, she's going to run away from any debate that would be like a Fox News debate anyways. Rick, as always, we appreciate you joining us on these serious matters. Folks, stick with us. We're taking your phone calls.

1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ. We're working around the clock. It's still going on right now as we speak. You can see it on my phone at ACLJ.org.

All right, welcome back to Sekio. So we've gotten through a lot today. I want to get to the phone calls as well. We've got a couple lines open, too. If you dial in now, you can be on the show. 1-800-684-3110. If you've got thoughts on the elections, thoughts, again, on what we discussed about the assassination attempt and how shocked these Democrat U.S. senators like Blumenthal are after they've come to the hearing about the failings of the Secret Service, the failings of the Department of Homeland Security. And we can take those as well at 1-800-684-3110.

This is kind of the state of the race politically, if you want to weigh in on that. But let's go to Mona in Ohio first on Line 1. Hey, Mona, welcome to Sekio. You're on the air. Well, hello. I called in too late yesterday.

You were talking about Kamala. So when Netanyahu, or however you say that, and I mean no disrespect, my tongue can't go around those words. When he was in our United States, was it two weeks ago? And he approached our government and said, we've got to stand together. We cannot let Hezbollah and other groups just come into our countries and just start killing.

We have to put up a fight. At that point, Kamala said she would stand with Israel. Or no, she said she wouldn't stand with Israel. Now she's saying that she is. So she jumped sides here with what she said she's going to do.

And my second comment is if Kamala gets to be President, Russia's not going to deal with this country. Well, I think, listen, I think she shows her ability to flip flop on the issues. We've seen that in the past by other Democrat candidates, and the media would actually call it out in those debates. And that wasn't called out at all in the debate this week. And I think that's why President Trump has made the decision so far.

Of course, he can always change his mind if the right debate was put forward in the right setting, because if you're going to be fact checking one candidate but not the other, it's not a debate at all. And again, it's just a partisan political move. But yeah, Harris has gone from saying she was even thinking about meeting with a group to put embargoes on military aid to Israel. She reversed course on that, but then she sent Tim Walz out to speak to those same groups who were saying he understands why their anti-Semitic protests are going on and that they are valid. Right reasons is what Tim Walz said, and you brought it back to that debate. Remember, the moderators pressed Donald Trump on the issue of abortion by saying, well, your vice Presidential candidate said this.

And President Trump responded with, basically, at the end of the day, though, the President's the one who makes the decision. When Kamala Harris tried to pretend to be super strong on the issue of Israel during the debate, they at no point did the moderator say, well, your vice Presidential pick has been praising Ilhan Omar and saying the protesters are speaking out for the right reasons and is very critical of Israel. So it was once again on display the complete bias and narrative that was being pushed by those moderators in that debate. Yeah, and I think, again, we see that bias when the Democrat Party moves on the final day in Nevada to take a party off the ballot that they think might take away votes that Harris might otherwise get. I mean, it's the only explanation about why they would even file this because the Nevada Green Party got the signatures they needed to get.

They followed the rules put forward to them by the secretary of state who made the error in providing the wrong form when the Green Party initially wanted to use the correct form. And then the Supreme Court in Nevada, with its Democrat majority, interestingly, waited until the day the ballots were going to start being printed, September 6, to enter their opinion, which was reversing the trial court that said, no, Nevada Democrat Party, you're wrong. But the Nevada Supreme Court said, nope, you can't be on the ballot.

We're amazing. And by the way, let's shut this case down. They wanted to make it impossible to take to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have taken it to the U.S. Supreme Court. So when people say, oh, you only care about issues and speech and the right to vote for conservatives or for you only care about election integrity if it impacts Donald Trump or people on the right wing, how can you possibly say that about the ACLJ today? Because it is the ACLJ representing the Nevada Green Party versus, again, their secretary of state in Nevada and the Nevada Democrat Party who, again, tried to remove the Green Party and so far has removed the Green Party from the ballot, all for political purposes.

These are the same partisans who would argue that President Trump should not have been on the primary ballot, which is even a lower bar, but not even be on the primary ballot so that Republicans could decide who they wanted their candidate to be for President of the United States. I mean, to me, it shows you, one, that the ACLJ legally, we put our money where our mouth is and our resources as well, because we understand that one day that we all might be part of some emerging new political party. You know, if the Republican Party goes some way or kind of falls apart, you know, things can happen. Our history is not that long politically.

And if you're not ever allowed to emerge as a different political party, you're never able to compete if the other major two parties can keep you kicked off enough ballots so that they can at least make sure you don't continue to grow or continue to rise or impact the election at all so they can ignore your constituency and maybe even take your votes. So to me, it's thinking long term about the excitement people have about people like Donald Trump, who was not a traditional Republican, people like RFK Jr., who have joined the campaign, who don't agree with President Trump on everything. Tulsi Gabbard, who is a colleague of ours of the ACLJ, they're doing a bit together in Nevada. It's a very important state, a very important swing state in this election cycle. But right now, it just seems as though the Republican Party is the party of the big tent.

And the Democrat Party, again, tries to dictate to Americans who they can and can't vote for, whether you're a conservative or a liberal. And many people may not hear often about the Green Party, hear about it during election time, but there may be those watching saying, why do they care so much about the Green Party? Well, let's go back to 2000. By the way, the Green Party has fielded a candidate for President in every election since 1996.

This isn't a brand new party. But also in 2000, when an incumbent vice President was running to become President of the United States, Al Gore was facing off against a Republican, George W. Bush. It was a razor thin election, as many of you remember, just like many are predicting this to be a razor thin election. The Green Party got 2.8 million votes nationally, and they got about 100,000 votes in the state of Florida, the deciding state of that election. And how many votes did the Republican win by?

537. So if Al Gore had been able to take a big chunk of those Green Party votes, he may have been the President. I think that is indeed why the Democrats are scared of having the Green Party on the ballot. They're afraid they could lose to Donald Trump because people have a different choice than Kamala Harris. Look, folks, we are at the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the right of every American's right to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is bigger than just the Green Party.

You understand that. It's the biggest fight to defend the Constitution and your right to vote we've ever engaged in, especially at this speed. And it's going to take immense resources.

It already has. We need your financial support at the ACLJ. If you could make a donation today, it's very important that you donate at ACLJ.org. Our team is going to be continuing to work on this. I mean, it's been 24 now 36 hours of nonstop legal work. And it will continue to defend the rights of Americans and their election integrity. Donate today. We need your financial support, folks, at ACLJ.org.