Melania Trump Breaks Silence

Breaking news today on Sekulow as Melania Trump breaks her silence in Interview. 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. Folks, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We've got a big show for you today. Tulsi Gabbard will be joining us. You know she's a part of the team here at Sekulow to talk about the U.S. Secret Service and this interim report that's come out, as well as the Iranian threat against President Trump and some other statements, like the statement by Zelensky in an interview he did with The New Yorker during the U.N. General Assembly going on this week, which could also be, I guess, retitled the U.N. Assembly to Attack Israel.

I saw a news conference with our good friend Ambassador Danny Denone and even the questions to him from reporters were like filled with hate because he happens to represent the Jewish state of Israel and these reporters ignore completely the atrocities that occurred less than a year ago on October 7th. So we'll talk about that with Tulsi Gabbard. But first we'll get to Tristan Levitt. Remember he joined yesterday for just a couple minutes as he stepped outside that hearing room in the weaponization committee because things inside there got even worse with the delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands and her, the way she described how the FBI should be focused.

So you don't want to miss any of that coming up. But first, Melania Trump. You've seen her maybe in some of these social media videos. She has a new book coming out in a couple weeks, kind of sharing her experience as First Lady. She did an interview, she sat down this morning with Fox and Friends and did not hold back when speaking about what it's been like for her husband, for her, her son, her family, and got into politics as well. Something she doesn't usually do as direct. So Will, let's take a listen, but set up what we're about to hear.

Right, yes. So this was in response to how the country has reacted and the issue of the attempted assassinations on her husband, former President Donald Trump. And she didn't hold back when it came to criticism about how we got here. Let's go ahead and listen to Melania Trump, the former First Lady, in her own words, by two. Is it really shocking that all this egregious violence goes against my husband, especially that we hear the leaders from the opposition party and mainstream media branding him as a threat to democracy, calling him vile names? They only fueling a toxic atmosphere and giving power all of these people that they want to do harm to him. This needs to stop.

This needs to stop. The country needs to unite. And remember, I mean, the Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce for Biden-Harris, this is, again, supposedly Joe Biden, the President, called President Trump both times, the first time after he was shot, and the second time when the shooter was apprehended right before he was about to be in harm's way. And you would think that if the President knew to try to play that niceties behind the scenes, that it wouldn't mean that politically they're going to say, you know, obviously switch to say now President Trump should win. But maybe you'd call your Secretary of Commerce after a Sunday morning show interview, which those secretaries of commerce don't get to do a ton of. And when she called for the former President of the United States, President Trump, and his ideology, so then I guess all of us that have voted for him and all of you, I guess that have probably voted for him as well, to be extinguished. Then we're talking about things like Israel and the, again, these issues extinguishing Americans because of their views. We're taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. But when you use language like that, you are, I mean, that is pretty close to inciting people who want to do harm to our political leaders.

And we don't want to ever support that, especially from the leadership at the top. You can also support the work of the ACLJ. We only need 60 more, 60 more new champions. ACLJ.org slash champions to hit our goal. Let's get there.

60 new champions, double the impact of your first donations. Do it today. Alright, welcome back to Secula.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We want you to weigh in on this as well. Melania Trump talking about the assassination attempts on her husband. Also talking directly on politics, her son's reaction, Barron Trump's reaction to this.

The fact that the family, when President Trump, you know, went to the convention and then went back on the campaign trail, started doing more outdoor events, rallied behind him as well. And we've seen the Republicans do that as well and leaders do that as well, knowing that you've got these threats. But even then on a golf course, we find out.

So nowhere safe. And that's true for most Presidents and former Presidents to some extent. But I think we want to remind you, right? I mean, Will, this goes back to a time when he was no longer President, but Iran, which is still seething over the move that the Trump administration made to take out a terrorist leader, Soleimani, the head of the Revolutionary Guard, when he was outside of Iran and he landed near a U.S. base actually in Iraq. So which is kind of like landing in a war area where he tries to kill and has killed, organized the killing of U.S. troops. So he's got U.S. blood on his hands, not just blood on his hands from his other acts of terrorism that they support. And of course, there's the fatwa put out. We know that about our own Mike Pompeo, of course, President Trump and some others. And then they produced this video that I want to play for folks because it's eerily, this is from 2022, eerily similar to that event that almost occurred on the golf course.

That's right. So this was posted to the Ayatollah's official website back in 2022. It's since resurfaced. A lot of news organizations have picked up on this.

Donald Trump Jr. actually tweeted it out as well. But this wasn't like an after the event happened, Iran made a video real quick and put it up. This is two years ago when this video was produced by the Iranian government as a propaganda piece. And we'll talk over it as we show it.

But in Jordan, I know you want to say something before we play it. But the we'll talk over it, because if you're listening on radio, we'll describe what you're seeing. But it is shocking what you're watching unfold. And what you're going to see is these are, I think, mostly actors that they have or CG or CG or something. It's not actually President Trump that they've got this video, but it does look like people. Of course, someone looks like the President.

Someone else is supposed to be Mike Pompeo. But we know that the reason why they use this visual, if you remember during President Trump's presidency, there was an area and it was the same area that was exposed this time on a very small area of that golf course where you could get a line of sight on whoever was there briefly, very briefly. They've tried to protect that area, but obviously they haven't done a good enough job doing that. So the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have seen this kind of imagery and the location itself as a problem for years. Remember that this wasn't just on that day they've said, oh, no, this was a problem. They've known about it for years and so has Iran.

So when you see the video, let's start playing it for folks who are against. So you're seeing basically is like a drone image over Mar-a-Lago right now. Of course, people can figure out that these are the places.

See, you can see there were areas like that was one tee box where you could put your early on for a few minutes. And they have this special drone. Now, this I don't know if Iran actually has or not, probably a little grieving there, but basically there to go in and what? To kill the President or former President of the United States at the time and the former secretary of state. And this is the kind of videos they put out and how eerily similar, you know, side of the road, entering in through the fence, getting past the security of the individual, right, who we know was also motivated by thought that Trump was wrong on Ukraine, even though there's no evidence that somehow he would just support Russian invasions. He just said the Russians actually wouldn't have invaded. So things would have been a lot better for Ukraine because they would have had an ongoing war with Russia because Putin would be too afraid to do so. Let's remind people it's under Democrats only that Russia has taken land from Ukraine. No land was taken from Ukraine under the Trump administration. Crimea was annexed under President Obama and President Biden, and they did nothing.

They drew a red line that meant nothing. That's a very important area that was annexed completely by Russia. The other area that Russia now is occupying, which in eastern Ukraine is a Russian-speaking area where they've been fighting over since the invasion of Crimea. So it's not even as connected to this bigger invasion of Ukraine. And then that President, while you've got this imagery up, got interviewed by The New York Times. I'm going to ask Tulsi Gabbard about this, too, when she's on with us. He was interviewed by The New York Times Zelensky while he was in the United States because of the UN General Assembly, and he gets asked about J.D. Vance by The New Yorker writer. He says, apart from Trump's own reluctance to talk about Ukrainian victory, which, by the way, if you knew that you were running for President and you were going to have to deal with both the Ukrainian President and Putin, do you think you'd just go rah-rah-ing for Ukraine into this and think you're going to actually get a war to stop?

No. You've got to at least make Putin think that there's a good reason for him, that for somehow he can spin it to his own people. And if you go in there and say, if he stops, it's because we beat him and all that, it doesn't work diplomatically, even if that's the truth.

So he doesn't like that. But he went after J.D. Vance as well because the author said, you know, he chose J.D. Vance as his vice-Presidential candidate.

That's all the writer says. And will the response by Zelensky to that? He is too radical. He didn't need anything.

No prompting. So he's already attacking a potential vice-President that will have a role in making decisions. If you're Zelensky, you know, we're two months out from an election, determine the President of the United States, which will determine, again, a lot of how much support maybe gets to Ukraine and how that conflict could come to an end.

You're going to really go all in on an administration that's first nominee had to step aside and the second nominee, I guess, just thinks that Harris would just keep writing the $300 million checks to Ukraine indefinitely without being able to tell the American people, which is what we all want to hear, right, is a plan on how this comes to an end. How does the killing stop? Because it's part of the reason the world economy is in a mess.

It's not the only reason, but it's one of the reasons. So it goes on, though. He said from the writer, the writer tries to say who's doing the interview, well, Vance has come out with a more precise plan to and then Zelensky says, well, to give up our territories. And it was interesting because the author said that's your words, not mine, but that's the gist of it.

When we went back to look at what J.D. Vance had said about Ukraine, I just want you to let people know what Zelensky was reading into. That's right.

He was in a podcast interview last month. They were is what everyone is taking that he's referencing to is that Ukraine in a plan, he would say that Ukraine would retain their sovereignty and that Russia would stop the violence. So basically and there would also be some things like Ukraine would agree in exchange for that to not join some of these global bodies, NATO, things of that nature.

And so when you look at that, J.D. Vance is basically saying, let's stop this. And here's agreements on both sides. Ukraine remains Ukraine, a sovereign nation, but they aren't going to join these threatening bodies to Russia. And they're reading into that. Zelensky is reading into that to say that it means that we have to sacrifice our territory to Russia.

One, that's a framework. That's not a detailed plan of here's what the settlement would look like. And so you're already assuming that that means that in those negotiations, Russia keeps whatever territory they have already taken, including the territory they took while President Obama was in office, Crimea. These are things that, one, you wouldn't know the details of until the negotiations happened between the world leaders. But you're looking at what the way Zelensky is calling him radical, saying that it's essentially Ukraine would have to make a sacrifice to Russia under his plan. And it shows that coupled with some events that he took, he went to Pennsylvania, a battleground state with a senator that's up for reelection and a top surrogate of the Harris-Wall campaign, the governor, Shapiro there. It seems like he is potentially doing what they're concerned about Russia doing, meddling in the U.S. election.

I think, again, the idea here is that, one, people have to see this come to an end. To come to an end, it's not that you want to see Ukraine give up much. But under the Obama administration, they never helped them get back Crimea. No one's discussing that. You'd have to be able to get that back.

They let that happen. They didn't send a lot of weaponry in then. And so this idea, again, that you're going to have to come to some kind of ceasefire, and there's probably going to need to be a no man's land, which there already basically has been created. If that's what he's talking about is giving up territory, that's just part of being a leader next to a hostile government. I mean, Israel has no man's lands with Lebanon, obviously now in the conflict with Hezbollah, that both know when they enter, can be fired upon, and they do it regularly. They also have one with Jordan, which has been a very peaceful neighbor for Israel in the past decades long. Really, I mean, since the 1973, what is it, the 80s?

It's the 1980s, so most of my life. But there is still a no man's land. So you are going to have to have that in Ukraine. That's not giving up territory.

That, I think, is just giving your people peace and prosperity and the ability to go back to having free and open elections again inside Ukraine. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We need 60 more champions this week.

It's Friday to double your first donation. Go become an ACLJ champion today. ACLJ. All right, welcome back to SECIO. If you joined the broadcast yesterday, it was great to have Tristan Levin join us right outside the hearing room where he was participating in a hearing for Empower Oversight and a client we also represented working with Empower Oversight, who, again, one of those FBI whistleblowers and who had Marcus Allen in this case, who had this case finally came to a good conclusion that we did learn the settlement has not yet been honored completely by the FBI. No surprise to a bit because he was like working for the IRS or anytime the government owes you money, when you owe them money, you got to get it to them immediately or they're knocking on your door. But, Will, this was interesting because just to set it up for folks, what they're hearing and seeing is when you have a successfully defended whistleblower, you learn a lot more. And I will ask Tristan about it, but I thought the hearing was, it was interesting. That's right.

Yeah. So this was before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government. It's a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. And the hearing was, it was a hearing on the weaponization of the federal government, and it will examine how the Federal Bureau of Investigation has used its security clearance adjudication process to purge its ranks of conservatives and whistleblowers and unlawfully punish those with views contrary to FBI leadership. And Tristan, I thought it was great to have you there who is, one, does great work with Empower Oversight to protect whistleblowers and try to strengthen the laws protecting whistleblowers in this country. But also to have Marcus Allen who, because of his administrative appeals and lawsuit against the FBI, was actually one of the more quiet, we hadn't heard a ton from him other than that very first hearing because of the process that he was under. But getting to hear the ordeals he went under directly from him before that subcommittee. Yeah, his testimony was very powerful. And in fact, after his opening statement, I was glad the camera wasn't focused because I was really kind of wiping the corner of my eyes.

I'm glad it wasn't focused on me. But, you know, he did go through a lot and he's not out there on social media like Garrett O'Boyle is, like Steve Friend. So his perspective is maybe more of a mystery to the public. But this was really a chance for everyone to see his vindication. When he was before the committee a year and a few months ago, the FBI had smeared him as a threat to national security. So did the ranking member of that subcommittee. And now he's had a security clearance reinstated and the inspector general produced a statement which did not give as much focus.

Of course, your opening statement you deliver for the committee has to be cut down to five minutes. Horowitz submitted a very lengthy statement for the record that details all of the issues with Marcus's case. And I really wish members had dug in more there because it really highlights a number of the problems that we saw from the security division. And some of the questions trying to get at that didn't quite land. So there's some really good information that I think didn't quite make its way out from what Horowitz had to share with the committee. You know, Tristan, it was interesting that you talked about social media, too, because it was a way and this hearing I saw from Democrats. I want to ask you about that a bit, because I remember a Democrat the first time he went before Congress. This is before his rights had been restored, his security clearance, his back pay, his retirement, his health benefits.

I mean, all of these things. His life was basically not just paused, but also made very difficult for him. But for a guy who doesn't speak out as much, there was a Democrat Congresswoman who tried to blast him about this tweet by someone who also had the name, a screen name like Marcus Allen with a bunch of numbers behind it. And he said, no, that's not my account twice under oath. So, I mean, it was not his account. And she still read the tweet out, Tristan, as if it was his words. I mean, that's how absurd. And now we find out that because he's able to speak, that the person who is leading the investigation into the second Trump assassination from the FBI, and we can use the name Jeffrey Veltri, that Marcus said he told him he would ridicule Marcus about his religious beliefs, called him, quote, delusional. I want our people to hear this. This is the FBI agent doing the investigation into how the second Trump attempted assassination got so far.

He said to Marcus Allen, someone that worked below him, that he was, quote, delusional for believing in and seeking guidance for the Holy Spirit. I mean, Tristan, is this our FBI really in 2024? I mean, because we also heard some statements from members of Congress that were pretty close to that, too. But to me, I mean, those are kind of cases that we handle a lot in the private sector.

It doesn't go well for private companies, but of course, the government gets treated differently. Yeah, it's very alarming. I do need to correct. So the place he got that, so Marcus Allen has never met Jeffrey Veltri. Veltri was the head of the security clearance investigation unit, and so Marcus only learned that because other whistleblowers who have come to us since the hearing last year have revealed that. So last week, we sent a 22-page letter to Chairman Jordan, where we outlined all this material we've gathered from other whistleblowers. So of course, again, a year ago at that hearing, we didn't have the benefit of that.

It just clearly looked retaliatory. We knew that he had gone without pay for quite some time. We knew that it was because of this email he sent that was a protective disclosure. Since then, what's really remarkable is that after his clearance was reinstated this year, whistleblower after whistleblower has come forward to us from inside of the security division, the office that was investigating Marcus all along, saying, you actually have no idea how dysfunctional this office really is, and let us tell you more about it. So they've pulled back the curtain, and these are the kinds of things that we've learned from them about the people investigating Marcus's case.

So that's how he learned about it. It was from our letter, from our other whistleblowers, and it is clear that even Veltry was just a symptom of a larger problem at the FBI. People have seen the so-called Trump questionnaire that we released earlier this summer from a different client of ours, and it's clear that the whole entire office was focused there on people that had views that were out of favor with the FBI. One of the things that I wish Inspector General Horowitz had been asked more directly about yesterday is that his office confirmed what we'd shared before, which is that when Marcus Allen was first referred to the FBI's so-called insider threat office, that office came back and said that because he had hesitancy about the vaccine, that made him a potential insider threat. And the inspector general's report, the statement for yesterday added in there, all that Marcus said was, I'd like to see more data before receiving that. So the inspector general himself highlighted that this was a perfectly reasonable view for someone to express that, and yet that's what the insider threat office at the FBI labeled him a threat for. So these are the kinds of things we're battling in the modern FBI of today. Give people a sense, too, of how Democrats, like the ranking Democrat on the weaponization committee, Congresswoman Stacey Plasky, who's a delegate from the Virgin Islands, this is what she took her time to say where the FBI should be focused.

Take a listen, folks. What is the point of this subcommittee? Because it's necessary for the public and the media to hear, to try, and provide cover for the eradication of the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are having these hearings so that you become immune, you become inured to the notion of the removal of the FBI and DOJ, so that those agencies are no longer there to serve as a check against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and the twice impeached convicted felon, former President, and would-be dictator, Donald Trump. Tristan, if that is what the ranking Democrat thinks that the purpose of the FBI was there for, does that prove the reason why this hearing needed to take place right there?

It's hard to say. I mean, again, the reality is we need the FBI to be something that people can have trust in, and clearly she has a whole bunch of things that she wants the FBI to be focused on, and other Americans have other things where they'd say, no, you're talking about attacking us and our beliefs, right? So we need the FBI to be above the fray for all of this. We need it to be something that can be respected, and that can happen until they clean house at the FBI. The FBI is not the thought police.

You don't have to agree with any of those statements she made or any of those movements, but if they're just theories or ideas that people have, that's a waste of the FBI's time if it's not linked to actual criminal activity, which I didn't think thought was. Support the work of the ACLJ. Thanks, Tristan, as well, from Empower Oversight at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow, and now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow.

So we crammed a lot in there in that first half hour. We got a lot more coming up with Tulsi Gabbard also joining us. Let me get her thoughts on that Congresswoman's remarks about the idea that the FBI's purpose is to serve as a check on white nationalism, which, again, if white nationalism turns into violent groups, that would be something the FBI, that would be legitimate, but again, if it's people's just crazy ramblings, that's not enough.

Maybe monitor, but you don't need to be knocking on people's doors at that point. The idea, too, that Christian nationalists, which, by the way, interesting time period to use that term, when most evangelical Christians for the last, what, now, let's see, almost 10 years have been supporting Donald Trump for President of the United States, who is someone who has faith, but I would not put in the Christian nationalist category or the evangelical world category, because, again, the idea is you realize the President, it's about what they do, not what they say, which I wish, again, the FBI was spending more time with that, too, but again, Christian nationalist replacement theorists, this idea, too, that people can't just talk about ideas whether you agree with them or not. You know, we always get back to this. There is speech that is not, all speech is not legal, speech that incites violence, but those are very hard to draw lines. That's not easy to draw. So the FBI even drawing those lines, it's usually courts, you know, prosecutors determining, is this even enough for me to take this to court, and, you know, if there's no actions that go with it. But you don't have to like all of this speech that they're talking about. This speech is still, for the most part, would be protected by the way she just went through it. I mean, white fragility isn't even speech will. It supposedly is white people being afraid to talk about racism. I mean, we're not afraid to talk about any topic here, and Lord knows, with BLM and all of those issues, I think there were plenty of white people on both sides talking about issues of race.

There always have been. It's something our country has had to deal with for its entire history, and we still are dealing with it, and to always try to make the country a better place. We're humans, so we have to constantly strive for that, but that's weird because that's a non-action. Why does the FBI need to watch a non-action?

White fragility was defined out of the book by Robin DiAngelo of the same title as a multiple forms of white defensiveness when responding to claims of racism. And I understand that that's a topic that is very flushed out within the intellectual left at this point, but why this delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands felt like that was a necessary thing to include on her laundry list of things that we need the FBI and DOJ there to serve as a check against? A check against someone's social reaction that is theorized by a scholar in a certain field is something that the FBI and the DOJ need to serve as a check against? That's what she literally said. I'm not the full of fentanyl into our country, which is the number one cause of death for young Americans between the ages of 18 and 35.

The number one cause of death. That's what the FBI is supposed to be focused on, breaking up transnational criminal organizations and terror organizations. And of course, if there are plots and people who may have beliefs that then turn those beliefs, you can take any belief and turn it into an action which could be criminal that can be prevented. Fine. But she just listed some things that don't even have action with them. It's just being quiet. Other parts is people like a fascist, and then she calls him former President Trump who wants to be dictator Trump.

So again, there's only been two attempts so far that we know of. What do they want to do here? It's not hard to come to the conclusion about what they're encouraging by using their speech, protected speech, as a member of Congress.

We need you now more than ever. Folks, I mean, think about this because they're talking about you. They're saying the FBI needs to be there. They always throw it in there to be a check on you Christians. We got to watch you. FBI should not be a check on our religious liberty and our religious freedom.

I mean, this has gone haywire, folks. It's why the ACLJ exists for you. We're fighting those battles every single day, but it's because you provide us with the resources to do it. Donate today.

I can't think of a better day or a better reason. You're seeing it outright. They're saying it in public.

ACLJ.org. We need your help. We need your donations.

Welcome back to Secular. We're trying to connect with our colleague, Tulsi Gabbard. She's been traveling the country, as you know, fighting for you. And she's a colleague of ours here at the American Center for Law and Justice, even before she made that decision to hit the trail, and is also a client of ours and a colleague first and became a client. Of course, we're working on that case, defending her and preparing a new FOIA lawsuit over the Biden-Harris administration, placing her on the Quiet Skies terror watch list.

So think about what we talked about last second. We said this can happen to you because it's easier to go after you folks than it is Tulsi Gabbard, because Tulsi Gabbard's got many platforms to utilize. You might have your own social media. Maybe you'll get to ACLJ and we can help broadcast the story. We've got Tulsi joining us now live by phone. Tulsi, I wanted to go to you first on this interim report on the United States Secret Service because I don't care who they're protecting, a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, and they shouldn't either. Their job is to keep them protected from any and all threats to the best of their abilities and utilize all these resources that they should have available. But we're now learning from this interim report on the first assassination attempt on just how bad things are inside the Secret Service and operationally at the Secret Service.

I wonder your thoughts on that. It's actually something that Congress agrees on a bipartisan way. Both Republicans and Democrats said they were shocked when they got their first briefings on this. Yeah, this is the way it should be as Democrats and Republicans are ensuring the safety and security of our Presidential candidates and obviously our people who are holding office. I think this is what's been so disturbing about everything that we've seen play out over these last several months, starting with President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas's denial to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s repeated requests for Secret Service. He exceeded all of the bars and standards that are normally held for Presidential candidates to be eligible for Secret Service. He presented multiple times evidence of direct and very valid threats on his life, multiple break-ins into his home. And yet over and over and over again, the Biden-Harris administration denied him a Secret Service detail, and it wasn't until the first assassination attempt on President Trump's life, which is crazy that we have to number them at this point, that they finally agreed to provide RFK Jr. with Secret Service.

So I mentioned all that as to say, I find it hard to believe. And oh, by the way, Democrats in Congress were standing by the Biden-Harris administration and denying Bobby Kennedy's Secret Service. So for them to now feign surprise and disgust at the Secret Service's failures is trying to detach them away from the Harris-Biden administration and their cabinet and members of Congress. And that's why they're here. Direct culpability in playing politics with these candidates' lives. That's what it comes down to.

A recent Rasmussen poll, and there are so many layers of evidence to this, a recent Rasmussen poll showed that nearly 30% of Democrats wish that the assassination attempt on President Trump's life was successful. And it's a mindset in the culture that these Democrat elite have created within their own party that is so, I mean, to say it's dangerous puts it lightly, but also it's where I'm highly skeptical now that there is undeniable evidence being put forward by the Secret Service or about the Secret Service's failures that Democrats are now saying, oh my gosh, this is unacceptable. I don't buy it, quite frankly, because they've been part of the problem now for a very long time. It's confusing.

It just keeps getting worse and worse. I mean, the Commerce Secretary, you've got a cabinet member saying that President Trump needs to be extinguished. I mean, that kind of language, not comparing it to Hitler and Nazis, but that's the kind of language they used to dehumanize people.

It's like calling someone rats. You see it a lot in anti-Semitism, which we're seeing right now around the world. And we also see these real and specific threats confirmed by the White House Office, the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed to the media that President Trump was correct when he tweeted out a couple of days ago that there have been these real credible threats that Iran continues to try and assassinate, to make good on their fatwa. And yet this administration gave billions to Iran and now it's posing a real threat to our former leaders and current candidates.

And again, this is an area where we should not be surprised. And it also points to the reality of the failures of Vice President Harris and President Biden in their foreign policy. We should not be surprised that Iran wants to take out President Trump. We should not be surprised that cartels who are trafficking in humans and in drugs across Kamala Harris's open borders have a target on President Trump's back. We should not be surprised that these powerful countries and entities and interests who are profiting off of and benefiting from the Harris-Biden administration's policies, they see President Trump as the greatest threat to their power, to their strength and to their existence. And once again, this goes back to why is it then, knowing this to be true, that President Biden and Vice President Harris have had a direct role in denying increased security for President Trump. This is a reflection on them. Again, they put their interests and their power ahead of everything else.

And when we're making our decisions in this election about whose leadership we want and we need in our country going forward, President Trump's record speaks for itself. Iran was drained of resources and weakened, unable to continue growing their nuclear weapon capability, unable to continue providing the kind of bolstered support to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that we've seen them do over these last four years. It's no wonder they want to take him out because under Kamala Harris, they know that if she's elected President, they will get richer, stronger. They will increase their ability to threaten Israel and the United States and the world. And they will continue to support terrorist organizations. That's the world that we will live in under Kamala Harris.

And we don't you don't have to take my word for it. We can look at the last four years to know that that's true. Tulsi, you're no stranger to the weaponization of bureaucracies, as we've talked about the quiet skies issue that we are dealing with. But there was a hearing yesterday before the weaponization of the federal government subcommittee that was looking into the FBI's use of the security clearance adjudication process to get rid of conservatives and whistleblowers and unlawfully punish them that have views contrary to FBI leadership. And one of our former clients testified he was a FBI whistleblower. But this is what the ranking member of that subcommittee, who is the Democrat delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, had to say about the purpose of the FBI in bashing the committee she's the ranking member of.

Let's go and play by three. I'm going to get your thoughts on it. What is the point of this subcommittee? Because it's necessary for the public and the media to hear, to try and provide cover for the eradication of the Department of Justice and the FBI. We are having these hearings so that you become immune, you become inured to the notion of the removal of the FBI and DOJ, so that those agencies are no longer there to serve as a check against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and the twice impeached convicted felon, former President and would-be dictator, Donald Trump. So Tulsi, this delegate thinks that that is the purpose of the DOJ and the FBI.

You there Tulsi? We'll try to read you. Hearing her list out all of the things that the FBI in her mind is supposedly responsible for is a joke. You know, the blind faith that now Democrats supposedly have in these institutions that for decades, historically the Democrat party has called out injustices and unfairness and bias and weaponization of these entities against people like Martin Luther King Jr. And so now need to have them so blindly all of a sudden through their faith and confidence behind these public institutions, Department of Justice, the FBI, and the national security state is quite frankly laughable and it shows their hand in how they are trying to politically maneuver. It is every representative's job to exercise oversight over these federal agencies.

That is literally the job of a member of Congress. They should be critical thinkers and ask the tough questions and the fact that these Democrat leaders are unwilling to do so shows that they are trying to cover up what is so very obviously the weaponization of these agencies against their political opponents, and they've shown their habit. They want them, the FBI and the Department of Justice, to carry out the radical Democrat agenda to racialize everything and to do their bidding, quite frankly, which is exactly what the leaders of today's FBI are doing. And Tulsi, we always appreciate this, but we saw with Quiet Skies putting you on this terror watch list is to scare other Americans from even getting involved in the process, from putting the yard sign up, from talking about politics even when it's close to the election, maybe even from voting, but certainly from getting involved in grassroots activity. If you think that you're going to have the FBI come knocking on your door because of thought police crimes now, that someone talks about some replacement theory and that suddenly that's going to require the FBI monitoring you or even coming to your door, this is to chill speech. It's unconstitutional. It's wrong to chill our political rights as well.

But this is where, like Tulsi said, they're going, they're giving this blind faith to. Support the work of the ACLJ. We're defending you.

ACLJ.org. Donate today. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. There's even more to talk about.

I mean, we've had a packed show. Tristan Levitt from Power Oversight, one of our former clients, Marcus Allen, was able to testify finally freely and openly before Congress yesterday. Ben Sisney was there at that hearing. You could see he thanked the ACLJ.

We played that for you. Handly to make sure that he was made whole by the FBI, both with back pay, his retirement, his insurance, costs that would have been normally paid, and importantly, his security clearance so that he could go and work and provide for him and his family in the private sector. We're still fighting for Garrett O'Boyle. We just filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking a demand letter to Congress and are preparing for oral argument in federal appeals court to defend whistleblowers. And specifically is Garrett O'Boyle, who has talked about that if you say anything that questions FBI leadership, just to make sure you're crossing all the T's, dotting all the I's, not because you even agree, just look at all the theories, look at all sides of the coin before we come to a major conclusion and then leave those two aside if they could also be part of a problem. And they said if you say something like that now, and the authority figures there take that as questioning their authority, they will, quote, crush you.

And his case, still ongoing. We're defending Israel, preparing for oral interventions at the UN next week, both, again, on this UNRWA issue that UN employees who worked for Hamas are somehow universally immune from prosecution, even if they participated in the heinous acts of October 7th, that they are immune from prosecution. By the way, they don't believe you should be, or if you're an American soldier traveling around the world and a country wants to send you to the Hague, they'd love to prosecute you. They would also love to prosecute Israelis, but their own people who committed these atrocities, which the ICC said the Hamas leaders should be prosecuted for, but what about their folks?

No, they're universally immune. I've never heard this idea of universal immunity, but we have to fight that at the UN, and we do fight it, whether the UN is meeting here in New York at a General Assembly or when they return next week to Geneva, where we will be intervening twice. We can do those interventions, not just because we show up, that's always important, but because we're allowed in the room. You can't just go to the room and speak to all the ambassadors on the Human Rights Council on the issues that you're concerned about. You have to approve, you have to go through a process.

It's not easy, as you can imagine. We went through it decades ago, we fought really hard to get that approval through the European Center for Law and Justice so that we could stand for issues that we wouldn't have even dreamed of them then would actually become a problem that we'd have to face globally. But we're doing that. We're also defending our colleague, who you just heard joining us, Tulsi Gabbard, and preparing more FOIA lawsuits, lawsuits now because they're not responding to the Biden-Harris administration because of her placement on the Quiet Skies terror watch list, another great use of your resources, right? We need you to keep us in these crucial fights. All those take different kinds of expertise, different kinds of individuals, whether it's the legal side, the policy side, the international scope, all the different places you've got to fight these. And we've got a situation in Pakistan unfolding that we'll talk to you more about next week. We need you to keep us in these fights.

You do that by your prayers, by being part of this broadcast, sharing it with your friends and family, liking it on the social media platform you may watch it on or share the clips. But also with your financial donations. All of this costs money and it all utilizes resources. But the one thing that we always want to be in at the ACLJ and we strive for is to be in a position where if we receive someone's call and we need to do their case, whether it is a high-profile person like the President of the United States, whether it's Tulsi Gabbard, who is also a colleague, or a family in Ohio. A mom who decides to take part in the school choice program that Ohio has initiated, but that also says that because you pay taxes still, you're still paying your taxes to the public schools, that you have to pick the kids up who take part in the school choice programs. And that the actual school districts get more money, millions of dollars to do it. And yet they've unilaterally decided to stop picking up 1,300 of these kids in Columbus, Ohio.

And that's just one of the places there's an issue. We're fighting for them. Because you see how they're trying to punish them for their parents deciding, you know what, I think this school would be better for them. And even though they got millions of dollars to just get them to school, they're punishing the parents who are having to miss work, who are having to, again, reschedule their lives, even though that violates the law. And of course that's those teachers' unions. We're fighting back.

They have representations because of you. So again, whether you're the mom, single mom who chose that for their kid and then gets this punishment somehow because you just wanted to get a better education, maybe they needed something unique for that kid and that school provided it. But now you've got to cut back the hours you work because the school district that got millions and millions of dollars just to add buses and add routes can't just send you a letter the day after school and says we're no longer going to provide the service that we did provide. So they did provide it.

Now we're here to punish you. So again, top down, the ACLJ is here for you. And I never want to be in a position where I have to say no to someone like that because, you know, we don't have the resources to do it. We are in that position now at the ACLJ where we have the resources to do it. But you know what, I mean, it keeps piling up, folks. We don't know what the outcome is going to be. It's going to be a very questionable time in our history in our country right now and the world with our allies Israel. We have our office there. I mean, this is the time where we need people who can stand up and be ACLJ champions.

So ACLJ champions, we talked about some. These are people who you decide that you could give a monthly recurring donation. Some of you may already do this to other organizations and you've seen this before, maybe do it to your church and you choose an amount that's not going to, again, it's not going to impact you.

I don't want anybody doing this. It's going to make you have to question whether or not you're going to be able to provide the resources that you or your family needs. But for those of you who can say, you know what, this is a number that I could donate monthly and it's not going to impact me negatively. But I know it's going to impact the ACLJ greatly because then we're able to not just count on that donation coming in once, but really be able to plan out and know that we've got this team of supporters, champions who are going to have our back so that we know that's coming in.

We know that we can say yes to all of those clients. We only need 60 more champions this week to meet our goal. And if you become a champion this week at ACLJ.org slash champions, your first donation, whether it's $25, it will be doubled. So it's kind of like when we talk about the matching moments and things like that, but this is just for the ACLJ champions, just for that first donation, we can only do that through Friday. So by the end of the night, Friday, that's as much as we can do the doubling of that donation.

But it's just another incentive for you if you've thought about becoming an ACLJ champion, you understand that these battles are going to be raging. I mean, Will, just to kind of sum it up, we didn't even get to every issue today. I mean, Zelensky showing up at a Democrat fundraiser with the Ukrainian ambassador at an arms manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania with their Democrat governor, but also their Democrat senator who's running for reelection and their ambassador goes there. Who knows you're not supposed to be at political events. We'll get into it more tomorrow, but as our friend speaker Mike Johnson has said, that ambassador needs to be withdrawn and Zelensky needs to apologize.

That is, again, either bad decision making at best, but I think he's too calculating to give him that much leeway. So again, so much to take action on, so many attacks on who we are, but we stand in the gap for you. We need some folks to stand with us, those ACLJ champions. Again, just 60 of you. It can be $15, it can be 25, it can be more. And if you do it these next two days, this first donation will be doubled, whether it's for the mom in Ohio or Tulsi Gabbard or the FBI whistleblower who pay stops for two years. We're there for them because you're there for us. ACLJ.org slash champions. Donate today and join us.