Breaking news today on Sekulow is Fannie Willis is facing a major defeat. 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.
If you heard the tease, you heard that right, folks. So in Georgia, in that case brought by, again, Fannie Willis, and you remember Nathan Wade, who had to step away from the case after taking nearly a million dollars of taxpayer money as a specialist in RICO who had never done a RICO case. So that case, which had multiple defendants from the Trump world, it was really one of the, I'd say, top, if you want to talk about persecution, not just prosecution but persecution, of those who were advising President Trump on different options he had as President. Some of those options might have been wrong. Some of those options might have been right legally.
Others were just thinking about ideas. You know, has this been tried? Has this ever been tried? In an actual court, even if it's a long shot, and yet they use that as a potential for crimes. This case, remember, was up on appeal because the lower court judge said that Fannie Willis did not have to remove herself from the case, recuse herself from the case, if Nathan Wade was actually removed. And the Trump legal team rightfully so said, no, no, no, you can't just remove him.
She's the biggest wrongdoer here by bringing him on. And this entire prosecution, she needs to be removed from, and this DA's office needs to be reviewed from. Well, that got appealed to the Georgia Court of Appeals. But yesterday, late in the afternoon, the Georgia Court of Appeals canceled oral arguments that were actually scheduled for next month on whether she should have to fully recuse herself. And again, now all we got in the order was the cases hereby canceled until further order of this court.
No explanation. And of course, Will, people are trying to figure out exactly, trying to read the tea leaves on a very short and simple statement, but yet another major delay in a case that's not even about whether President Trump or the other defendants should continue to be fought in court, but whether or not she should even be there. That's right.
And you can see it on the screen. It's a simple one sentence order about the oral argument scheduled to take place on December 5th, 2024 at 10 30 a.m. is hereby canceled until further order of this court. Now, we know that the lower court judge had basically laid out the roadmap of how the appeals court could take Fannie Willis off. He pointed to things that were improper, if not illegal.
He mentioned the odor of mendacity lingering in this case. And so it was long thought that the court of appeals may remove Fannie Willis from this case. This sets up a level of intrigue now about what happens next. And we're going to have Professor Harry Hutcheson on in the next segment to discuss maybe some of those options, because now there is a completely different set of facts and a world surrounding this case now that it President Trump has been reelected, as well as the Supreme Court order on immunity. When many of these these issues that happen, the phone calls between state leaders that Fannie Willis was trying to cast as a RICO case, a corrupt organization's racketeering case may have fallen.
And indeed, based off the Supreme Court decision on immunity would seem to fall within what would be Presidentially immune as an official act of the President. So we're going to have to talk with Professor Hutcheson and see what maybe some of the outcomes are. But it all points to this case also falling potentially by the wayside. Once again, we've got more from other cases as well. Delays, some interesting language used out of a case in New York with Donald Trump. So we come back, we'll talk about that one as well.
If you've got questions for us, 1-800-684-3110, that's the number you call 1-800-684-3110. And let me remind you, it's our most critical time of the year. We need your support at the ACLJ. Every gift this month is matched dollar for dollar.
Go to ACLJ.org and donate today. This is how we prepare for the new year and fight these battles in the final two months of the Biden administration. We'll be right back on Secular.
Alright, welcome back to Secular. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. I wanted to bring Harry Hutcheson into this conversation, really trying to read the tea leaves, if we will, through all these cases involving President Trump that were outside the federal system.
Those have been pretty easy to read. They are basically done. When they are formally done, we will announce that, but they are on that path. The big question will be does Jack Straw, does he try to put out some kind of report, like the Mueller report? Honestly, in this situation, I don't know if it even gets to that level because the cases really never got off the ground to begin with.
So much of the information he was utilizing would certainly not have been allowed in a court of law, so should it really be allowed in a report by an attorney that he got information that he shouldn't have and that he should not have had access to? So that is what we will look for there, not so much the cases anymore, but there is a lot happening at the state court level. We will start again with Georgia. So if you are just joining us, there was a case coming up for, I guess this was coming up, it was scheduled today. The next hearing was going to be on December 5th. And this was going to be the next hearing on whether Fannie Willis at the Georgia Appeals Court has to recuse herself or should remove herself from the case involving President Trump after the issue with Nathan Wade and the almost million dollars paid to him to be a RICO specialist, even though he had never done a RICO case. And this is not even the appeal on the actual charges she brought. This case has gotten really delayed, and the question now, Harry, I think people are probably asking is, is this delayed because the entire case falls like some of what you saw with Jack Smith and others, that these cases fall because they used evidence and witnesses and testimony that the Supreme Court then said should not be allowed and cannot be allowed in court?
I think that is the answer. So I would argue that the Supreme Court has ruled very definitively that when Presidents engage in official acts, that conduct is arguably immune from basically scrutiny by the prosecutor. Also, when Presidents engage in unofficial acts, but within the purview of their constitutional power, there is a presumption that those acts are also immune. And so if we look at the Fannie Wade, I'm sorry, the Fannie Willis case in Georgia, I think it is clear beyond question that the prosecution essentially relied on official conduct by President Trump.
So arguably that case should be voided. But we have the additional complication, of course, of Fannie Willis's relationship with Nathan Wade. And as you correctly point out, Mr. Wade received approximately a million dollars. And there is evidence in the record suggesting that Fannie Willis benefited from those monies. They went on trips together.
They went out for dinner together. And of course, Mr. Wade paid at least for some of those expenses. So I suspect the Georgia Court of Appeals has read the tea leaves. They recognize this case is really going nowhere. And what they may wind up doing is remanding the case to the district court, Judge McAfee, so that he can dispose of this particular case. So I think at the end of the day, Fannie Willis will be entitled to experience and the Georgia taxpayers will be out a million dollars.
And essentially what we've seen is a waste of money. What happened to all those other people too? I mean, did they have any recourse? There were people who pled guilty. There were people who have spent, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees. Can they then go back and try to recover those from the state?
I think they should be able to. I'm no expert on Georgia procedure. But if I were their attorney, I would pursue this case at the trial court level, asking Judge McAfee to dismiss the charges and basically remove all penalties.
I don't know Georgia law sufficiently, but it may be possible for them to bring a claim for a malicious prosecution against Fannie Willis and her team. And Jordan, what you have to look at here is the entire context of what's going on as well. This, as Harry brings up, when you look at this order on the face of it, it may strike some people as, well, they canceled the hearing on the appeal.
So isn't that a negative for President Trump? As you read the tea leaves, as Professor Hutcheson brings up, it appears that the appellate court is now looking at the entire context of where this case is. One, the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court, which hadn't really been in play here, as well as that President Trump has won reelection. It gives them an opportunity at the appeals level to say, hey, we don't even need to hear this yet, this appeal, whether she should be on. Because now that there's all this other context, the trial court should be the one deciding whether or not this case should even be in court before we hear an appeal on whether or not Fannie Willis should remain on the case. So I think it gives the appeals court an opportunity to kick it back down to the lower court and have that issue sorted out. Judge McAfee, many observers looked at it and said he was up for reelection. And he laid out the road map, but then essentially moved the decision down to the appeals court for having her removed. He doesn't have that political specter hanging over him anymore. But another thing to look at, and I think this is quite interesting when it comes to the lawfare angle of this, is that, remember, this was all based off of President Trump fighting hard to try to win Georgia. He was calling election officials. They hinged on his language that maybe he said, you know, find the 11,000 votes. And he meant that literally.
Go out and find them instead of look at all the places you have. Are there ballots? And what you see- What do we see right now? We see people like Casey and others still not. And they got 30,000 votes plus they've had courts say to stop counting and they won't stop counting. And now it's again at the Pennsylvania court system.
So they're flouting court orders in these counties. And Mark Elias, who's the attorney leading the charge, that's a Clinton lawyer. He was kind of the architect of financing the Steele dossier. And he was one who put conservative lawyers on notice before the election that if you try to fight the results of this election, we'll come after your law license.
We'll file bar complaints. He's the one now maybe not explicitly saying the words find the votes for this Senate candidate. They're trying to count votes that were disqualified by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said stop counting those votes. So they are counting at this point in time under that court's order illegal votes.
So he is encouraging his clients to engage in illegal behavior, criminal behavior. That'll get you in much more trouble with the bar than just interesting theories about the electors and should we do a recount? And were things done properly here? Because it was a messy election as everyone saw what happened when we got election integrity restored in America. We didn't hear about a lot of complaints. Little things that did happen were handled.
The RNC had plenty of attorneys out ready to go. I think just on Election Day they had to file 12 different pieces. And they've done 12 more to make sure in some areas where voting machines didn't work early on that were Republican area, heavily Republican vote districts, that they got a couple more hours. As long as it was closed, they got added. And then in some districts that were, again, trying to stay open even though they had clear times of what time you had to be in line and did not face those kind of issues.
So I think that's why it slipped around. We heard it for four years that we were the election deniers. They are literally out still denying the election results in Pennsylvania as we speak. And a two-term senator is still holding on because illegal votes are being counted in a few counties that hopefully, yet again, the courts put a stop to.
That's right, Jordan. And we haven't even gotten to what's happening in New York, which we can get to in the next segment where, as you remember last week as a preview for what's coming up, Judge Mershon was supposed to issue his opinion about how the immunity decision out of the Supreme Court would affect that case. That's the campaign finance case that was brought by Alvin Bragg against President Trump.
That's the 34 felonies that people like to throw around on the left. But that was stayed until this week. They had a hearing this morning, some interesting moves with no definitive answers yet.
And we'll give you an update on that when we come back from this break. Yeah, folks, we need your support at the ACLJ. So we filed an amicus brief in the case to disqualify Fannie Willis, so we're involved in that. We're battling 18 cases against the deep state right now as we speak.
18 different cases. And we're preparing to file our next lawsuit very soon. We'll add 19. It's also a major court deadline to end our lawsuit to defend pro life pregnancy centers in Massachusetts that are being targeted by the pro abortion state government. We need you to make a donation to our faith and freedom drive today. Your gift is double ACLJ dot org.
Donate today. We'll be right back. All right, so there is more news involving cases involving President Trump. You know, I hope that once we get to January 20th and the swearing in that we won't have to say that too many more times.
But we'll be ready for it at the ACLJ, as you know. And I think, unfortunately, Democrats will always be looking at ways and their bureaucracy and their friends in the bureaucracy as ways to try and slow down. What they saw was a four year administration that, when you look back, accomplished what many administrations that served for eight years don't, including the end of a terror group, the closing, the ending of two wars, and then, of course, three Supreme Court appointments. I mean, you had major legislation, major moves in the Middle East, like the Abraham Accords, all in four years. So in this next four years, the Democrats know they're up against someone who can move fast, is willing to move fast on policy and has done it before now.
Has a Republican House, has a Republican Senate. But so they'll try to throw up the roadblocks they can, which is why I think they're going after so many of our friends who have been nominated to high profile positions, like Tulsi Gabbard, without, of course, any of the facts. You know, she's back to being this top ranked lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve with a top secret security clearance who is also a spy for Russia, supposedly. I mean, this is, again, if it didn't work on President Trump, now they're throwing it to Tulsi Gabbard, and who knows what they'll come up with next on these nominees. It's ridiculous, it's absurd, but they hope the American people will buy it.
I think that they should have learned last time around they don't. But in this case out of New York, now this is the criminal case, this is Alvin Bragg's case, and initially we were supposed to get to sentencing, right? President Trump was found guilty, that's why they kept calling him, you know, he's guilty of 34 felonies.
And they were all the same, basically, it was the business dealings, and then somehow they got it into federal law because of somehow that benefiting his campaign. These were, again, putting forward, when you look at these kind of situations and whether or not the hush money or whatever they want to pay, was again something that was handled incorrectly by the DA's office, again by who they used and utilized for evidence. So, the sentencing, which has already been delayed once or twice already? So, last week we were supposed to finally get the answer from the judge about how the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court would affect it.
Because Alvin Bragg, many say, went too far, including in his closing arguments to the jury, was bringing up testimony that would be covered by the immunity because it was amongst White House officials after President Trump was in office. So, that was supposed to come out last Tuesday, however, both parties, the defense and the prosecution, requested a stay of proceedings for one week so that they could brief the court on how they think the case should move forward in light of the immunity and also in light of him being elected President. Today, they were having a hearing. The attorneys for both sides were in the courtroom and many were expecting that we'd even hear potentially his decision on immunity today because this stay only lasted through today. Now, what we've seen is that on the court's docket, the November 26th sentencing, which is next Tuesday, has been listed as adjourned.
So, there's a lot of people wondering, okay, are we going to get some sort of decision out today? Adjourned is a curious term that's placed there. It doesn't say rescheduled. Now, if you look at the legal definition of adjourned, it can just mean postponed. Most of us think of court being adjourned being it's over, kind of the end, this court is adjourned.
The lay people, non-attorneys over here. But when you look at this, it's a curious timing that they're having this hearing and the court updates it to adjourned for next Tuesday's sentencing hearing. His attorneys are in there today for Alvin Bragg trying to tell Rashawn whether they think the case should move to sentencing or does it have to be tossed out? I mean, they may be able to say you could try and bring it again, but not use the evidence that you gathered.
But that becomes very difficult because fruits of the poisonous tree, all of those issues. So, you know, we've got to delay. Do we think we'll hear anything from the judge today, Will? That's what's unclear at this point. Many people thought that he delayed the proceedings of the case, which one of the proceedings was releasing his opinion on the immunity.
So in theory, today's his own set deadline. I assume, and many people think we'll hear something, whether that's another delay even as he's trying to figure out what he heard. Yeah, because now he's hearing it in court today.
So it's not something he would have had pre-written. If so, that would have been, why did you bring them to court to argue? Unless it's going to be just something quick from the bench, which is, you know what, guys, I listened to what you had to say, but Supreme Court, that's that. And then you've got the next date, which is scheduled for November 26th, adjourned, because he doesn't have to bring it back if he decides. And now there's the other angle of this where that's been adjourned. If there's nothing set, there are some legal analysts that are looking at it and saying, is he just going to keep it on pause for four years? Which I feel like there is other avenues potentially of interlocutory appeals, maybe, or other sorts of things that may not be the appropriate term for that specific type of appeal.
Trying to hold that again would be very bizarre. And again, just because they would try to utilize a statute of limitations, stopgap measure, because now you've got a President. But the interesting part is that while we have it clear that the federal prosecutors cannot bring these charges or criminal charges against a sitting President, the idea that we've argued before at the U.S. Supreme Court and haven't had to get to a final resolution of, was should politically voted on DAs, local DAs from around the country, be able to haul the President to court either while they are President of the United States? And I do think that answer would ultimately be no. It's easier on the federal side, and that's been known. But we ultimately didn't have to get there the last time under President Trump. It's unclear if we're going to have to get there in this case either. I do think, Will, I know the betting markets they're trying to seize, but if you're a European or someone overseas involved in one of those betting markets, you might say, I think that for the most part, these cases, the ones with criminal liability, are going nowhere. And the question is just how long it takes for them to finally say it's done. And those are going to be very upsetting days for the left because you'll no longer be able to call President Trump a convicted felon anymore. They will actually toss all of that out, and he will, again, it will be a wrongful prosecution, which you'll be able to talk about Alvin Bragg, how he brought a horrendous case against President Trump that totally failed once it had to go through Supreme Court scrutiny.
So again, it flips it. We'll watch it closely. If you want to talk to us about it, 1-800-684-3110. There's a lot to talk to about the cabinet as well.
Nominees that are coming out as well. We, of course, have been talking about that daily, and we'll continue to talk about that on the broadcast. So if you want to talk there, 1-800-684-3110. That's right, and we'll take some of your phone calls in the next segment as well. But we've got more coming up in the next half hour of the radio show and the broadcast. If you're watching on YouTube, we encourage you to subscribe and give us a thumbs up and leave a comment. And if you don't know what to comment on on this particular topic or anything, just go ahead and tell us where you're watching from. We love to see that. It also boosts the engagement and helps more people hear this analysis.
So we'd appreciate if you'd subscribe wherever you're watching, whether it be Rumble, YouTube, Facebook X. We try to meet you where you are so you can get this vital information at no cost to you, but at a great service to the American people, thanks to the members and donors of the ACLJ. Folks, double the impact of your donation right now during our Faith and Freedom drive. We're fighting for your faith, fighting for our freedom on multiple fronts. We urgently need your support at this critical time of year. Join the fight. Have your gift double to ACLJ.org. I mean, just today, a major court deadline in our lawsuit to defend those pro-life pregnancy centers that have come under attack in Massachusetts, even targeted by the pro-abortion state government. Support our work. Donate today.
Double the impact. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. We're going to get into more with Ukraine, these decisions by the Biden administration to make things just extra dangerous for the new administration coming in, see if they can get things to take a hot war in Europe and maybe, you know, just ratchet up the fire that much more by giving Ukrainians weapons so they can hit deeper inside Russia. Even though that was always the position was this is about defending Ukrainian sovereignty, not about launching a war or trying to retake or take Russian land and try to, again, have a more offensive plan. And now that the election has gone away where, you know, supposedly, you know, the entire Washington, D.C. establishment is freaking out that Ukraine won't get the support it needs, they're going to try to use every tax dollar they can to get them weapons.
And now they've decided to give them missiles that can hit deeper inside Russia. So we can talk about that. But I do want to get to a phone call as well because these cabinet nominations, they come out kind of pretty quickly.
We get sometimes one, two, three in a day. And there's still more to come. But Robert in Maryland's calling on Line 1 about one of them specifically. Hey, Robert, welcome to Sekulow.
You're on the air. Yeah. I wanted to ask you, Jordan, I wanted to ask you about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's President Trump's nominee to be the head of the Health and Human Services Department, that agency, the federal government. And they're very heavily involved in health policy and have a major concern about him being nominated to be appointed to that particular agency because of the fact that he's a very pro-abortion and I'm very strongly pro-life. So I would like to see maybe President Trump nominate somebody else. And I just wanted to get your views on that and also some of the other views of the members of the ACLJ.
Yeah, I would say this. The President is the chief executive officer, okay? So he is the executive branch and solely represents the executive branch. These are all employees of his.
Now, it's a big deal to become a secretary because you're overseeing and a cabinet member overseeing big offices that do big important things like HHS. But ultimately, most of the pro-life moves that will be taken by President Trump initially will be done by executive order, like Mexico City policies reinstatement. He does that and then it's carried out by various government agencies.
If there are other executive orders that are similar, again, the President signs those executive orders or he can instruct HHS to put those policies into place. So RFK Jr., he knows this going into it, taking these positions. He might even get asked about it by a conservative senator to put people maybe so that you aren't concerned. Because I really do believe that's not why Robert Kennedy Jr. took this spot. He took it for health. He took it for the food. He took it for the medication, the cost, everything about trying to get to a place more like Canada and Europe.
Not like our health systems want to be like that, but that what we're putting in our bodies and our kids' bodies, that we really are making sure it is the best possible in one of the wealthiest countries in the world where a lot of this is created. So I think, again, if he felt so strongly about abortion rights, he would never have taken a job with President Trump or endorsed President Trump and hit the campaign trail. And Will, you said he's kind of had a transformation because it wasn't an issue that was top of mind to him.
That's right. And if you've watched this broadcast for a number of months, you've known that Logan and I have actually followed his campaign pretty closely. And just a couple points on this. One, this is all coming up because Mike Pence has decided to now speak out and say that they should not confirm him because of his stance on life. RFK Jr. is more to the left on life than we are. But what we saw during the campaign is that he was for a no restrictions. Then someone challenged him to do research and he realized, oh, they are actually doing late term abortions.
We can't do that. And changed his position. I think also with the Dobbs decision has taken a lot of that out of the federal government. And so there's less for him to do. And I don't think it's his focus. So I think it's not catastrophic to the life movement that he would be at HHS because I don't think there's as much there anymore now that Dobbs has returned it to the states. Well, exactly. The fights are in the states.
There's a few things the President can do by executive order that affects policies overseas. We'll be right back on Sekulow, ACLJ.org. Alright, back to Sekulow. We'll take more of your calls too at 1-800-684-3110. Remember we have another segment coming up so we'll get to you. I know Ann and Cheryl are holding on. Ann, we'll try to get to you before this segment is over. And Cheryl, we'll definitely get you in the final segment. And more of you if you want to call in. Questions on the cabinet, questions about any of the legal issues we've discussed so far today. Give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. I want to go to CeCe Howell though because CeCe, another case the ACLJ intervening in this case involving another homeowner's association where you can, I guess, flag the, you can fly the flag of your favorite football team but not a flag of the state of Israel.
Tell people about this one. Yeah, so there's a homeowner's association in Wisconsin and we are representing a client there who, actually the homeowner's association has rules and regulations that say that you can't fly any flag except the American flag. But they are doing, they are choosing to do selective enforcement because, as you said, our client has chosen to fly, for religious reasons, he's chosen to fly the Israeli flag with the Star of David on it and he has been told he has to remove it and he's been fined $100.
Now his neighbor has a Steelers flag flying and he's not been told to remove it or been fined $100. So you have selective enforcement here and we have fired off a demand letter to the HOA explaining to them that the Fair Housing Act requires that HOAs treat all of their residents the same and they can't discriminate because of religion. And a lot of times these HOAs think the exact opposite, that they have to, they can't do anything that smacks of religion but that is not what the law says.
The law says you cannot discriminate. If you allow a Steelers flag then you have to allow a religious flag as well. And if it's religious to that person you can also just be a flag for the State of Israel which doesn't imply any religion at all. It happens to be a flag where it's a Jewish majority country but they've got Muslims fighting in their military wearing that flag on their shoulder too. So the idea there that the HOA thinks, and this is back porch, right? Yeah, this is on the back porch, yes, this flag is. Is the Steelers flag on the back?
I cannot say, I don't know that for sure. It's interesting, I mean, it's like somebody in that neighborhood obviously just doesn't like seeing that Israeli flag and again, they can have that belief too but they should be able to put up, you know, if they want to put up some other country's flag in the backyard. You know, again, to me it just kind of reeks of both the, again, the attack on, they try to make it religious but also by doing that they're trying to, I think, bypass the anti-Semitism that this kind of feels like too. Which is, yeah, it's fine to put your American flag up front, your football team out back but, you know, anything Jewish related, no, not good in our neighborhood. Right, and the fact is the HOA does have rules and regulations that say you cannot have any flag but the American flag but they're not enforcing those rules. That's what's the bad thing, they're allowing anything else to fly except this Israeli flag because, and again, our client is flying it for religious reasons because he stands with Israel, it has the Star of David on it. And so we have let them know, you know, we've sent the demand and we will hear back from them shortly. Yeah, I mean, I think in these kind of situations, too, you have to look at the, is the HOA considering the back side of the house the same as the front side of the house?
Is that a flag flying if it's in the back? I don't, again, they're going to have to answer all these questions but the issue here is that if you feel like you're wrongly being treated because others are getting able to do things that you're being told, you're having to pay fines if you do, something is wrong. And, of course, if they don't respond to the demand letter, Cece, what happens next?
Yeah, then we'll go forward. If we have to pursue it in court to defend their rights, we will do that. And Jordan, here's the big concern for me is that to many this may sound like a small matter that, you know, that, yes, it's good the ACLJ is fighting it, but it's not something that really perks your ears up of like, oh, wow, you know, a fine for a flag and an HOA. Most people have issues with their HOA if you have one anyways, but the concern here is when you look at what's going on in Europe. We talked about the pogroms in Amsterdam against Jews and Israelis there for a soccer match. We saw that Paris had to heighten security, calling 4,000 police officers to try to protect a similar soccer match, a national team match. And now we have this that's being reported out of Germany, that the police chief of Berlin, the capital city, has warned that Jews and gay people should avoid and hide their identity in parts of Berlin, their capital city, with large Arab populations. So what we're seeing is unchecked wild anti-Semitism. So they don't have enough police and military to put up on the street to protect Jews and gays? And my concern is that the slippery slope of what flows out of Europe, when you already see parts of America that are concerned. Is this just like a general?
General warning. So if you're a Jew, don't go on the street? There are certain neighborhoods where the majority of people of Arab origin live who also have sympathies for terrorist groups. They're openly hostile towards Jews, and they say you should hide your identity if you're going into those areas. In Berlin alone, they've had 6,000 open investigations of anti-Semitic attacks since October 7th.
6,000. These are neo-Nazi type. This is based off these horrendous European immigration plans.
I've heard it said before, it can be somewhat controversial, but when you see what's happened in the UK as well, inside England and different parts of the UK, that the first majority Muslim country with nuclear weapons very well could be some country in Europe. That's right. Because with a functioning nuclear arsenal, not just trying to get to one like Iran, because of the population shifts that they've allowed, and again, they did not vet, so they didn't ensure that the people coming to immigrate shared their values, which is part of legal immigration is that you want to bring new people into your country, but part of that is that they share the values that your country holds dear, which should be that you should be able to walk through whatever part of the city in one of those countries, regardless of who the majority population is, and not have to fear for your life, because someone identifies you as Jewish or someone identifies you as someone who's gay or lesbian, and that Germany, by the way, or the city of Berlin just can't protect you. That's wrong. That's just bad policing. It's also horrendous failures that are being admitted by these governments, and what are they doing to stop it?
Nothing. And that's why the ACLJ has to fight what seem like maybe small, trivial HOA disputes, because if you don't stop that, the slippery slope is so great in the world that we're living in that you can quickly become Amsterdam or Berlin when you see how they're already causing such havoc in some of our larger cities like New York, the anti-Semites. You can't let the small things like an Israeli flag on a house in Wisconsin go. You have to fight there so you don't become Europe. We can't become Europe. I mean, we don't have that same kind of – our immigration issue so far has not been linked to that same kind of immigration issue. Both come with violence.
Both come with a lot of disruption into society. And, of course, it gets more direct there because these are smaller countries. But you realize these countries who thought they were based on this new, very liberalism Europe and everybody's going to sing Kumbaya now that we're done with world wars have brought in individuals. I mean, they're literally saying in their statement, these neighborhoods are dominated by terrorist sympathizers and there should be no place for that in Germany. I mean, why in Berlin if they know that there are whole neighborhoods where it's too risky for, I guess, police to even try to be there to make sure that any German citizen or visitor can walk through that area without fear of being attacked because of who they might be labeled as is why are these people still in Germany? I don't think they're all citizens yet. And I know people don't like the term, and probably in Germany mass deportation doesn't sound great, but they have countries they can return to now.
Many of those wars have come to a close. And if they are honestly harboring positive views of terrorist organizations, I don't really care where they end up. Just let's not have them in Western Europe. They've actually acknowledged, the parliament has acknowledged that it's the migration from the Middle East that's causing this, and they actually have some resolutions that are geared up to go basically saying there's going to be mass deportations of refugees back to their countries such as Syria because the government, the parliament, has realized this is a problem. This migration is a problem.
It could totally alter the world just with, again, migration numbers. It's a way to conquer without ever having to pick up a gun. And then you put in so many people who are so radical that the government doesn't even know what to do with you, and if they don't handle it quickly, well, you're radical. You're the ones that are willing to make it scary for everyone else. So it's why we fight in all these battles around the world because ultimately it can come right here into your own, literally, backyard where they come looking at, hey, why you got that Trump flag flying in your backyard? Why do you have that Israeli flag up in your backyard that someone saw over a fence? And we're fine with the NFL, but not for Israel. We can't let any of that happen.
So big things at the ACLJ, some that seem small, but they never are at the ACLJ. We fight it all because of your financial support. ACLJ.org, donate today.
Your gift is doubled during the Faith and Freedom Drive. Donate right now. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. Let's get to the phones. First, Ann in D.C., online three. Hey, Ann, welcome to Sekulow.
You're on the air. Thank you for taking my call. I thank God for you, the work that you're doing. I just want to say I'm so glad the election is over and I'm praying for President Trump and Vans. And I'm praying that we bring our country together.
It's so much hatred and everything. And yes, I do stand with Israel and I am pro-life. And I realize we cannot let everyone come and get to closing our borders. I agree with you on everything. Thank you so much and God bless you. We appreciate that, Ann.
And you know what? We're in that place where we have to close down the borders so that we can become that country again that can accept immigrants who follow the right path to the United States. We never want to have to completely close down our borders to immigrants. This is a country built on immigration, but because of the amount of illegal immigration that has led to horrendous crime, death, cities that just can't take care of people. So horrible, really human rights violations by even allowing this many people in without the resources prepared to take care of them and knowing that they're coming. So to get back to a place where we can be that shining city on the hill that people spend their whole life working towards becoming a citizen of and getting in line and making that application, we want to be there. But to get there, we have got to secure the border and I think for a period of time basically close the border to almost all non-refugee immigration. You've got to vet really seriously those who are claiming any refugee status. That is not something that should be easily given. In the past it was not.
I used to take courses on this in law school and just going through that with one individual and we've done cases like that, it takes a lot of steps. It shouldn't just be something you can randomly claim and then disappear into the United States of America because you really weren't a refugee. So we first always want to be a place for refugees if this is the first country they land in where they can be free from the persecution they were facing. But the second point is that to ultimately get to a country that can have a vibrant immigration we need to be, again, a country that has a handle on who's here and that we have been able to remove those who are here illegally.
And it needs to start with those who are the violent criminals, those who are with these cartels and those who are killing Americans, whether it's with actual kind of what you think of as a gun kind of criminal activity or drugs like fentanyl, which also make their way all the way back connections to China. That's right. And this is another issue that I wanted to bring up today because we covered it yesterday on the broadcast.
We had Rick on. And that was the escalation by the Biden administration here with now just 62 days left in office of giving the green light to Ukraine to use the long-range missiles that we provided them to strike inside Russia. And already they have used those missiles. They have struck inside Russia in the... How long did it take for them to actually utilize those missiles?
24 hours tops. So the missiles were sitting there. We just weren't letting them use them?
They had them and they were being used to fight within, but they had the capacity to go further. We said don't do that. And then we green-lighted it.
Then President Biden gave the green light. They used them. They struck an ammunition storage facility within the Buransk region, which is near Belarus and Ukraine. It kind of is on both of those borders.
But here's also the problem. We said it was an escalation. We said it was reckless yesterday. Putin has now lowered the nuclear threshold for Russia. The new doctrine asserts that Russia could use nuclear arms in the event of an attack by a nation backed by a nuclear power.
That's exactly what we're seeing. Using U.S. supplied munitions is an attack that a nuclear power supplied these munitions for a non-nuclear power to attack them. So he is now... President Biden, by green-lighting this, has fallen into the trap of a potential nuclear war that Putin is saying we could do this.
Right? That's scary. And when you're on the way out the door to decide to escalate a war that many in the country are split on whether or not we shouldn't even be sending military aid to, but much less that almost no one I know wants us to be directly in conflict with Russia, you've just made that infinitely more likely to happen by changing the doctrine that Biden had had since the beginning of that war on his way out the door. Yeah, the money plus the okay to hit deeper inside Russia. What that does is they call it a peaceful transfer of power, and it will be here in the United States, but not so peaceful if Russia believes that the actions of the Biden administration allow them to begin attacks on U.S. interests directly. And I'm not saying they're going to start off with direct attacks here inside the United States of America, but we certainly have interest in Europe.
We have military bases in Europe, and we've got, of course, military on the ground in Ukraine, training Ukrainians on how to utilize these weapons. So the fact remains that a true, I think, transfer of power and a peaceful transfer of power would also be making sure that you are not trying to undermine the ability of a new President to start new negotiations, fresh negotiations, to end a conflict that the Biden administration has never once been able to go on television at a press conference and tell any of us what is the end game. I always say that. How do you see this coming to an end? Now, I know they can't be 100 percent that that'll end that way, but in their perfect world, we spent all this money. So I think you can ask in the perfect world, where would you like it to be? OK, that's the perfect world in the real world. Then what would you accept and pressure both Ukraine and Russia to accept as a major world power, maybe get some other countries to pressure them to accept the UN or other other international organization, even countries maybe we're not as close with when it comes to these military attacks, because so far they have not put any of that forward.
And it does. It tries to hamstring the incoming administration. That's not really a peaceful transition of power in my definition. Especially when the part that you're hamstringing them with is war.
It's the literal opposite of peaceful. Let's go to Cheryl calling in Massachusetts. Final caller of the day. Cheryl, you're on secular. Thanks.
Love you guys. I have a question about our open borders. They've really affected us here in Massachusetts. They've affected me personally. I worked for a state agency to help unemployed people find jobs. Our funding was cut. I lost my job a year ago. And my friends that are there are telling me the governor's priorities have shifted from helping vets find jobs to helping the migrants find jobs.
So two quick questions. Have the Democrats ever officially articulated a reason for the open border madness? And then what can President Trump do when we have a governor like Maura Healey who doesn't want to cooperate with deportation efforts? Yeah, I think, listen, the one part is the Supreme Court's been clear. Even when some states wanted to take the opposite approach because they were getting no assistance from the Obama administration.
It happened again under the Biden administration. Courts have been clear that this is the federal government's duty and job. So if the state tries to get in the way of ICE and Customs and Border Enforcement, you know what happens? The Supreme Court, the courts, if necessary, are bound by that Supreme Court precedent to tell them, get out of the way. The federal government controls immigration and not your state government so they can try to make it more difficult. But at the end of the day, they have no ability to stop these federal agencies from carrying out the removals of illegal immigrants.
They might just be a little bit more difficult, but you know what? I think when you see Tom Holm and others that have been put in place, when you look at Kristi Noem, I don't think you're going to be dissuading them to get involved and get it done. Support the work of the ACLJ and donate today. We need your support. Donate at ACLJ.org. Talk to you tomorrow.
