GRAND JURY: Key Officials Face Full Power of DOJ.
SPEAKER 05 :
We got breaking news. The DOJ launches a grand jury investigation into the Russia conspiracy.
SPEAKER 10 :
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, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome to Sekulow as we kick off our 35 years of victory drive. We have some breaking news. And of course, you’re going to hear that always here. And I want to hear from you as well at 1-800-684-3110. You know, Will, I’ve always got to remind myself. And look, I’ve got to back it up. I’m getting ahead of myself. My dad, Jay Sekulow, is going to be joining us here in just a few segments. We also have Jordan Sekulow, my brother, joining us towards the end of the show. So it’s going to be packed. Will Haynes in the studio right now. I got to always remember we have a different administration, a different kind of level of politics, a different kind of level of politician in office. Because usually when these kind of things happen, when someone like a director of national intelligence outside of a Trump administration drops some sort of bombshell allegations or news, Months later, maybe you hear about it. Maybe you never hear about it again. Maybe the Department of Justice sits on their hands. Maybe they will get around to it. But this has been an ongoing progress that you could watch very quickly over the last few weeks as now today, Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed her staff, and that is right, that the DOJ is going to launch a grand jury investigation into the Russia conspiracy, the Russia hoax, however you want to call it, saying that they were planting the seeds, that the Democrats were planting the seeds to create that russia hoax uh very early on this is a another big moment now no charges have been brought at the stage of investigation against any potential defendants it says however that doesn’t mean that won’t happen and this is a big deal i think we need to look at it from a outsider’s perspective would you ever have thought you would have seen this uh from any other administration
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s right. I think this is the turning point that everyone had been looking for, because we’ve been hearing things from Tulsi Gabbard for a few weeks from the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe. And a lot of it was like, you know, shocking things that we assumed happened, but seeing it from intelligence documents and things like that that have been declassified. was was shocking to see that what the government had in their possession and how they framed it and how they decided to stage this as tulsi gabbard calls it years long coup and then the the natural thought was well what’s going to happen about it will we ever see accountability because that’s how washington has worked for so long and i was on here saying probably not you know it’s kind of one of those guys they don’t want to be a negative nelly over here will but i i’ve seen too much
SPEAKER 05 :
And I’ve seen how Washington, D.C. works. And often people are not held to any sort of accountability. Usually names are not named. And there are big moments that just kind of fall flat. But it seems like Pam Bondi is not doing that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. This is the hopeful turning point where now a prosecutor, we don’t know the name of which U.S. attorney has been tasked with this, which is normal. We are getting this because a source told the media that this has happened, but that they have been tasked with gathering the evidence together, putting it in the proper way to then present it to a grand jury in the hopes to get and secure indictments against individuals. This is something that many people even question if it would get to this stage because of things like the statute of limitations, etc. We’ll get into all that with your dad, Jay Sekulow, why this is an important step in the next segment.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, we will. He’ll be joining us, then Jordan will be joining us later on. I did want to say, currently, as you said, Will, this is a source that brought this exclusive to Fox News. The Department of Justice has not said anything just yet, but President Trump has already kind of inferred about it.
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s right. So the Department of Justice normally does not comment on investigations. However, they did give one statement that just said that the attorney general is taking the the referrals from the DNI very seriously and that we will see what happens. But now that they are at this stage, this is a big turning point and it is moving a lot faster than I think any of us ever expected.
SPEAKER 05 :
President Trump even said he’s happy to hear it. And later on, on CNBC, said he had nothing to do with it, but they deserve it. So that is the official statement coming from President Trump. Phone lines are open from you at 1-800-684-3110. Again, as we celebrate 35 years of victory. And we are looking forward to 35 more years of victory. This is the big moment. This is sort of the gold month, as I’ve been saying. This is what I’ve been looking forward to. Because we’re going to look back at some of the big victories we’ve had over the years. Because they have been big. They have been life-changing for so many people, even if you don’t know. And again, my dad, Jay Sekulow, obviously played a pivotal part in that. He’s going to be joining us in the next segment. So stay tuned. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We, of course, are going over the breaking news item that a grand jury is being put together for the Russiagate conspiracy. This is from the DOJ and from Pam Bondi. This is a big moment because, again, like I said, usually when you hear these kind of reports coming in, even from a Tulsi Gabbard or a DNI, traditionally, not Tulsi specifically, A lot of times, we’ve kind of become jaded, where we don’t really think anything’s going to happen. But this is a big move. Our dad, Jay Sekulow, my dad, Jay Sekulow, is joining us right now, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice here, of course. Dad, I want to get your update and your thoughts on this.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, as you said, Logan, this is a big move. It’s the most important, I’d say, critical move in holding people accountable for For the wrongdoing that they engaged in during before President Trump was president while he was a candidate in 2015 and 16. And then, of course, for what they did, which included everything from lying to a FISA court where a DOJ lawyer actually changed evidence that was permitted to the allegations of false testimony to the United States Congress. So what happens next is the grand jury will be in what’s called impaneled. And that means they will come together and witnesses will be called and evidence will be presented. And, you know, there’s a couple of lawyers that know a lot about this. And that’s Jordan and me. Both of us. We have both been engaged in this case from the beginning. We knew it was a hoax. The Department of Justice at the time knew it was a hoax. And so did the intelligence community. But despite that, they brought these charges against, you know, brought these investigations against the president, which took up almost three years of his first term.
SPEAKER 05 :
bring up dad what’s the difference between this and traditional you get campaign research going after somebody or you know doing all the things you do when you are working on an election of course you have whole departments of people that are trying to dig up things or trying to find things uh to go after that potential candidate over but there’s a difference between that and i guess complete fabrication
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, that and complete fabrication, but also it’s one thing if your political opponent’s doing it. It’s another if the Department of Justice is doing it. And here was the Department of Justice working with the Clinton campaign on the Steele dossier. We know of the communications between Bruce and Nellie Orr. Remember that? He was the number four-ranked. uh, individual in the department of justice when it can’t forget that for a moment. So when the government puts its finger on the scale, that’s where there’s illegality. It’s not allowed to do that both constitutionally and statutorily. So this will be an important investigation. We need to caution everybody. These things move at a regular pace. They’re not expedited, but this is important. And the ACLJ has a unique role here, and that is we know a lot of the evidence because we were the lawyers at the time. And there’s ways for us to supplement, get information out, not just on air, but legally as well. And we will be looking at all of those options. And that’s why it’s so important for our members who are celebrating this month 35 years of victory to let’s get another victory. We’re on the beginning stages of what could be the ultimate victory as far as this politicization of the Department of Justice goes.
SPEAKER 08 :
And when you look at one, the way that Pam Bondi with the DOJ is handling this, they accepted a criminal referral from the director of national intelligence, as well as from the CIA. They task people with it. They’re going through the regular channels. They’re not all of a sudden just blowing up the system, trying to make something completely different, which is what happened before. But a lot of people will also maybe looking at this and thinking, you know, why is it so important now that there be accountability, that the truth does come out? And I think it ties directly in with the work that the ACLJ has done throughout its course, and that is protecting the Republic, protecting the Constitution. That if the truth doesn’t come out about this, I think it’s very damaging to the future of the Republic and the way that our government operates. I just want to get your take on that.
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah, it’s not just that this has happened and this was bad and it shouldn’t happen again. It actually interfered with the Article II functions of the presidency. Remember, I was involved in, I think it ended up being four cases for the president at the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with all of these issues of… the government coming in. And remember, Congress subpoenaing his personal records, and we were successful in that, and the court saying you had to meet a very high standard, which they had not met. But the end result is, and I think this is what’s important, the activities that took place interfered with the president’s capacity to govern, or certainly made it more difficult. And that’s what we can’t have in a constitutional republic. And that’s why people that do this have to be held accountable, so that the next group doesn’t think about interfering with the presidential election because they don’t like that candidate.
SPEAKER 08 :
We’re already starting to see some of the usual suspects in the more mainstream and left media say that, you know, this is a waste of time or that they’re mischaracterizing this one. We know that that’s not true. But even we’re starting to see some and I saw it on Morning Joe this morning where they said that this is so highly irregular that we know about this. But the reality of this is that One, this is a source saying that there’s a grand jury investigation. This wasn’t a press release from the Department of Justice. We don’t know who the prosecutor is. We don’t even know the targets. How many times during the Trump years did we get news that there was a grand jury impaneled? So we’re seeing this shock from the left all of a sudden because their narrative is crumbling. But in reality, it appears the Department of Justice is taking this very seriously and doing it through the proper and necessary channels.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, here’s the proper and necessary channels. There was a referral from the DNI, our former colleague, Tulsi Gabbard. There was a referral from our friend and former, now current CIA director, John Ratcliffe. He was a member of Congress. He was on our impeachment team. So we’ve got a long history with him. And they made a referral to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then looks at the information that’s gathered and And they take it to a grand jury. I was in, I think it was the Space and Science Museum or one of the museums in Washington, D.C., when there was a phone call I got from the press. We’ve heard there’s been three grand juries impaneled, one in Florida, one in California, and one in New York against the president. And they were leaking this stuff out all over the place. uh so look i mean this is washington things get out but at the end of the day what’s important here is this is the beginning of the of the first phase of holding people accountable uh for actions they took which damaged the republic dad i want to take this call bill from wyoming who’s watching on aclj.org he’s got a question i think you’d have the expertise to answer bill go ahead yeah thanks for taking my call um i appreciate giving uh my monthly uh
SPEAKER 12 :
donations to help you guys out. I served on a couple of jury duties, and I understand how that works, but how do they assemble the members for a grand jury, especially in this case, you know, in Washington, D.C.? ?
SPEAKER 11 :
Yeah. So it’s a little bit different than what you experienced in a jury where you were in a room with a lot of people and they do this and the lawyers ask questions. It’s not that. You are asked to participate, summoned basically, to serve on a grand jury. You get a notice, like you got your notice to serve on a jury. The difference is it’s then not up to the lawyers as to whether you’re qualified or not. There will be a presiding judge that supervises the grand jury. Remember the burden of proof in a grand jury to get a indictment issued is only probable cause. But to prove it at trial, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt with a different standard when it goes to trial. But that’s how it works. So it’ll be a grand jury of peers, a grand jury of citizens of whatever district they decide to bring the grand jury in.
SPEAKER 05 :
Bill, thanks for your call. And dad, as we wrap up this segment, I did want to give you a minute because we are we’ve pivoted from the 35 years of Justice Drive, which, of course, was talking about all of what we were doing and what we are going to be doing in the future. But now we are celebrating this month. This month, I wanted to make sure we were developing this whole program. I said, you know what? We’re not looking back. We’re not talking enough about justice. the big victories that really have not only shaped the work of the ACLJ, but have shaped the world in general, have shaped the United States and around the world. Thanks to people like you and our team here for the last 35 years. So I want to give you a moment as we celebrate 35 years of victory of why people need to still support the work of the ACLJ.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, the work is ongoing. It’s more complex. It’s different. You know, you change over time. Nothing is static in the law or in the cases that we take. We had the unique experience of representing President of the United States, government leaders abroad, as well as people that listen to this broadcast that had a child in school that was put in a very compromising situation with the speech that she was required to give, and we went to court. The same lawyers that represented President Trump are representing that student. And I think about the overturning of Roe versus Wade and the change that that’s made. But look, the battle continues, and we have to be aggressive here. And that means not only exposing the truth, but also saying, changing or modifying the law as it relates to religious freedom and free speech. And when I say modify the law, make sure we’re standing up for the First Amendment. Those cases don’t change. As I said, it’s more complicated now. We’ve got a great team in place, a great group of young people coming up in leadership. I’m very pleased. Support the work of the ACLJ as we celebrate 35 years of victory at ACLJ.org.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s right. The only reason we can be in these fights and help protect the Constitution and move forward is because of 35 years of victory. We make sure we do our best. We take cases that we think not only think we can win, that we know we can win. Obviously, it’s a battle always, but we need your help. Make the next 35 years of victory possible. Have your donation doubled today. That’s at ACLJ.org or scan the QR code right now that you see on the screen. We couldn’t do it without you. Welcome back to Secular. Again, we’re going to take your calls, and I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. My dad was just on, so if you missed that, go listen to that later on. And my brother’s going to be joining us in just a few minutes, so make sure to stay tuned for that. Now, Will, we were talking in the break that you wanted to go over a bit of how the media is covering all of this.
SPEAKER 08 :
That’s right, because the media so desperately wants this administration to be authoritarians, that they’re dictators, that they throw out the Constitution. But in reality, what you’ve seen is that they are going by the law and they’re actually trying to expose and hold accountable those that did the very thing they’re accusing President Trump of doing, using the executive power and executive branches and intelligence agencies to try and get after their opponents and ruin their careers, ruin their lives, put them in jail, hamper their ability to govern. That’s what they did. And now that the truth is coming out and now that we’re seeing the actual documents, they are trying to spin this so desperately. And this is a clip from Morning Joe. I referenced it earlier with your dad, but I just, it was so… Crazy to me how much spin they’re trying to put on this about how bad this is that we’re finally about to see some accountability and that we’re hoping we see accountability. This is from David Road. He was on Morning Joe. He was talking with Willie Geist, and he’s the senior executive editor on national security for NBC News. And I want you to hear what he has to say, and then I’m going to break it down for you. But this is bite seven.
SPEAKER 07 :
But the one thing we do know, Jonathan O’Meara, is this is extraordinarily stupid. It’s extraordinarily stupid on so many counts. If you if you look at the timeline, the timeline doesn’t add up. It’s like when Donald Trump is saying that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
SPEAKER 05 :
We’ll pull out. That was actually the wrong bite selected. Let me know when you guys have the right one. Ready? let me know just give it a minute we’ll keep talking here let’s go ahead and i take a phone call real quick before we get that loaded back up let’s go to ann who’s calling in pennsylvania who is listening on the radio and again phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110 hey you know we’re live now and go ahead hi guys thank you so much for all the work you do i’m so glad that jay is on the show and i have a question but you know we’ve been knowing this for a very very long time uh and obama you know was the
SPEAKER 02 :
head honcho if you will um my question is and we’re hearing a lot of this in the christian i mean a conservative media world that president obama most likely will have immunity but then we’re also hearing that he could be compelled to testify and that if he lies he’d be committing contempt of court now my question is could he be forced to testify if they grant him presidential immunity
SPEAKER 08 :
It’s a good question. It is a good question, and obviously it’s very complex because this, fortunately, this is not something that we’ve ever had to deal with. It’s not settled law. That’s right. So the theory, as Anne’s discussing, is that because of the Supreme Court decision with President Trump, that he has presidential immunity for official acts, and that him directing the intelligence agencies and the national security team to investigate something isn’t in and of itself outside of his power as an official act, even if it led to this treasonous conspiracy and if he was the one giving that directive. So that’s where you start with the very novel theory that we’re dealing with here, that that would be falling under the presidential immunity ruling. Even President Trump kind of admitted that, you know, I helped him out. He owes me a lot on this. When you extrapolate that out, there are people saying that if there is no threat of prosecution, because of presidential immunity. then you can’t take your fifth amendment right to not self incriminate before investigators and therefore you can’t plead the fifth. So that’s kind of the theory that people are extrapolating out. Therefore he would be compelled to testify. There’s also people who have suggested the current president, Trump, should give him or reiterate immunity or some sort of pardon or clemency in saying you have to testify and therefore he cannot go before them and not say anything. I think it’s a really untested theory. I think there’s a lot of, there’s a lot of executive privilege issues that also come out of this things that president Trump for with your dad fought for saying you cannot force a lot of these things, uh, into the public because this is deliberative privilege. This is executive privilege. This is the inner workings of government. Some of these things aren’t decided on. So you don’t want that to taint the way that the world looks at the outcome and things of that nature that would have to go through. There’d be a lot of scrutiny. And I think President Obama, who has done very well for himself, has a lot of money for attorneys to help fight this out in perpetuity. I don’t know that they would be able to get what they want or need from him in a short term, that it would be able to prolong it for years.
SPEAKER 05 :
We’ve only got a couple minutes left in this segment. Did you want to go back to it? I think we have the bite loaded. Let’s go ahead and play this bite.
SPEAKER 08 :
Reset it up, yeah. David Rode, he’s a senior executive editor on national security for NBC News, and this is how he was trying to spin this grand jury investigation that we’re finding out from a source telling Fox News. Let’s go ahead and roll that bite.
SPEAKER 01 :
We don’t know what the crimes are that are alleged here. We don’t know who is being targeted and we don’t know where this grand jury will sit. And all of that’s very concerning. Normally in the prosecution process in this country, no one is indicted, no investigation is announced or anyone is indicted before a grand jury has heard evidence and a fellow citizen decides this other citizen should be charged with a crime. Here we have an approach where there’s sort of a, you know, the Director of National Intelligence makes a sweeping allegation, potentially that the former president of the United States was involved in a treasonous plot. And then you have the attorney general announcing that she is launching a criminal investigation of this plot. But again, we don’t know the charges. We don’t know where they’re going to investigate or who it’s going to be.
SPEAKER 08 :
Here’s why this is so disingenuous to me. Is he at the beginning says, we don’t know what the crimes are that are alleged here. We don’t know who’s being targeted and we don’t know where this grand jury will sit. And all of that’s very concerning. Then he goes on to say that the normal process is you wouldn’t know what the alleged crimes are, who the alleged targets of the investigation are or where the grand jury is going to sit. So he’s saying that that’s the normal process, but because that’s the normal process, it’s concerning to him. He also goes on to talk about Director of National Intelligence, who laid out the evidence to the American people, but also did a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. All that is very normal process. And then what did the DOJ do? They accepted the criminal referral and they started looking into it. This news about the grand jury investigation isn’t something that they put a press release out about. It’s a source told Fox News. How many times over the last four years, eight years, your entire lifetime, have you seen articles that are written because a source told them a grand jury’s been impaneled or a criminal referral has happened? That is par for the course out of Washington, D.C., But they are in such a tailspin right now because things that they wrote and got Pulitzer Prizes about, the lies that they perpetrated on the American people for years. and that they took as gospel truth that Russia and President Trump colluded together no matter what any of the special counsels said, no matter what anyone after their reports put out, no matter all the clearing of wrongdoing on the president’s campaign back in 2016, they still believe this lie. And if something happens that chips away at their truth, they’re going into a tailspin. And that’s what the problem is. They don’t care about the truth. They care about their truth, which was a lie from the beginning.
SPEAKER 05 :
With that being said, we’ve got a second half hour coming up. I want you to join us, whether you’re joining us live, if you want to join us live, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time. We are available on YouTube, on Rumble, easily on ACLJ.org. Of course, you can catch us archived later on. Some of you don’t get the full half hour or the second half hour on your live local station, so you can find us broadcasting live on all those platforms. But again, later on, it’s archived. You can always go back and listen and watch our show. And you should watch it. It’s full television-style production if you’re just listening. It’s a great way to do it. Over 500,000, 512,000 of you join us on YouTube alone. So I encourage you right now to give us a call as we head into this second half hour. And as we celebrate 35 years of victory, consider becoming an ACLJ supporter or champion as your donations are doubled right now during this golden month. That’s right. 35 years of ACLJ victories. My brother Jordan Sekulow joining us in just a moment.
SPEAKER 10 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Welcome back to Sekulow. It is a Tuesday. It’s August 5th. I looked over at Will because when I said Tuesday, I was making sure.
SPEAKER 08 :
My days are all topsy-turvy.
SPEAKER 05 :
I know. I wasn’t here yesterday.
SPEAKER 08 :
I never can tell what day is which anymore.
SPEAKER 05 :
I was in Canada. I don’t know if I’m allowed to admit that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, I think that’s not a good thing to broadcast these days.
SPEAKER 05 :
Look at the falls.
SPEAKER 08 :
You could have been in Niagara Falls on the American side. We get that caller a lot. Right.
SPEAKER 05 :
But you know what? It was actually easier to fly in the other way. We are going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That’s 1-800-684-3110. And again, my brother Jordan Sekulow is going to be joining us in just a moment. He just walked in the studio. And we’re going to continue this discussion, Will, but let’s start by resetting it because a lot of people joined us just for the second half hour. The Department of Justice has announced they are launching a grand jury investigation into the Russiagate conspiracy. And of course, this comes on the heels of Tulsi Gabbard releasing all the content. Referring it.
SPEAKER 08 :
And now we’re seeing real movement. That’s right. So this is a source told Fox News. It wasn’t like a press release from the Department of Justice. But what we’re seeing now is that apparently Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed her staff to act on the criminal referral from the DNI. And that is related to. All that evidence that Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe have put out. And we’ve seen the declassified Durham annex. We’ve seen all of these things. But this criminal referral is now in the hands of the DOJ. And they’re starting this entire investigation with a grand jury. Which will, the steps would be, they put it together, put the evidence together. They then present it to a grand jury after one is impaneled. And then we will see if there’s indictments to follow. The old adage in the law is that you can indict a ham sandwich. That that is one of the least adversarial or difficult portions of the criminal case.
SPEAKER 05 :
That’s like a line out of Three Stooges.
SPEAKER 09 :
It is true, though. In most cases, except for the location of this grand jury, as you’ve talked about, could be very indicative of is it as easy to indict, and especially if it originates in Washington, D.C. I don’t think it has to because there was movement in New York. That may not be a great place to go, but there was movement in Florida as well. I mean, you have locations where the president lives, where he’s located, and so they know at the DOJ the different places where they’re limited in bringing jurisdiction. And that could play a very important role when it comes to the grand jury.
SPEAKER 08 :
And Jordan, on top of that, the U.S. attorney out of Florida was just confirmed recently in the past few days. And that was even amid all of the hangups when it comes to a lot of these nominations that The Senate Democrats have tried to block and stall that there was a U.S. attorney who is the first of President Trump’s second term, first U.S. attorney to get confirmed. I know that Judge Jeanine Pirro also was confirmed after this individual, but that could open up an angle where a newly appointed U.S. attorney in Florida wouldn’t have been a holdover from the Biden administration. If they were to go that route, it would be a lot more favorable for the government to to actually pursue it there if that is the case and they choose to go there.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, I mean, this is exactly what was done in my mind inappropriately with President Trump is you find these grand juries and you can’t indict. It’s easy. I mean, it’s basically you send in sometimes just a couple of agents and they don’t have the same rules of evidence. You know, it’s not adversarial. It’s just the government going in and saying, this is what we believe was illegal conduct. Here’s the evidence. But they can also present evidence that they would not be allowed in court. So because this is to bring the indictment itself. And so I think, again, for those who have been waiting. for some action on this. This is the next step. This is the next step.
SPEAKER 05 :
There’s actual action happening, which is pretty impressive. We’re going to talk about that when we get back. Phone lines are open for you. We’ve got three lines still open at 1-800-684-3110 as we are celebrating right now our 35 years of victory here at the ACLJ with our 35 years of victory drive. We want you to be a part of it right now as our nation faces a very pivotal moment. We need you. The only reason we can be in all these fights, Supreme Court or even your local courts, the only reason we can be doing this show is because of people like you. So right now, help protect the Constitution. Help represent our clients that could be you at no cost. It’s all because of you. Make the next 35 years of victory possible and have your tax-deductible gift doubled right now. So do it right now. Go to ACLJ.org. You scan that QR code that you see on the screen. And if you can, become a champion. As someone that says I’m going to be dedicated to do this every month, of course, you can cancel at any time like any other kind of a membership program. But we’d love you to be over the 20,000 champions that are joining us. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you. 1-800-684-3110. You can take some calls and comments as well. My brother Jordan Sekulow is joining Will and I in the studio as these are big moments we need to make sure that we tell you all about because you have been pushing and I’ve been pushing and we’ve been talking about the fact that it seems like when there were these criminal referrals, we kind of go back to a James Comey kind of universe. We go back to a universe where referrals happen and that means nothing’s going to happen. And now we have a very different administration. We have to keep reminding ourselves. that we have a different group of people that are in there that are taking these things seriously. Now, whether they end up developing into something more than this, who knows? But at least we’re taking that next step, which is getting an assembly or grand jury.
SPEAKER 09 :
Listen, if this was a Republican kind of… If they were going after Republican executive branch officials, there would be no problem in getting indictments. No problem. But because these are leftist actors… The location of the grand jury, which shouldn’t be important in our system of rule of law, could be very important. And I don’t want to put too much weight into that because some of that will come down to the evidence that is presented. And again, evidence can be used in grand juries that’s not… that’s not allowed in court. It’s a very different process. That’s why they use the, you can indict a ham sandwich in a grand jury. It’s just a different process. But this is action. This is not just talking about, this is not just writing a report or investigation. But remember when John Durham went to that grand jury, was not as easy to indict as a ham sandwich. And he had trouble. That was in Washington, D.C. And then in Delaware as well. So I think what we have to see here is a little bit more of this kind of developing. Grand jury information is held pretty tight. Ultimately, we’ll likely know the location of the grand jury, at least. And this could lead to, again, very serious legal actions and repercussions for those who we believe were at least engaged in wrongdoing. And then the next level is, does the executive branch and Department of Justice have the evidence they can use in court if they get through the grand jury stage and bring indictments to actually prove that it was not just wrongdoing but criminal wrongdoing and of course there’s some statute of limitations issues they have to get over but as a lot of people said because these are individuals that are still talking about the issue they are still very active in the issue and it’s kind of ongoing in my mind because we’re still talking about it that those a lot of those statute of limitations issues i think can be overcome
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, and Jordan as well. I mean, even if you were to go a little bit more strict, even if not like public statements where they’re calling out Tulsi Gabbard and saying this is all untrue in the public eye. I mean, many of these individuals testified to John Durham during that investigation under oath in 2020, 2021. His report didn’t come out until 2023. So a lot of that, I know that John Brennan spoke with him August 29th of 2020. So that is still within the five years. If they were to move quickly, even that, that would be the furtherance of a conspiracy within the five years if he was telling untrue things to an investigator about this based off the evidence we have now. That would meet even a very strict scrutiny of this five-year statute of limitations, I feel like.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes, this goes to the heart of what happened here. And what we now know what happened was the intelligence report came out a few days before the president was inaugurated. The Obama administration redid an intelligence report and kind of said it wasn’t just Russia that wanted to kind of disrupt our entire election. And they didn’t really care who won. In fact, they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win. So if they really thought that, then why on earth would you put together, if you wanted Hillary Clinton to win because you didn’t know who Donald Trump, why would they deny this information? Why wouldn’t they want this information out? So they changed the intelligence report just days before President Trump’s first inauguration and changed it from Russia trying to cause havoc in our elections, which would not be so shocking. to donald trump being an agent of russia i mean think of it that’s what this goes back to that is a very serious charge made by the intelligence community it failed in the muller investigation cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and we should still be talking about it today because rule of law matters and making sure this doesn’t happen again matters as well
SPEAKER 05 :
I think we should go ahead and take some phone calls. There’s a lot of you on hold right now. Yeah, exactly. 1-800-684-3110. That’s at 1-800-684-3110. Let’s go to Jean in North Carolina. Who’s listening on the, you’re watching on the Salem news channel. Cause I think again, this is sort of some overall sentiment that happens in these situations. Go ahead, Jean. Good.
SPEAKER 13 :
Thank you. Thank you for doing what you do. I wanted to say, you know, we’ve been, the American public has been watching things like this for the better part of 10 years. And everybody’s got an opinion. It makes a lot of money. It’s very entertaining. But until the public actually sees an elected official convicted of a crime, put in handcuffs, put in the back of a car, and towed it off to prison for an extended term… None of this means anything. And it’s really sad. I think these people should be held to a much higher standard. I think their lives should be completely transparent. And if they don’t like that, don’t run for office. But if you and I walked into any bank branch and we took $300 and We would have a line of police cars behind us on the highway that would make the O.J. Simpson thing pale. Depending on the city.
SPEAKER 08 :
Right. I think it’s a $900 threshold in some cities in California. Go and take the retail. Take what you want.
SPEAKER 09 :
It’s fine. Go to your local pharmacy.
SPEAKER 05 :
Right, right, right.
SPEAKER 09 :
But the truth is, the people who are going to be looked at the closest here, there will be some elected officials, yes, are going to be political appointees. So they are separate than just government bureaucrats. They are the next tier down. These were selected by the president of the United States, that president being President Obama. Always tougher to get to the president and get to elected officials. But listen, they did to Donald Trump. I mean, let’s not forget that. So it’s not a tit for tat. It’s not like we’re saying we are going to do this because you did this to Donald Trump. It’s because we don’t want this to happen again. If we have to have trust in our intelligence community, trust in our law enforcement community at the federal level, this cannot be business as usual. And so moving forward with this grand jury and moving forward potentially with indictments, I think could make people feel a lot better. about our political process, at least not being corrupted from within so that the bad guys who are trying to maybe impact and cause chaos during our elections, that they’re the ones that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are focusing on, not people running for office. But the key here is real actions being taken, action that could not be taken by what was not going to be taken by the Biden administration. So this is really the first chance the Trump administration or a Republican administration has had to try and bring those accountable to justice.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, and Jordan, I think to piggyback off what you just said is that the difference that what we’re seeing with this is one, it has to be done appropriately and correctly. And we want to see the accountability because they weaponize the intelligence agencies to interfere with an election. They weaponize the justice system to interfere with another election by going after President Trump. What we’re looking at here is not going after individuals like they were. They were trying to go after President Trump and therefore anyone who is a conservative in this country with both. the election interference in 2016 and the presidential governing interference that they perpetrated throughout his first term, as well as then the lawfare to try and keep him out of office. Reminder, we won. We represented the Colorado Republican Party to keep him on the ballot. But these disingenuous people on like Morning Joe and all these shows that are talking about this isn’t normal to know about a grand jury process like this. First of all, we know very few details, which is the appropriate way to do this. But when you look at what they did to President Trump, the grand jury foreperson out of Fulton County was giving interviews saying she wanted to sit across from President Trump. That was what we had when they were trying to take him out. With this, just the fact that we know that there’s been a grand jury investigation beginning and we don’t know where or what or what the allegations are is the normal process. But they were out there putting these people on TV, making a circus of it to try and drag his name through the mud to try and hope he wouldn’t get reelected again. We’re trying to stop things like that from happening again.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes, this is not going after, I think there’s the important key part here. This is not trying to take down people running for office and impact the next election cycle. This is going after bad actors who are inside the government at the highest levels of our law enforcement and intelligence community. So it’s not interfering in elections. It’s not trying to impact elections. It’s trying to bring people to justice if there was criminal conduct. I think all of us believe there was wrongdoing here. You know, you look at the impeachment on Ukraine because they couldn’t find anything on Russia. So they went to a phone call on Ukraine. I mean, it’s been one thing after another. I hope what this does is it allows the Trump administration to go to the grand jury process. You move forward that process if you get indictments. But guess what? President Trump gets to continue to govern. And we kind of are able to move this one to the professionals, let them handle the investigation. You know it’s going to take time. But there is a clock here. There is a clock here of just a few years.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I mean, that’s the main thing we’ve got to focus on, too, is that you only have a couple years in this presidency before we definitely have to move on. And look, we’re going to see midterms really kick up, and then you’re going to see back to the general election very soon.
SPEAKER 09 :
I mean, every time these issues come up, you could literally print out a 100-page just timeline of bullet points of everything done to President Trump that was wrong and that we believe, that many of us believe was illegal. And so where they focus, we don’t know exactly. But I think the grand jury, they will be narrowly focused on the strongest arguments they have in court.
SPEAKER 05 :
And at least we have a team that is willing to do this fight. At least engage in it, not just ignore it. Like you said, can push it off real easily.
SPEAKER 09 :
That’s why they’re going to try to push Pam Bondi out. Don’t be fooled. The left doesn’t want Pam Bondi there because she’s tough enough. She’s a prosecutor. Before she was the Attorney General of Florida, she was a prosecutor. So she knows what she’s doing here, and they’re scared.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yep, absolutely. Hey, we’re going to take some calls coming up. If you want to support the work of the ACLJ, you know how to do it. Go to ACLJ.org. But phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. Three lines are open right now, and we’d love to hear from you. Again, 1-800-684-3110. Be right back. Welcome back to Secular. We only have one line open right now, but we do have one line, 1-800-684-3110. We can kick this off by taking some phone calls, and we’ll get into it. Let’s go ahead and go to Bobby in New York. Don’t hold for a little while there, Bobby. Thanks for holding. Go ahead. From Niagara Falls on the American side. I’m sorry. I broke your heart, Bobby. I visited the wrong side.
SPEAKER 04 :
A fellow rascal, by the way. What sticks in my craw more than as much as what these people did is that through it all, the press has been so slanderous. And I want to know if there’s a possibility that as the process continues, there might be a Jake Tapper moment or somebody in the press or a good deal of the press might admit, look, we did the wrong thing and we shouldn’t have even taken a Pulitzer Prize. I want your reaction to all of that. And thanks very much.
SPEAKER 09 :
Thank you, Bobby. It’s very difficult with the press. First Amendment protects the press. It also protects the press. Pretty broad. If they were reporting information that was being given to them, even in leaks from high-level government officials. Even if they were wrong. They’re allowed to report on that because it’s not their job, nor could they ever, fully go through and say, is the Steele dossier fully correct? I think what they did do is they used it for the salacious details. Reporting on the news is different than creating news, is it? And it unraveled as they were reporting on it. I mean, and then they got Bob Mueller and they thought, oh, this is going to take everything down. And guess what?
SPEAKER 08 :
Nothing happened. Well, and I think to Bobby’s point, do we think that we’ll see Jake Tapper have a second revelation as he did with the book that he put out about President Biden’s demise? I think he’s already got his one mea culpa out. So I don’t know if he’ll do another one anytime soon, but we’ll see.
SPEAKER 09 :
The press. is the press and they’re in enough trouble as it is and most most of those networks are having enough trouble i think what we need to focus on is the actual individuals that were at play at the highest levels of our law enforcement because that’s the key to restoring faith in law enforcement and faith in our elections thank you for calling let’s go to ronald now south carolina who’s watching on rumble a lot of great people watch on rumble each and every day ronald go ahead
SPEAKER 06 :
Hey, thanks a lot. Take my call. One thing I was wondering is that when all this thing was being planned out, like in the old office with Obama and Hillary and everything else, I’m sure that they had contemplated what would be the blowback if all of this just caved in. And you know what? I think they honestly said that, hey, nobody can touch us. Nobody can do anything to us. And I got your back. And no matter what, we will help each other out. And I honestly think that they were so overconfident. that nothing would actually come back to them later on.
SPEAKER 05 :
Ronald, I disagree with you. I doubt that was even a point of the conversation. Sadly, as much as you think it may be, I doubt they were sitting in the room going, what happens if this leaks out? Well, I mean, they said that they had an insurance plan. An insurance plan. It wanted to leak out. Yeah, the assumption is always it’s going to leak out. And look, what’s going to leak out is you’re going to get your base fired up, even if they think it’s maybe illegal now. What they did not expect probably was the way the Trump presidency landed, which is obviously a term on, a term off, and then to come back and to come back with a even maybe more aggressive administration that is willing to take the lead.
SPEAKER 08 :
If President Trump had won in 2020 and gone into the White House, I don’t even know that they would have spent this much time on it. It’s the fact that there was that interim period and that now the pandemic was over and now we have this new fresh team. It’s not holdovers in many cases. They have the ability to look at this with a fresh set of eyes and see what was done and really go after it. So for many of those individuals, the way that they’ve gone after him for so long may have been their biggest downfall in the end because they never expected Trump 2.0 in this way.
SPEAKER 05 :
All right. So let’s go ahead and continue on. Let’s go to Eric, who’s calling on line three. As we start to wrap up the show, Eric, go ahead. Hi, gentlemen.
SPEAKER 03 :
Thanks for taking my call. You’d mentioned the Mueller special counsel investigation earlier. And I just wanted to remind people that they were in on this scam, too. And predominantly Andrew Weissman, who was kind of the ringleader. And I just wanted to remind people in July of 2018, they announced an indictment of, I think, 12 Russian officers for interfering in the election. And That impacted the 2018 midterm election when it went in to the Democrats. So is there any culpability? for those who were on this corrupt Mueller probe to be disbarred to be indicted as part of this grand conspiracy.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah I usually don’t like going after attorneys but lord knows they did yeah and they had attorneys disbarred for reasons I believe yes totally inappropriate but they also where did they go they went to states that they knew would have very hot hostile state bars.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah but you’ve been kind of under the feeling that you know a lawyer they’re doing their job your job is to defend your client.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, the question is, because these are not just lawyers, they’re also appointed to this job and they’re kind of political actors. Was there wrongdoing? I mean, was there criminal wrongdoing? I don’t think it’s wrong to say, should it be looked at? I think that the focus on the grand jury here needs to be at the highest levels. the highest levels of our law enforcement, the highest levels of our intelligence community, because what you want to do is, one, you want to hold accountable wrongdoers. Two, this would never happen again. They impeached the president after he was done, after he was out of office. I mean, it was so unheard of. Hauling him off to, you know, all the state criminal charges, federal criminal charges, Jack Smith. I mean, the list goes on and on. And even trying to impeach him when he wasn’t there. And the Chief Justice not even showing up. So the politics of it, horrible. But the legal side of it, let’s just be strong here. Know that they are taking the step that they need to take to see that justice is done. But it comes up to the grand jury. Then ultimately, if they get past that stage, a jury.
SPEAKER 08 :
And Jordan, when you read that classified annex that’s now been declassified from the Durham investigation and report, it reads like what you hear about the CIA doing in third world countries, trying to manipulate the people and the way that they get different people into power. And you always hear about the old stories, the CIA backed coups and things of that nature. It reads like that. It reads like a spy novel. Right. And they weren’t doing that to further American adventurism or imperialism in other countries. They were doing it right here in the United States to protect themselves. And that’s what’s so shocking when you read it. You realize this was done here. And they were very effective, even if their end goal of not getting President Trump elected that Hillary Clinton was putting forward. The after action review that they took in shifting the narrative was very effective in that first term.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yes, and what they did was, and what I told you, and I saw it in person, they tried to disrupt that presidency. So they didn’t stop, as you said. Well, they didn’t say, well, we didn’t get him. He won this big election, so we’re just going to lay down. No, they immediately, right before he even came into office, the intelligence community report was changed. And then you also had, you know, Mike Flynn two FBI agents show up that’s what started just day two I think of the White House so and it kept going while President Trump was out of office because they were trying to keep him from running again why because they knew like most of us knew that if he ran again he had a pretty good chance of winning.
SPEAKER 05 :
Jordan, I want you to take this last minute as we head to the end of the broadcast today. We’ve been talking about the ACLJ, 35 years of victory. I’m sorry, Brian and John, we’re not going to be able to get to you today, but this is an important moment. We just got out of the 35 years of justice, but it’s always important to look back and talk about the victories because without those, the world is not as safe, is not as changed as it could have been without us.
SPEAKER 09 :
That’s right. And we are directly involved on these kind of issues. And we have been for the last decade on election integrity, on the rule of law. I mean, you know how involved we’ve been and we continue to be. Now it’s our allies who are in those positions, our friends and allies, some of our former colleagues who are in those positions, who are able now to do what we can’t as ACLJ is to bring, you know, grand jury bring indictments bring criminal charges and a lot of that stemmed from work that our team was doing over the last 10 years got us to this point so support the work of the ACLJ remember go to ACLJ.org double the impact of your donation so we continue to win those victories for you and the American people ACLJ.org
