Election Interference? Next Trump Court Date Right Before 2024 Votes Begin

Today on Sekulow, election interference.

President Trump's next court date is right before the 2024 votes actually begin. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright folks, we are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. The reason we call it election interference, you may have heard this yesterday, when they decided, when they were going through after the charges, after Donald Trump was arraigned, they set the dates. Now there will be motions that start being filed as we speak, but those motions can be filed up until August and then there's response time September and then there's replies to those motions in October and November so the judge will not be ruling on motions, including like the motion to dismiss because this is no crime, and we'll get to that in a minute, he won't even be doing that until December. Which means if it gets to trial, which there's some serious doubts about, it wouldn't begin until January. Well what happens in January? The Iowa caucus.

The New Hampshire primary. It doesn't feel like we're already getting, like that's in our collective consciousness, that's where we should be headed, but that is exactly what's happening as we are headed towards that. And the timing of this has already stunk in the sense of feeling that it was intentionally waiting. As they said on CNN last night, it's pretty much everything we've known for seven years. There was nothing new. I want to go to Dan on this, Jay Sekio, because Dan, you were a top attorney for President Trump dealing with all these kind of issues. None of this is new.

None of it. Well not only is it not new, but someone's going to have to file what's called a motion for particulars, because they don't even allege what the so-called other crime is that would raise this from a low-level misdemeanor, which is like a traffic ticket, to a low-level felony, which is what this is. These are the lowest level of felony. Now, initially everybody thought it was going to be electioneering, then somebody thought it was going to be maybe it was some kind of tax issue, but the idea that a district attorney in Manhattan can then take a case and say that case is now a felony because we believe that the arrangement for this payment violates federal election law, federal election law, when the federal government already said it does not, that includes the Federal Election Commission and the United States Department of Justice. So you've got to be concerned at the outset of what this is. We said this was politics. We knew it was politics.

It's raw politics. It's exactly and precisely what I said in that opening argument to the Supreme Court of the United States 38 months ago, and I said, you're weaponizing 2,300 district attorneys accountable to their local constituencies to target political opposition, and especially Presidents and Presidential candidates, and when you see this indictment unfold, it's exactly what it was, and even the commentators on the left, except for one or two, 90% of them were saying very weak. I mean, you could play a montage of those statements.

Yeah, I want to play this. This is when Alvin Bragg was asked by a reporter, where's the crime in your indictment? Bite number nine. That there were 34 false business records, and they were then concealed with another crime, but the indictment does not simply say what those crimes were. We are assuming, perhaps, that they might be election related.

I'm wondering if you can specify what laws were also built. Sure. So let me say as an initial matter that the indictment doesn't specify because the law does not so require. Okay, Dan, I want to go to you on this. You're going to prosecute the President of the United States, and you're not going to have the crime listed? I mean, I get, again, he can follow the law and say, well, these, you know, these, again, these matters when we file these indictments, you know, look at the statement of facts, but even you go to the statement of facts, and there's no specific, there's no specifics there, Dan. There's no, like, here's the statute that you violated. You can't have trial by ambush, which is what he just said. We don't have to lay it out particularly.

Actually, you do. It's called a motion for a bill of particulars. We don't allow trials by ambush. We shouldn't be allowing political trials in the first place.

And this D.A. is way out of line, and every lawyer in America that understands us knows that. Folks, we're going to take your calls. 1-800-684-3110. Your thoughts about these charges against President Trump and what it means.

1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today, ACLJ.org. I want to go to this because in every one of the charges, you'll read from the, again, the indictment, you'll see the similar language.

And the language is that the defendant, and you'll see a date, had an intent to defraud or intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, and they keep going through that. But you have to commit another crime here to even try to elevate it from a misdemeanor if it's even that, which, by the way, the FEC didn't think so. The DOJ didn't think so. The FEC didn't think there was an election issue here.

No fines were issued. DOJ passed on even bringing this case. I mean, that's the—Biden DOJ said, this is too weak.

We're not doing this. We'll get a special counsel out on Trump, but we're not bringing this one. And, Dad, this is what was so infuriating. They keep—even in the statement of facts, he kept—Alvin Bragg kept getting pushed on, what is that other crime? Being so—why are you so scared or unprepared to tell the media? It was the media pushing him on what is the other crime that makes this, in his mind, now a felony charge?

I want you to take a listen to this, Dad. This is Alvin Bragg again who did this kind of unprecedented press conference after the indictment by 10. In my remarks, I mentioned a couple of laws, which I will highlight again now. The first is New York state election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. I further indicated a number of unlawful means, including more additional false statements, including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities.

I also noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits. But why weren't there those crimes charged? Why wasn't he charged for those crimes?

Well, we—I'm not going to go into our deliberate process on what was brought. The charges that were brought were the ones that were brought. The evidence and the law is the basis for those decisions.

Well, one reason, Dad, is the statute of limitations on those. The second would be that those are federal issues. And the third, which I want you to point out, this state election law issue, that's pretty novel considering this was a federal race for President of the United States. It's as if the district attorney had no clue what they were doing because they don't.

So let's go to the specific. The specific here is he just said violation of New York state election laws. That would be interesting if you were running for, let's say, district attorney or if you were running for mayor of the city of New York.

But Donald Trump was running for the presidency of the United States. It is attorney, Mr. District Attorney, it is a federal election. And the federal law applies both under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. And secondly, New York state election law would apply because it's not a New York state election.

And let me bring up another point. Who gives this DA from a county in New York, that's all he is, the county district attorney, the authority to say something is a violation of federal law. He is a state county local district attorney. Especially when those federal law enforcement, both the FEC who would handle the matters of like if you had overpaid, if you had paid, you know, spent more on the campaign, donated more to the campaign, they would have gotten involved. And then of course DOJ would have gotten involved if they believed that was the case. But then it seems like the theory of this case is you cannot, if you are a Presidential candidate or any kind of political candidate, including federal, that this DA believes in Manhattan or the state of New York at least, you can't have an NDA with anyone because you are now in violation of all these made up laws that he's come about. But that would be, I mean, I was trying to think of what way could you do this without violating the law? And so it's only illegal to have an NDA if you're a candidate for office. Could you imagine the precedent that would set for most politicians? First of all, an NDA, non-disclosure agreement, right now as we're talking, there's probably 3,000 of those being signed right now in the United States. It's a very common procedure both in business and in entertainment law that just, it's a normal process.

Now, the problem with all of this is that's not a crime either. So if you listen to what those on the left said, I don't really have that sound, they know that this case is horrible. They want to get off this case so they can hopefully get, this is what they're looking for, maybe Fannie Willis has something in Fulton County or maybe Jack Smith, the special counsel will do something quickly. That's what they're hoping. Yeah, we do have some sound. We definitely have sound from CNN yesterday, of all places, from Andy McCabe, from all people.

So let's take a listen to that. If I had to characterize it, it's disappointment. I think everyone was hoping we would see more about the direction that they intend to take this prosecution. What is the legal theory that ties that very solid misdemeanor case, 34 counts of misdemeanors, to the intent to conceal another crime, which is what makes it a felony?

It simply isn't there. I mean, these are guys that would love to get President Trump dead. I mean, they have been trying to get him indicted, trying to get him prosecuted, trying to get him put behind bars. They couldn't get him impeached. Mueller's team couldn't come up with anything. And now the first charges they bring against him are so weak, even Andrew McCabe has to admit it. And I think it's because they're depressed and sad that this is the best the DA of New York could do. You know, the President makes a statement that the moment he went down the elevator at Trump Tower, they were going after him.

And if there's two lawyers that know that very well, it's me and you. Because we've been involved in every one of those cases. The special counsels, the impeachments, the Russia hoax.

I mean, on and on and on it goes. I was involved initially in some of the New York matters during when the President was serving as President. And this has been the same plan. Now it's a state district attorney, a county district attorney, it's also the state attorney general, and they're making things up. Like a county DA can apply and indict on a federal election law claim that the federal government, number one, has said is not a violation of law.

Number two, he has zero, none. No jurisdiction in that area at all. Period. Yeah. I mean, I think for all, everybody's, we've got a lot of calls coming in. We're going to get to those as well. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. The timing of this, dad, too. I think that, you know, pointing out the fact that Alvin Bragg could never point to an actual crime. And this statute that he pointed to about the false documents only works as a felony if there is another crime. He could never point to what that crime was. He kind of stumbled around federal election law violations of how much you can donate to a candidate.

Well, guess what? If you're the candidate, you have no limits. So that goes out the window pretty quickly. The second is the New York state law.

I think you talked about that. I wasn't a state candidate. And the federal supremacy clause, the issues there, the federal law would override that. We know the DOJ looked at the federal implications and said there was nothing here. The FEC looked at it and said there's no fine to be issued here.

But I want to go to the second part, which is the timing. It reeks as well because there's not going to be, President Trump won't be back in court and maybe he never will be on this case. Maybe it'll be tossed out.

I don't know. I mean, the judge is pretty hardcore. You know, Biden-Harris, his family is a Biden-Harris supporters as well. I think one of his family members is on the payroll of the Biden-Harris campaign, but they've still got to look at the reality. And the reality is that Trump would not be back in court again until December 4th. The Iowa caucus is February 5th. The New Hampshire primary is February 13th. The Presidential debates will begin before that. And they're going to have him sit in court for weeks on end as a leading candidate for the President of the United States? Well, you know, they can't. I mean, first of all, that's election interference. And here's where it takes you guys taking another step.

You look at the way this charge is going down and you're right. The motions are going to be, you know, August, September, October. They won't be decided till December, January. The next scheduled hearing is not until December 4th. So let me tell you what they got.

They got their media splash. They tried this convoluted theory, which will not work. This judge should dismiss this when a motion to dismiss is made. If not, the appellate division in New York should do it.

I would take it all the way up because it's that absurd through the New York system. I'm sure his lawyers are going to do that. But you've got to understand what this is all about. This is raw politics. Cy Vance, the previous DA was on, when pressed on whether a case should be brought, he hesitated. This was his predecessor, who of course didn't bring the case, by the way.

So that kind of tells you where this is. So that is the nature and scope of what we're dealing with. It's a political- I have to say, your Supreme Court cases. They were very difficult.

They took a long time. I mean, those guys like Cy Vance were using anything they could blame because they were, again, under intense pressure from Democrats to bring an indictment, even if there was no there there. Oh, so Cy Vance, I didn't catch that.

Cy Vance blamed our Supreme Court work for the former President, President Trump. There you go. Okay, great. I mean, again, I think that that's just a reminder.

When Cy Vance said that, folks, if you heard that interview, he's talking about the cases we were doing literally from this room, actually, because it was during COVID and we had to do them by phone and remotely. And remember, I think they went on. That one went on for like three hours? Hours and hours, because that's when the time limits had finally kind of got rid of that. Yeah, it's never come back.

It started the new trend there at the Supreme Court. All right, folks, so we're going to take your calls 1-800-684-3110 and we come back. Ginny Beth Martin from Tea Party Patriots, because this is a reminder, folks. Remember, these government agencies have been weaponized and coming after us for a long time, and we've been in the fight.

We fought for those Tea Party groups. She's going to be joining us as well. So we come back and we'll take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. So put to work the ACLJ. Donate today, ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are going to take your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We're going to keep diving into this ridiculous indictment that was filed against President Trump yesterday when he was under arrest. Then back, and we'll also talk about his speech as well, which I thought was great, that he did back in Florida, a different tone from President Trump.

We're going to get into that in the second half hour into more of the legal issues as well with Andy O'Connell from our legal team, a former U.S. attorney. But I want to go now to a great friend of ours and a good friend of mine, Jenny Beth Martin, who is now the honorary chair of Tea Party Patriots Action. I will tell you, folks, the Tea Party was really the beginning of what really got people grassroots involved into what we now see as MAGA. I mean, it was the real grassroots movement to say, you know what, Republicans, Democrats, you're not representing what we feel as Americans. We're going to stand up. And then we got Tea Party members elected into Congress, and we started this kind of new wave. So, Jenny Beth, welcome to the broadcast.

Let me ask you this right off the bat. Ten years ago, we did a rally in Washington, D.C., talking about filing the lawsuits on behalf of the groups that were targeted, the Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS. The ACLJ was representing them. And that was the beginning, really, of when we saw the weaponization of government agencies against conservatives. And then yesterday, we saw a DA in New York use that same kind of weaponization to engage in what we call the ACLJ lawfare. What is your reaction to this? I mean, it is like they will not give up on trying to shut us all down.

No, they won't give up on trying to shut us all down. What I think is that what we experienced back then, the targeting began in 2009. And remember, we knew, you knew, your law firm knew. We knew what was going on and that we were being targeted because the things we were seeing from the IRS were not normal.

They were outside the scope of what they normally do. And we were they were just delaying approval for our tax status for years. So we knew that was going on. It took from 2009 when it began until 2013, a Mother's Day weekend, when Lois Lerner on a Friday afternoon announced in a press conference, oh, yeah, there was some targeting going on of Tea Party and Patriot groups, which Tea Party Patriots were targeted. Maybe it was a Friday morning and it took that long before it was exposed and no one was held accountable.

We fought. We did have the lawsuit that where they paid a small amount for a class action settlement. But the amount that they paid didn't even come close to the cost to our organization, that they cost us in hard employee time and legal fees, not to mention lost revenue from people who wouldn't donate. Effectively, what we were arguing, Ginny Beth, was that these Tea Party groups were silenced. I mean, they were silenced into going into the midterm elections.

They knew that they were effective then. And Obama and his Department of Justice and IRS did not want them to be effective in the 2012 election cycle. So as the movement was growing, they effectively made it impossible to raise money because they would not either they would not they weren't denying applications.

As you said, they were holding them indefinitely, sending out these questionnaires that made a lot of people just give up on that. I mean, we were able to get the IRS again. We got an order from the IRS that they could never politically target again.

And that was, again, a decade ago. But now we are seeing weaponization at the next level, Ginny Beth, which is actually bringing criminal charges. We actually in the Tea Party.

I think you know this, Ginny Beth. We had a moment where we were supposed to be cooperating with the FBI because they were looking at the IRS and then we found out Lois Lerner was was actually emailing the FBI, looking at trying to find a way to bring criminal charges against the Tea Party group. And that's when we cut off working with the FBI and told all of the groups who represented don't talk to them. So they were trying to do it then.

But yesterday we actually saw it happen. Criminal charges filed against a former President purely because of politics. It is the weaponization of government. It happened with the IRS.

We warned people that Lois Lerner and the other people involved were not personally held accountable. More egregious abuse of power would happen. And what we saw yesterday was an even more egregious abuse of power in something that has never happened before in America. We just watched happen. A political opponent, a former President, has now been arrested in America. We expect to see this in the Soviet Union. We should. The world does not expect to see this in America.

American citizens should not expect nor want this to happen. And for what? What was he arrested for? The charges are just these certainly I'm not an attorney, but they sure seem bogus to me. And I understand what a statute of limitations is or outside the scope of the statute of limitations.

I understand enough about campaign finance law to know that the campaign finance laws for a federal election are handled through the federal government, not through a state government. The whole thing is just absurd. And I am an attorney.

I will say it's a total sham. The indictment itself is absurd. The answer from Alvin Bragg about, well, where's the crime here?

Well, I'll tell you. And then he generally referred to New York state law, which would be overcome by the supremacy clause of the Constitution in a federal race for the President of the United States, and campaign contribution laws which the FEC, like you said, would enforce and decided not to do anything here. They did find Hillary Clinton's campaign for saying that the Steele dossier was legal fees, not campaign fees. They fined them. They didn't indict anybody.

No one went to jail. Yeah, we actually want to flash back a little bit. We have that bite from Lois Lerner on the, we'll put the quote unquote apology. This is now from nearly 10 years ago, almost exactly 10 years ago when this happened, when they talked about apologizing to Tea Party groups for being targeted and maybe mentioned names that were similar to your organizations. Let's take a listen to this.

They used names like Tea Party or Patriots, and they selected cases simply because the application had those names in the title. That was wrong. The IRS would like to apologize for that. I mean, Ginny Beth, that was wrong.

They would like to apologize for that, but I want to give you this. We've got about a minute left. Tea Party Patriots is going strong.

You're still active. You're the honorary chair. Tell people where to go if they want to learn more and support your work. They can go to tea party patriots.org tea party patriots.org and we are still going strong. There are three different things that we are working on the first and the most important right now is supporting Congress, especially the Republican Congress and exposing the weaponization of the federal government and state and local governments as well. And then next year, our Super PAC will engage in elections. We have to defeat these tyrants in the ballot box.

It must be done. And then our C4 continues to work on election integrity. Last year, we trained and helped place 20,000 of the 80,000 poll watchers that the RNC ultimately placed.

That is awesome. So check out tea party patriots.org. Great friend of ours. Been in the trenches in this battle with us for well over a decade.

Ginny Beth Martin from Tea Party Patriots. Appreciate you joining us and just kind of highlighting how we've been all going through this. This was the build up to this moment has been happening. It started by attacking us at the grassroots level. So when Donald Trump says it's not really about me, it's about you. I think we just explained it for you.

What exactly that means. Now we come back, we'll get more. We're going to get your calls. So keep calling in 1-800-684-3110.

Thanks for holding on the line. Let me encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ financially. You can double the impact your donation right now. We have a matching challenge. Donate today at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Second half hour. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. You all know what happened yesterday. The 34 charges. Exactly what we expected to see.

In fact, even less than what we expected to see. Because we thought at least Alvin Bragg would try to say what the crime was that would elevate these misdemeanors, the falsifying of business records in the first degree, to a felony. Where he says, you know, because to do that there must be, as the indictment says, an intent to defraud, an intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, to make these charges actually something that would be a felony.

And I want to go right to Andy Economo. Andy, he then did a press conference because you couldn't find it in the indictment. It wasn't in the statement of facts. It was kind of, you could kind of read between the lines of the statement of facts that he was going to go through federal election law about campaign contribution limits, which by the way, don't apply to the candidate themselves.

They can donate as much as they want. And then New York law. But he just generally referenced it.

He didn't point to any statutes or provisions. That's what makes this a defective indictment. I've drafted hundreds of indictments in the 48 years I was a prosecutor.

And when you draft an indictment, you've got to give the defendant a specific crime that statutorily he is alleged or she is alleged to have violated. You've got to know what it is. You can't say, well, I'm going to tell you someday or at trial.

You've got to know before. And when he says, as you said, Jordan, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime, I was waiting to wit violation. New York Penal Code section so-and-so relating to.

But it's not in there. Commit another crime. And my question is, what other crime? So then you get this introduction that they put in there and he says the participants violated election laws. What election laws? You can't just say violated the election code. You have got to say what specific section of the election code or I understand another theory is tax laws. What violation of the tax laws did the defendant allegedly commit? You can't. You've got to put him on notice of what it is that he is being charged with having committed these and this indictment, every 34 counts of it is defective on its face.

It doesn't give the defendant any notice of what he is alleged to have done wrong. Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Elizabeth in New Mexico on line one.

You're on the air. Hey, Elizabeth. For a really long time, even before Trump, it seems like we're using boxing rules in a street fight. So when are we going to act in like kind and maybe bring charges against the one who's really running the governor or our government, Obama and Biden, and keep them busy? Well, I think, listen, I think we're at a moment in time and I want to go to Andy on this because I get the concern there where the charges. Now, there's a special counsel investigating Joe Biden. There's a special counsel investigating his son as well, Hunter Biden. Now, there's also a special counsel investigating Trump. So there is some movement there, but ultimately, Merrick Garland makes the decision on any of that moving forward. I suspect it will not for the Bidens, but I expect it might for Donald Trump.

But here's the moment we're at, Andy, in time. We don't want this to become the norm in our system. I get why people say let's start filing lawsuits against them. If this becomes the norm, we are we are no better than Russia or China. That's what the rule of law is gone.

That's right, Jordan. That's what's called law affair. I don't want law affair. We don't want law affair. What we want is justice and the utilization of the judicial system to punish criminal activity and not to punish political speech. What has happened in New York is a political persecution of the former President of the United States, period.

All right, folks, we come back. More of your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. We have a big petition that is building in numbers to stop the political legal persecution of President Trump. You can join it today at ACLJ.org and also donate to the American Center for Law and Justice. We're looking at issues again where we may be getting involved. There's so many of these investigations going. Donate today at ACLJ.org.

Double your impact with our matching challenge. We'll be right back. One of my least favorite people, Andy McCabe, saying this is just so weak. Another one of my, I would say even least favorite people, just because he's not really a threat like Andy McCabe can be now. He's not anymore because he's not the FBI. But Van Jones, who just is kind of all over the place politically in statements.

But he started the day thinking this was real strong and real great, ended the day on CNN with this comment by 34. If this is the only pebble that gets thrown at Donald Trump, it's a very small pebble. I mean, Andy, what he's admitting there is, I mean, pebbles, you don't go to jail.

In fact, you don't get convicted of even a misdemeanor from a pebble. They are admitting the left, at least the ones who are being honest. Some of the MSNBC world is still not being honest. But the left, they're kind of, I'd say, Democrats who are not insane but do want to win elections. And there's not many of them left, but I think that's at CNN World. That's probably why their ratings are so small. There's not a lot of Democrats left that way.

Most of them are crazy leftists. But the idea is that they realized yesterday, oh no, we've overstepped and we let this guy take us down a path. And Alvin Bragg, you could tell with the media questioning afterwards, they were not treating him like a hero. They were treating him like a guy who didn't deliver enough for even the media to be able to explain what was going on.

Well, that's exactly right, Jordan. I mean, Alvin Bragg really is a tremendous disappointment as a district attorney for many reasons. One, he won't prosecute violent crime in New York City. He won't do the things that a DA is supposed to do. He won't prosecute, his conviction rate is 51%. If my conviction rate... He does bring the charges. Yes, even when he does bring charges and he's forced to bring felony charges for violent crimes, he only convicts half of the people that he prosecutes. How can you do that and continue to be a district attorney?

My conviction rate was in the 90s. That shows that I was a DA who prosecuted crimes and won. Maybe you shouldn't be out there so boldly saying, well, you know, I don't have to put that in the indictment. I don't have to put the crime in the indictment.

But he has to. Because if you don't put the crime in the indictment, maybe that's why you only win about half the time, which is insane. A DA should win almost all the time.

Like you said, Andy, 90% of the time. If it's already gotten through a grand jury at that point to a jury trial, it's usually the government that wins. And well, as well it ought to be, even though the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard in the law. But when you take a case like this, this is so weak a case where you don't even tell the defendant what the underlying crime that elevates it to a felony is. He says, commit another crime.

And I looked at it, circled it, underlined it and said, what other crime? And then it says, violated election laws. What election law? You can't just say violated the election laws. And if it's federal, that's even worse because you're a state prosecutor.

You have no business violating, claiming violations of federal election laws as your underlying offense. I mean, listen to what Jonathan Turley called it by 26. Because this thing has a feeling of like a legal slurpee.

It's instantly satisfying, but has no nutritional value. There's really nothing there. Nothing there. I mean, these are not all fans of President Trump, even Jonathan Turley. He's just a constitutional law professor, more conservative, but if there was something there, he would say it. Here's Paula Reed on CNN by 21. At a press conference, the district attorney suggested that this might be a violation of state election law, but that's not in the indictment or the statement of facts. So at this point, look, this is one of the most historic cases, arguably the most significant case right now in an American court system. It appears to be built on a pretty shaky foundation. This is CNN.

This is coming from CNN. Over and over again. I want to make sure we've played Van Jones calling it a pebble. CNN, Andy McCabe. Can we play Andy McCabe again?

Yeah, play that. I mean, this is a guy who literally was committed to taking down Trump through the FBI, lost his job over it. Take a listen. If I had to characterize it, it's disappointment. I think everyone was hoping we would see more about the direction that they intend to take this prosecution. What is the legal theory that ties that very solid misdemeanor case, 34 counts of misdemeanors, to the intent to conceal another crime, which is what makes it a felony? It simply isn't there.

It's not there. I mean, these are guys who were creating Crossfire Hurricane to make up and to get the special counsel appointed to say that Trump was, you know, first it was he was a Russian agent. Then it was the phone call with Ukraine.

I mean, the list goes on and on and on. But what they are admitting, Logan, over and over and over again, I think it's just important for people to understand that no honest legal analyst looked at this yesterday and thought that this was serious. I would say not even no honest ones, the ones that we historically think are not honest, looked at this. A lot of partisan hacks looked at it and said, there's not a lot of meat on the bone here.

There's not a lot going on. They don't want this to be a crime against their candidates. Right. Because you don't think every candidate has been in situations where someone says, I'm going to tell this story about you. If you don't pay me XYZ, these guys are fairly wealthy candidates, men and women. They might decide, you know what, I'll just pay this person an NDA.

It's not worth my time to fight this out in court and drag through even if I didn't do it. So I'm just going to handle it this way and go about my business. Unfortunately, that happens in politics a lot. Yeah. Why do you think these people, all the studs started showing up? It was all after Access Hollywood video leaked.

Then all of a sudden these women started claiming that they had these relationships supposedly. Yeah. And by the way, Stormy Daniels, interesting enough right now, lost another case yesterday in the Ninth Circuit.

Saw that. She owes Donald Trump at this point over $500,000, some for violating the NDA, but now the Ninth Circuit upheld his attorney's fees an additional $120,000. I mean, so Andy obviously probably being bankrolled by the left because that would, again, that's a serious amount of money. Yeah, and the Ninth Circuit, I mean, which is not a very friendly circuit to conservatives. They got Hollywood stars in the Ninth Circuit who cite a lot of NDAs. That's right. Well, the Ninth Circuit handed her a defeat and that was pretty obvious yesterday.

I mean, it's crazy. I think with NDAs in the entertainment industry, which I've been under plenty, a lot of times they instruct you. You're not even allowed to say you're under an NDA. You essentially are instructed to lie if confronted on it, you know, and that's okay.

Yeah, you don't have to confirm that you're under an NDA or even imply that you're under an NDA, and that should be that. This, again, go to the phones again, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

Yeah, a lot of people on the hold for a long time. Thanks for calling. Let's go to Jerry on Line 3. Jerry, you're in Rhode Island and you're on the air.

Hello. You guys have kind of beat up the jurisdictional standing enough, so that was one of my questions. Has Bragg there, has he done anything that can spill into the wheelhouse, the professional responsibility, and some of the stuff Mr. Conable is saying, how come some of the attorneys didn't raise the fact that there's no crime in here and the judge would have to rule on that?

That wasn't the time to do it, Andy. So the time to do that is now. You can start filing motions now, and I expect those will be filed.

Now, you have until August, but you don't have to wait until August. No, I mean a motion can be filed, any motions can be filed post arraignment once the defendant has entered his plea in this case of not guilty, obviously, to these 34 counts. Then motions are filed, and I'm sure that the defendant's lawyers, that President Trump's lawyers are going to file a bevy of motions dealing with failure to state a claim, a motion to dismiss for failure to allege a crime, in other words, in the criminal system, change of venue, change of venari, motions to suppress evidence, and things of that nature. So that remains to occur, and I'm sure that it will. Yeah. I mean, again, we're going to continue to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

We come back, too, from the next break. We've got a couple minutes still here, but in the next segment, final segment of the show, so you don't want to miss this, we're going to play some of what President Trump had to say about this. It was interesting, Logan, too, there, because it was the first time a live event by President Trump had been picked up by the cable news networks.

Yeah, in years, in years. Oh, since January 6th? Yeah, and I would even say probably since – yeah, January 6th was probably the last time there was any coverage on the major networks and a lot of the social media platforms, that was the moment that he got banned and deplatformed, so a lot of them couldn't do it for that because they were risking their own social media platforms, including us. We couldn't put it on YouTube, we couldn't put it on Facebook, but now all those bans have pretty much been lifted, so now they can start covering it again, and they did in droves throughout the last 24 hours.

What's interesting to me, too, is that because of the alternative places like Rumble, which is one of our preferred places to go for people to watch the broadcast, you'd stay from noon to 1 p.m. Eastern time. It's also where we do the Secular Brothers podcast three days a week, is that they still got significant numbers. It wasn't like because cable turned it on, so cable has lost because there were the Rumbles, the RSPNs that would run the rallies. They've lost a lot of numbers by cutting Donald Trump off, now they're trying to get him back. Yeah, absolutely, and I think that they know that the ratings are there, and that's what they're doing.

Look, at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with politics. If CNN is talking about it, if Fox is talking about it, it has nothing to do with political bias. What it has to do with is numbers, and numbers dictate advertising revenue, which dictates the entire business of 24-hour news. It's how they keep on the air 24 hours, and have staff that can go cover wars, and go cover things that don't always get as much attention, but the giant newsrooms, the offices all over the world. They have to get ratings, because they've got to sell ads so that they can pay for all those offices, and do all that reporting. So, if putting Donald Trump on gets your rating, I haven't seen the rating numbers yet, but I imagine those were some of the bigger ratings those networks have had in a while.

I'll take a look and see what I can find out. Especially for a midweek broadcast. Should we come back, take more of your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110, and we will play and kind of break down some of those comments from President Trump last night. I thought it was a great speech. It was not what you were going to expect from Donald Trump.

It wasn't a rally speech. Be right back. Alright, welcome back to Secula. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. We're going to get to those calls in a second. We talked about the ratings, Logan, because broadcast networks yesterday, so that cable news, which those ratings haven't come out yet about the rally, but we're talking about the ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, locals. They covered this from wall to wall yesterday.

Now, they didn't cover speech, but they did cover the motorcade, the airplane taking off. From 1.30 to 3.30, they had coverage on most of the major platforms. Now, none of these ratings are confirmed. They're overnight ratings, which means it's not exact yet.

They're never exact, but this is just coming in. A couple of people have reported it, so I feel comfortable at least saying this is what's being reported, but we reported that between the major networks, you had a 10.2 rating, so you have 10 million or so viewers. You had a 50 share, which means 50% of people watching television were watching the Trump arraignment and arrest, so 50% of televisions on were watching coverage of this.

That is pretty amazing. Yeah, 10 million viewers is what the combined average is right now. There were other networks that weren't carrying it, but as of now, those kind of numbers, a 50 share is something you don't see in modern television.

You're fighting for a one share. Night Court got renewed as the biggest NBC comedy in a decade, and it barely does a one share. I'm not even sure it does a one million, and they were making that a big deal.

So think about it in that way, so you can put that perspective into the mainstream lineup at the end of a night. Your big sitcoms aren't doing 1% or 2% of what this coverage got yesterday, and that's just the coverage, that's not the speech. I assume the speech will be somewhere, it'll land in probably the normal 3 to 6 million range, combined with Fox. Fox and CNN ran it, MSNBC, they refused. So between Fox and CNN and then your news nations and those that probably did carry it, you're probably looking into 5 to 6 million viewers.

Yeah, which is better than they've got? Without online. That's without the online.

Let's go ahead. Even on Fox, you're getting 2 million. They added another million viewers, possibly. Probably.

I would assume that's right. A lot of people, there's interest. Let me play President Trump, because we said we'd do that, and we'll go to the phones. This is President Trump. He did it from Mar-a-Lago, so this wasn't a massive rally, and I think the tone was the right tone for the American people to see him. I kind of like this as a campaign relaunch, because people got to see him take something very serious he's facing, and again, he's still Donald Trump, he's still going to fight back, he's a fighter.

But take a listen. And now this massive election interference at a scale never seen before in our country, beginning with the radical left, George Soros-backed prosecutor Alvin Bragg of New York. Who campaigned on the fact that he would get President Trump. I'm going to get him.

I'm going to get him. This is a guy campaigning. He wanted to get President Trump at any cost, and this, before he knew anything about me, didn't know a thing about me, he was campaigning.

As it turns out, virtually everybody that has looked at this case, including RINOs and even hardcore Democrats, say there is no crime, and that it should never have been brought. He's absolutely right. He sounded a lot more, I'd say, relaxed. Again, he was delivering his tough lines, but it was more relaxed, more in a speaking way, and I think that was good, because I think a lot more people saw that than have seen him in a long time, Logan. A talk. And if that was the first time they've seen him, it was not screaming at a rally, which is a different thing. You scream at rallies because you've got all these people and you're outside. Thousands of people have to hear you.

But this was more of an address to the country after facing these criminal charges, and I think he took it seriously. He still punches back the way he's going to punch back. Let's get to these calls. Yeah, let's go ahead. Let's go to Martin. You've been holding for a long time.

Martin, North Carolina. Welcome. Yes.

Thank you, sir. I'm just wondering, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I've got a pretty good grasp of what our rights is. How could this, if it went to trial, was even fair or can be a fair trial when you've got influence out there, like Nancy Pelosi saying we're guilty until proven innocent, and backed up by a DA that comes up and says, this person did this, he did this, he did this, as I heard just a little while ago. Instead of allegedly, allegedly doing this. One time Alvin Bragg tried to say alleged, but yes, they make it sound like it's 100% guilty. And listen, I think, and even doing the press conference was bizarre. Yeah, I mean the press conference.

Alvin Bragg, the way he kind of had, it's like he felt like he needed, you know, I think he did it. He knew that the document itself was going to leave people going, what? Well, let me just tell you this, this indictment does not charge a crime, okay?

Right. It does not charge a criminal offense. It does not charge a felony criminal offense under New York law, period, the end. And I don't care how Mr. Bragg wants to twist it, or contort it, or throw it, or cast it, it does not charge a crime. It is defective, and it should be dismissed, and when people like Pelosi say that we have to prove our innocence, she must be in Mexico, she's certainly not in the United States. No, I mean you are innocent until proven guilty, Donald Trump is innocent today.

And I think you'll be innocent of this one forever because, Lord, they're not even doing motions until, they won't even rule on motions until December, which means if there was a trial, if they got through the motion stage without this getting thrown out, it would start in January. And then you've got the whole mess of actual election appearance because the Iowa caucus is in February, and that means there will be debates already going on on the Presidential campaign, the Republican side. I mean so many ridiculous issues, you have to think for yourself, did Alvin Bragg just file this so he could say he filed a criminal lawsuit against President Trump and get him indicted? And then, you know, who cares what happens after it, and they think that that's going to work politically? I think that's a very dangerous backfire, a dangerous move, and it's dangerous for our country. The whole thing, I tweeted it out, it is bad for our country, as much as we're attacking Alvin Bragg, we don't want a country that devolves into this. It's why we have impeachment, and that's the process to remove political leaders. Let's quickly take Daniel, because there's a question, and then we can wrap up the show with this question.

Daniel, quickly, you're on the air. Thanks for taking my call, I was just wondering if the ACLJ was going to file any amicus briefs and possibly even go after Alvin Bragg for prosecute, misconduct. Listen, we were looking at the gag order issue, that came up yesterday, we know it was being debated, the judge threatened it, it hasn't happened yet.

Don't go talking. But if a gag order is issued, we certainly would then get involved, likely at the appellate level because of the constitutional implications there. So throughout this and any other of the legal actions, because, you know, we've been on one side of this where we've actually represented President Trump, including in a case that the former DA said, well, this is the reason why I couldn't bring charges against President Trump, I had to fight these Supreme Court cases out.

And that argued that case from this room, actually, because it was during COVID and you had to do it by phone. And so, yes, we are ready to go if necessary. And there's I don't think this will be the only day this might just be the beginning.

So buckle down and get ready for a fight. Support the work of the ACLJ. It's a great time because we've got a matching challenge and online. That means you can double the impact of your donation.

So what does that mean? If you go to ACLJ.org and donate twenty five dollars right now, we have a donor who's going to match that twenty five dollars. So it's effectively fifty dollars for the ACLJ. Take action. Donate today. ACLJ.org.