HAPPENING NOW: Flynn Case Before Full Appeals Court

Having now live analysis the Flynn case is before the full DC appeals court talk about that more today on Jay Sekulow live live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow general litigation now without any controversy between the actual parties to the K phone lines are open for your questions right now called 100-684-3110 acquired on the fact that the matter of law. Judge Sullivan denied to defendant's motion proposing any makeup at all, appointed Mr. Gleason to usurp the job of the prosecutor writes the tort of perjury, and contempt charges over plans had and impermissibly sallied forth to right the wrongs he perceive your host Jordan Jay Sekulow secular said you live right now like when his case is or before en banc panel of the DC federal Court of Appeals.

It's 10 judges because one judge had to recuse themselves and so right now we've heard from my friends at their attorney Cindy Powell were hearing currently to the Department of Justice attorney, Jeffrey Walz, a deputy SG and then it will be the attorney for Judge Sullivan, Beth Wilkinson. It was supposed be 20 minutes each, started at 930 Eastern time now and you know it's noon Eastern time and they have not yet gotten to the third eye God called litigant and to me all that they been talking about is mooted out by the fact that he's even a litigant in this and there's a rule and they say they want to debrief on it, but they haven't brought it up yet that US code 28 USC 455 Deadwood says your disqualified if you are a party to the proceeding well here's what's happened for so we've not yet heard questioning aim to this important understand women are questioning aimed at Judge Sullivan's lawyers are up next is were coming to you live sober monitoring that year in our studios but that is what is going to happen. So the judge will his lawyers will be question so maybe the issue of disqualification comes up, then, but it's interesting here and eat and I thought this was really important that Cindy Powell was a very effective line said this is a prosecution without a prosecutor right there. We have no brought the Atty. Gen. of the United States who decided to dismiss the case but the judge won't do it. So you have a criminal prosecution and nobody on the other side of the solicitor nobody on the other side of the district attorney. Nobody on the other side of the US attorney prosecuting a defendant with no prosecutor except Judge Emma Sullivan. He's the prosecutor in the case which is course is never supposed to be the way it is attention things is getting up there yet quite a bit, Jamie and especially as it relates to all of the broader investigation going on and I think it's important to put this against the backdrop of both Chairman Graham and Chairman Johnson continuing issue subpoenas of the FBI for documents related to the case. J. Of course, all of it is overlaid against the list that we arty know of people who requested on unmasking of general plan. And even though this case is indirectly related to that portion of it. We have to remind listeners just how widespread this was the very last name on that list was Joe Biden.

After that meeting inside the White House. So Jake, all of those things overlay together is you is you look at the entire story. I look at this two and a gazillion about a minute for going to our next break working your phone calls. This 164 30. Once is how some of the judges on this core they were questioning Cindy Powell were trying to justify this since Judge Sullivan's move which we talked about how impressive it is to bring in his own attorney to argue against the US government's position as the canvas. I want to play that exchange for you. We come back when we come back we come back for the break because that was is very unique and again I think this is a tough en banc panel for Mike Flynn and Leslie really gets that disqualification issue and that's how they handle it but a give or take your phone calls.

We hundred 684 31 to to stand said you ACLJ played a role in this. Throughout the process through the foil work that we've done through the uncovering of the unmasking and pushing and pushing for years on that port. The work of the ACLJ donate online be part of her matching challenge ACLJ.org double the impact of your donation that ACLJ.org will be right back. The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith.

Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way limited time you can participate in the seal James matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift dollars $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ the work we do.

Simply would not occur without your generous take Courtney and her matching challenge to make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online ACLJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of weighing 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for copy mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow is exchange. This is interesting as it first exchange. It really brought up this idea that we talked about with any part of it that we talk that with all of us. Help never seen this before a judge broadens somebody who tried to member. He never got that point was so far is not allowed to yet try to bring in a former judge. Judge Gleason now in private practice to argue a position that he wanted against the US government and against another party in the case Mike Flynn so you have a bomb appointed judge on the Court of Appeals Judge Bullard asked about that to Cindy Powell and whether or not that was ace in a sense did that show that there that there was some kind of not that I this is out of the disqualified because he's a party but that he was no longer impartial. Take a listen by 50 40 showed bias by appointing an intent to catch invited to argue one side adversary system and adversary system infinitely get along acquired any tension chopped both sides in your condition had now he can hear both sides. On the last drop kicked like a topic adversary at your condition.

There is no provision for Amicus in a criminal case in the federal district court and certainly not to take the position of the government when it is decided to drop the case when the government sounds off the cases over article 3 branch cannot make the ranch prosecutor K is precisely correct.

This should be no real discussion on this point. Although there was because this is a very liberal court these days, but the fact of the matter is this idea that the prosecutors dropped the case of the judge.

I think about this appoints the judge appoints a retired judge to serve basically as a special counsel yes and that in the judge addressing questions, admitting that same to keep it adversarial to bring in somebody to argue against the US government and really to try and prosecute to keep the prosecution going Mike Flynn, just to simplify this to people what Cindy Powell might Flynn's attorney says the judge doesn't get to bring in somebody to keep prosecution going. If the government that the prosecutor say were not to prosecute this anymore. That's it for the judge.

The judge has no more role to play Bringing someone to keep prosecution going. That's not an Israeli Constitution.

I defect this this judge which you.I we knew this court is very liberal is trying to justify these decisions by Judge Sullivan when I think even deep down they know it's absurd but they're trying to justify these decisions single. Why can't they? They want the interest of justice and city Powell answered the correct legal argument back which is there's nothing more to argue in this case, because the prosecutor said were not going to bring charges and he and the Supreme Court practice. It's called confession of error sometimes case will go up in the government that happen all the time, but it happens to know every couple sessions. The government will now after looking at the case will say we confess error, we should not have brought this case in the first place and that is the end of the matter, and then Justice Ginsburg will unite us up a unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court, where she said it's the job of the litigants to frame the issue not the court that it is not the job of a district to sally forth every day looking for wrongs to write it. If the job of the district judge the trial.

The umpire proceedings and Judge Sullivan has overstepped the bounds terribly. In this case, he has decided that this prosecution is not going to be over. That's not something that an article 3 judge has the right to do. He has chosen to pick former judge Gleason to advocate on behalf of the government WHAT the government doesn't need an advocate, the government is already decided it doesn't want to prosecute Flynn because of a variety of reasons including the fact that we have violated Brady and failed to disclose material that could exonerate him and that is the decision the Atty. Gen. has made that ends it. Don't bring in another person of the judge certainly doesn't bring in another person decide what let's talk about that. Let's have a little adversarial process proceeding and then discuss that and see whether really, whether in fact the Justice Department is right or wrong. Sullivan is way overstepped his bounds got another angle from the DC Court of Appeals. He might remember Mayor Carlin's name suggests, garlic he's looking at events of these other liberal judges on the court trying to look at the theory of really this should be before us yet. So the three judge panel should made a decision because Judge Sullivan never made a decision. City Powell answers this very clearly because that by his actions. Judge Sullivan made a number of decisions in this that made it ripe for appellate review. Take a listen bite 17 this is Mayor Carlin to city Powell Flynn's attorney or powers of branch strangler had decided ranch power and frustration before you can continue mandamus reporting anything else effectively made a decision here. He did not two motions opposing any Amicus at all and denied our request. The motion to dismiss be granted before he even appointed Mr. Gleason and started the whole process that truth into the article to executive power that he simply cannot do this easily multiple decisions denied, two motions opposing Amicus itself denied the request of the motion be granted and that was before he appointed. Then he brought in this other issue that was I think right for legal review is tenant judge the District Court level bring in somebody to argue a position every I think it has every reason to be before an appeals court panel but you see how these now I am about to look at multiple ways to try to either send this back to Judge Sullivan, yes, but we still have not yet gotten to whether or not it should go back to Judge Sullivan and not that something that still I think is is hanging out. There's is Judge Sullivan going to get be the judge who gets this case back or has he disqualified an counterproductive step to be monitoring very closely to see if his yard was going on is will now filing now is finally up to see if there's any questions that arise involving disqualification of the judge on the basis of buys.

Remember that was in order that the court issued on its own motion same one discuss that of a larger which was a single we thought that they were to get rid of this case, but it is not thus far come up.

I went back to verify camp for a minute and fan.

We got the hearings having beset by salute Lindsay Graham Judiciary Committee will address these issues yet think it will jamming. There's been a be a little bit of a systematic approach, a concert of a step-by-step approach, but I think the two significant developments that tell us that this will be a part of it, one from Chairman Graham one from Chairman Johnson Chairman Johnson, who is the chair of the Homeland security and Government oversight committee has issued a subpoena for documents to FBI director Christopher Ray, not for testimony J but for all of the documents related crossfire hurricane which of course crossfire razor and the investigation and the general Flynn was a subpart of that and then the second one. J.

Chairman Graham has concluded and made a very powerful statement that he believes that the FBI has lied directly to Congress about the veracity of the steel dossier and you know J so many of these players, most notably Jim Comey and Peter Strock are involved in all of these different investigation.

So I think what you start to see and white which are Chairman Graham is starting to see is a pattern and practice of the same main players were talking about.

The highest echelon of the FBI having a narrative here. J was not a following of the facts. It was a decision to go after the Trump campaign and then make every other thing meet that narrative. So you've Artie seen Rod Rosenstein and Sally Yates testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think they will continue to work through those 53 subpoenas and now there's a second committee that is looking at this in JII would say the one other thing here that I think you can start to hear from the United States Congress. They are gonna start to get jealous about their powers under separate under separation of powers under the Constitution. There is a specific reason that an article 3 judge is not granted prosecutorial powers like were discussing here today. Why is that reason is because they are not accountable to the American voter like the article 1 and article 2 branches are you can start to hear that argument more more and just think about this. I bet Wilkinson will know no criminal defense lawyer in Washington DC galore is arguing on behalf of Judge Flynn. So Judge Flynn is represented by going out of budget Sullivan. So, which makes him as a pre-party which means that under the rules, he should be disqualified. So this whole process points to the awkwardness of living litigation going this way about me.

Why haven't we heard that so far here were going to hear what I thought about relevant go. That's what I'm called Sullivan.

He is the product of this case and then finally I trust will get to the question is, so Wilkinson with respect to her client and how he can continue to be a judge in the case when he petitioned the en banc panel to hear his case and made all the visions that really are prosecutorial decisions and not decisions of a neutral arbiter that are tougher than that here in the last half of this proceeding. We come back will continue to take your phone calls. My hundred 64. 31 since inserting more your questions.

I wanted hundred 64 3110 River to support the work of the ACLJ this a matching challenge month you can double the impact of your donation by donating online ACLJ.org that's ACLJ.org double the impact of your donation to the American Center for Law and Justice Stephen how it brings broadcasts every day ACLJ.org will be right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for mission in life today online ACLJ/the American Center for logistics were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those faith covering corruption in Washington fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this.

For that we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous heart wrenching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online okay Jay Sekulow this Jordan sicko includes exchanger and get the phones 164, 31, two, there's a lot to ask about here wanted hundred 684-3110 fewer talk to us on the air. I will remember. So this order came out on August 5 and now we have the hearing so just six days before the hearing. It said that the parties should be prepared to address an oral argument, the effect of 28 USC 455 on the District Court judges a petition for en banc review, 28 USC section 455 is with a judge should be disqualified if they are a party to the proceeding and soak Court of Appeals asked for this to be for the for the attorneys to be ready to address this. She tried well Cindy Powell brought this up in a question from judge to tell take take a listen and he shuts it down. He wanted to be address by 20 here we go really like twitter party or have doubts in terms of the disqualification issued on or about my ability to hear the case. The court can always take a kind of thing with spontaneity.

You see, there judge. He wanted nothing to do that with that disqualification because now you can get these orders from one judges he could put the so it one what judge that's going to ask the question and he said hopefully this next half of the case will here at the 20 minute.

A lot of time is been going nearly 40 minutes each side so it's it's probably going to go longer, but the I still cannot wrap my head around the fact the judges a litigant here were acting like this is okay were not acting like it's okay the courts acting like this is okay will become coming Sullivan has injected himself with an intervener in the case of the party in the case. He didn't like the decision of the panel you decided to petition the bank.

The court granted his petition. En banc, what more can you be but a petitioner and intervener a litigant in the case, then doing and getting that kind of relief. You can standing to bring this that's not all of this. So I think you look at the end of the day. Here's what's happening. Hopefully it will come up will find out about the disqualification issued shortly and will bring it to you. If it does work and I will address a point. This ends up to me it looks like the next stop for this case may well be the Supreme Court of the United States which point I think Amicus brief probably will be allowed and we would probably engage at that point we not engaged at this point, but again made and they may decide to move or may decide that they're not going to do that is dependent yet mean that there isn't another question. Going from this sick click appointed judges happy right now. Some of the soundbite free by Mattel, for he is saying, though, that like when we actually look at precedent. It may very well be that the judge has no role in this. If it was this is to tell yet. This is a click judge you say that underlay under rule 48 and we could see if we go to live if it makes sense to people's privacy.

Not yet. Most will see you having these asking this we judge Sullivan's attorney really is there any ascending from reading the tea leaves right there was any leeway frost year when the Department of Justice makes this motion and why are we not, as any leeway for the judge. A judge Sullivan or than the Court of Appeals to client this going and so we'll see if we had left people plastic that's interesting because force finally starting to see judge Sullivan's attorney come under some direct question even for more liberal members of the court about whether not the right road you what would you to call us teachers call for a lot of online to that theme can play that are for folks a jury welcome to Jay Sekulow live hello I think to get answered by five split or majority get may go to Supreme Court, in light of Dane Ginsberg adopted 90 argument but did you guys just say one judge can bring up the issue.

Jordan said was that they were the came out can actually be from one judge, so we don't know if it's a judges want to hear about one so far no one's really raised. It looks like they may be getting into it now, but if I five decision Jerry is actually a tie which would be an affirmance of the three-judge panel ruled in favor of Gen. Flynn remember Gen. Flynn run one round one of the appeal here yet.

So that was that such agencies are at high rep predicting that that would be the case at a time to live five means that that whatever the lower court's decision.

That's that is the decision that stands so in this case Mike Flynn would not have to appeal to this report of a digested, so making appeal to the Supreme Court.

After we had that sound guys.

This question is interesting exchange because again this another Democrat nominated judge to judge Sullivan's attorney, Beth Wilkerson, take a listen that role special rule 48 and I don't understand what the hearing I think is very limited discretion to turn or to deny that motion. But there is in the case law examples like the one believes that I remember first started to judge my letter judge Pillard used about the library of the prosecutor and in soccer itself recognize there's a presumption of regularity, but that could be overcome, and that could be a basis to deny the motion. Let look right.

Some emotional. In this case it is different from prosecution is initiated where denied. There is no role for the executive branch any further because sentencing is the only thing that's left now the government and and Mr. Flynn could take addition that they're going to mandamus after that marketable statement Beth Wilkerson just made a defense to the defense attorney who says there will be no role for the prosecutor, prosecutor with regard to a sentencing of the individual defendant who is no longer being prosecuted by the government. This is why Andy this is so wrong on so many levels and unbelievable respond here though the learnings when you hear her say that there is no role for the prosecutor to play when a motion to denied okay.

Didn't have the court that all the that is the ultimate role of the prosecutor to bring criminal charges that nobody else and I don't know what you talking about for a criminal defense lawyer to honor those remarks is unbelievable to me and let me take a Linda's call on my one and half your little one who Jay Sekulow got there like going to get accountability to anyone or if he could even be different by doing something against the wrong decision. What he can be, is disqualified from the case which is different. He could recuse himself that something to do voluntarily like okay this is gotten.

I got into complicatedly involved in this are not the right judge.

He can recuse herself, but there is a way for the cortex to step in and disqualify you. So that's not up to you. That would be about as far as it goes here is that your disqualified and you don't get to make the decision were making a decision for you that is 28 USC section 455 because you become a part of the case you are now disqualified.

That's about as far as it goes. Visit me and I think what he's done is correct. Absolutely not.

But I think you know to be fair and honest about what you should expect that's about as far as it would go. Is it within a different judge would take over, and likely grant the motion from the Department of Justice. The rule 48 dismissal motion will be right back on Jay Sekulow live take your phone calls 100-684-3110. Remember ACL days matching challenge month of August doubled the impact of your donation@aclj.org that ACLJ.org donate today and double the impact your donation will be right back.

The American Center for on critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 could make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family. Give a gift today online okay live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and now secular Jay Sekulow live shows were live on the air right now Mike Lynn case panel of the DC Federal Court of Appeals is a 10 judge panel right now. A trump a nominated judge at recuse himself. So you got a 10 judge panel leaves the left, but they did ask they they wanted that at least one judge because they put an order out six days ago saying the parties need to be ready to address whether this judge is disqualified under 28 USC section 455 because you become part to the case that were waiting to see if one of these judges finally asked that question to his attorney did not come to either Sidney Powell, who represents Mike Flynn or to Jeffrey wall. The deputy SG eruptions Department of Justice so it would have to be a better Beth Wilkinson, who is appearing right now.

Her phone got disconnected there that this is still remember this is court by phone over talk about this phone was disconnected is now beset me literally did this just like your Supreme Court case.

This is court done by conference call and I mean you know here yet to judge us like hello hello hello hello I think this upper second. It's almost as one of the issues with my ball. I'm thinking of you on the matter back now or I start like you did with the history of the rule which is quite clear that but here's the point. The point is we reportedly went to unbelievable lengths I went thinker A/V team of to make sure we didn't have that problem that the Supreme Court and show that at some point minority showed it we could.

We actually have video me arguing it from able to put that together and so what was actually like what they look at trying to did I get these courts credit for trying to do the best they can under very unique circumstances where talk about the situation with general Flynn. I want to talk a little bit about Lebanon as well, but we do that, let's go ahead and take the call. In general, Flynn had not your calling from Pennsylvania online, two knobs are welcome to Jay Sekulow live ball high authority to pardon Jimmy Flynn if he so desired, so he has the right to do it under the Constitution. I think that the better course right now for general Flynn is to vindicate himself. The department also said the case should not have been brought and I know then there's concern among United States senators that the case should not of been brought and it was mishandled, the department of justice is that it's meant mishandled.

So the best vindication here would be him being the prosecution withdrawing their charges in the case being dismissed.

Washington feel loss of office as we said many times, actually recommended that the case be closed well before we ever got to this point who rejected that recommendation Peter Strock and then who was sent over to interview general Flynn down the road. It was Peter Strock and Joseph Janika, who sent them over to do that interview James call me so J there are so many steps along the way were this process should have been in it. Of course it should be ended now and I think general Flynn deserves a full exoneration and to be vindicated. The partners of course on the table never should've gotten to this point.

He should have his day vindicate only the five I think it's not. It is not right say the parts on the table are no pardons on the table. I know was offered a partner yet to the general Flynn.

The President is said that, I think he plead out once or to be open to it, if necessary, but I think everybody wants to general Flynn. Andy vindicated here, vindicated his case dismissed while being allowed to follow that system followed in the system is that the prosecutor brings the case that the prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute. That's the end of it, and certainly if the defendant as he did in this case joins in that joint motion to the district judge. In my view is no alternative under Federal rule of criminal procedure 48 but to dismiss the case and judge Sullivan is blocking at this is becoming a litigant has become a litigant in the case is decided no dig my heels and remind people to deliver in Roger stones matter he got a commutation for the present. That's because Roger still wanted to fight in court to vindicate himself as well. He didn't want to pardon got commuted sentence, but you want to keep fighting in court rather than rely on the part and I think in my Flynn's case even stronger case to keep fighting in court because the Department of Justice has said, we are dropping the prosecution of you and they just they met a judge who won't sign off on that which is his role continue take your phone calls 164 3110 and again remember matching challenge ACLJ.org donate today the American Center for Law and just as were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those faith uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this.

For that we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous heart wrenching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms.

Today online okay only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn cold dishes like it will show you how you are personally and the publication includes all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for mission life today online/that the Logan Sekulow reprogram may be taken over Jay Sekulow live in the desert. We were in my will be remote to be remote if there is a VP nominee that is actually for right will call it certainly will call in and can count as the next two days will be more lively for everybody is a little spice it up a little bit will be a lot of fun. All right things there laughing I see the like can see Andy but I made a look is in wearing a headband.

Lately, he's nowhere you had been lately, I think, is that a protest move that and will saying yes. He thinks it is one which he protested oh protesting protests okay but that is protesting right but were taking your calls on the Flynn matter now.

We are looking to seek as were expecting it focuses phone got disconnected during the argument happens, they now looks like this is still that this is still cold even though you've gone back to working if you were back in the studio that DC and federal courts the most part they're still all done alone so laws being done by conference call right now, for the most when any you are proceeding, motion for new trial hearing in Georgia and I it was televised in the big case and there you were in the courtroom right room what wearing that including all the witnesses were remote and were in another facility, and the defendant. The prisoner was being brought in by web cam through at the prison. We had few people know what it looks like it was awful. It was terrible.

We kept losing witnesses the judge couldn't hear. We couldn't hear the witnesses you can cross-examine them.

You keep hearing hello can you play that well I can figure that I can hear you got. It was one of the most cumbersome and difficult proceedings. I'd say it's a 20 digit zoom, like for five your colleagues and have some issues with legal proceedings. This is the actual oral argument purer than I get into the actual prosecution emotions and witnesses is not just like a zoom call Moshe Moshe colleagues and with a potential client. This is a this is the actual legal proceeding and using the systems that have not yet I get it. They were prepared. And I think the future they will be better prepared, but we realize we have great technology it's been overloaded has been overloaded our computers overloaded the web is overloaded, but it makes me nervous till we get back to an education issue we be talking about all this virtual learning that may have to be taken place how was the Internet even get out like to be able to handle all of this data I want to play at question in response regarding from judge blood.

The pictures and letters judge. I know very well and now Democratic appointee, but we did a lot of case they had when she was in the solicitor Gen.'s office on religious liberty and will get into the public. Why did I want to go to fail not to because you're not doing well now that Congress, not house number, the sentence been doing it remote what it what you think. Yeah, I mean I am in the Senate.

It's a little bit more difficult J because you can go directly in front of the senators are in front of their staff. We've been doing much the same thing. Zoom Microsoft office meetings. Virtual meetings at work pretty well but I can tell you the general sentiment in Washington DC is actually that there sort of a difference between maybe a Supreme Court hearing where it actually worked pretty well and these criminal proceedings where you do need to have a criminal defendant present.

I think maybe that's where at least among elected officials may be where the opinion divided his work pretty well. The Supreme Court may be pretty urgent to get back inside the courtroom when it comes to criminal proceedings. He evidently you do that when it's safe to do it.

So let's go ahead and once at the supplement. Yes I this is again this, I think that the context here is important. This is about the criticism on the appointment of Judge Gleason so far this issue.

This was Judge Sullivan saying you know what before I sign off on this motion that you filed DOJ to stop the prosecution that you are wrong.

I want to bring in somebody to argue against your position and he's a former federal judge, so judge Sullivan's attorney, Beth Wilkinson gets asked about this from judge Valente Phyllis on the portal judge the fact that I like the staked out a public station on the matter responded that criticism in appointing any amicus, the court is looking for the opposite viewpoint.

From what the two parties agreement and looking for full adversarial briefings to the fact that Mr. Gleason announced that he had a position that was adverse to the government and to the defendant makes sense that he would be one of the candidates because he is being appointed not to be neutral but the to flesh out those legal arguments on the other side of the case. The unwitting unit. The best analogy I know is Prof. Paul Casale this quite famous and has no pursuit. Miranda issues from his entire career asked the Supreme Court to be the amicus and argued against the government and the court listened and ruled against Mr. Casale's position and no one thought it was inappropriate for him even though it was publicly known that his positions were adverse to the government. The government was arguing their position so as to argue that's not the same thing is when the government says uncle not doing this anymore. Yeah, I think that they can issue their rehab and we mustn't have no time here and I think so. I think the thing that you are putting in of Gleason not appropriate J and Jordan because he was that he is first of all you is an opinionated person. He made it clear that he is anti-trump is made it clear that he is anti-administration and if you want an adversary.

You don't think somebody already made a position clear you get somebody who is neutral, but beyond that, that is not the job of the judge when the problem the government doesn't want to prosecute a case day one I want someone to come in and argue your position that it is appropriate. I think that's where this judge and that's focusing were just completely wrong. Citing some Supreme Court example is appellate court. They bring in amicus all the time to to position this is a this is the trial judge appointed without citing somebody else's delight to litigants right this but this is the trial judge appointing somebody to come in, argue position that the government is taking is not taking and would usually be the governments would normally be the government's decision to take or not take so Scott will go to Renée in Ohio on line 1 relay welcome to Jay Sekulow live or take your phone calls as you try to analyze this for it gets extremely complicated. You know what it shouldn't be because there's a rule 28 USC section 455 it says a judge is disqualified if their party to the case.

This judge has an attorney right now arguing for our for en banc panel of the DC federal Court of Appeals. He is disqualified. So either way.

Judge Sullivan shouldn't be the one ruling on the 40 rule 48 motion that should be at least the decision even from these liberals is that he's getting these get attorney arguing for he's a party.

He disqualified those rules govern them. By the way they'll get to change those rules. They govern them. But Renée Weldon broadcaster on their jumping around like legal judge not already been going what you delete the three-judge panel did that, they said you are operating a kangaroo court judge Sullivan enough of this, but he appeal it now by appealing it he I believe he disqualified himself because how can he appeal it. He's dinner party and we have laws such as Jordan Sankyo's opinion, we have US code that says when you become a party as a judge, you are now disqualified so you can't rule on the motions anymore.

You can't be up you can't be the judge anymore this case so that the regular three-judge panel did what you said. They said this is like a kangaroo court what's making me nervous about the current en banc panel that is if they're ignoring this issue constantly, every so far we are like 2 1/2 hours. In this oral argument was supposed to be a total of one hour and they are ignoring this issue even though they said there it so readily question warm up.

I mean hopefully this is going to come up the issue that they said this disqualification issue.

I will say that our oral argument in the President's cases were supposed to collectively take two hours between we had three cases they want to join together and they took almost 45 is what will sink almost 5 almost 5 hours so I mean, there you have it. Mets is kind of the way it happens, let's go ahead and listen to this next one is pretty interesting because what the various burns that are placed on the court. Yeah, sure. By 11 record have to grant the motion, then that will be adequate alternate but enough because the prophet.

The problem the process is what violates both article 3 and article 2 Gordon or denied the motion once again three months ago. To be precise, but instead we had the unconstitutional burden that Cheney talks about being imposed on us by the props that he created that he had absolutely no authority to create all he is entitled to do, even if the dominant power link would be to review this motion on its face and grant the correct yes that's what it takes an opposing view that he somehow had the power not to granite at least do it then so they can make the appeal and move on. But as Cindy Powell said for three months he's been dragging this out. So that's why it such as the constitutional remedy that this judge go back and grant the motion. Everything's fine now because of what is done will be right back on Jay Sekulow only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to serve in many ways your membership is empowering the right question mission life today online/American Center for Law and injustice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those faith covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life reports and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that.

We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms gift today online okay is everybody. I will say some right here at the outset, and that is this you know we have a GC were monitoring a live Court of Appeals argument right now and were coming to those you hear this LIBOR live for an hour on radio and television on social media platforms Facebook periscope other ways using ACLJ.org and I just want to say something about production but actually pulling down the speed while were doing this us that we can give you analysis. Actually, as it's happening now. They met a little production snafu on the courts and not intentional. Obviously that was the whole issue of the oral. I think Bob Beth Wilkinson's phone got disconnected and reconnected with what we were all afraid of and fearing during the Supreme Court arguments be quite frank, but I think what's important here is what I'm trying to assure you is if you enjoy this broadcast and supporting work that were doing in the information were getting out there a lot you seem right now in the studio me and Jordan here fans up there in Washington we could go to go to Fannin you see stands there in Washington DC right now and then we have any is by phone and out and in Georgia will be back in the studio next month. When telomeres that's all you are saying and sometimes I'll have Harry and Wes here got five people here, there are at least that many more behind a big glass of window where the production team is to put this together. There's many people that are producing this broadcast is produced.

Most programs are seeing on national cable.

The reason we do that is we want to have a great product for you and great information that we can give you out enter content teams working on all kinds of new content right now so you got this broadcast Jay Sekulow live you got a weekend version of this broadcast you have these shorts that Jordan does Logan and will host a program called los Logan Sekulow program. The re-program that is sometimes a turn on a variance networks it's a podcast some days to take.

They do it right here in our radio broadcast. All of this. Your support of the ACLJ makes that possible number matching challenge this month.

I want to encourage you if you enjoyed this broadcast and millions of you listen to this and tens of thousands of you watch this ACLJ.if you're able make a donation in any amount.

If you are able to support the work of the ACLJ that's all I want to say start this last segment of our folks were taking phone calls 100-684-3110. That's 100-6431 10 I you say you want to go right to this, let's go, let's go right to the hearing what and continuing all copy became the re-hearing your honor is meant to protect the process which could, and mandamus standard because under the panel's decision auto written to be fact specific. Could open the floodgates to other people who are unhappy with the District Court not ruling on a motion thinking that they know what the answer should be that the answer is clear from the case line the precedents and moving to mandamus. The District Court whenever they think they're in that position for length broader than just this particular rule, 48, a issue I entered party. Thankfully he shot anymore where integrity can have a right to litigator is not a party hereunder, this court made him a respondent. What that means for purpose of mandamus. I don't think totally clear.

But I entered this court did not order him to respond he appealed.

He appealed now. Remember the you had the writ of mandamus heat.

He then reported his own attorney, he did.

He didn't like the Court of Appeals decision.

The three-judge panel and he appealed. En banc, so the court is made of a party. I mean, I don't Really Know Which Way, Beth Wilkinson wants to cut it that it doesn't really matter to me way. The statute reads that it safe the court makes you party for yourself and yourself prices of your party, your disqualified will of course I don't care about her and any really her bizarre reasoning that is our way of getting there, but at the end result joins exactly right.

Same thing to set it.

She said she just said he's a party housing how he became a party was really his own actions, but he's a party, thus allied at a minimum you out to maybe admit taken back the respondent in the case whether he was made a respondent in the case by the appellate tribunal of whether he did it himself is immaterial and I don't think it made a respondent by the appellate court.

He made himself a petitioner in an intervener and a litigant that fall squarely within the protrusion of 28 USC four €55 litigant you can't be part of the process.

You cannot be the judge and the litigant at the same time. This is not appropriate under the law is the question. The question finally did, as the back-and-forth will check them out as a continuing as we speak like it should go to a lot of guys. Let's make the call route was to draw. That's the lesson the questions and that is on this all right where are we on now. We got the executive order to provide assistance to Americans that need help where we congressionally yell as on that issue.

J still at loggerheads between the house and the Senate on what the final package should be essentially J.

Speaker Pelosi wants things that were far beyond the cares act not directly related to the covered stimulus I will tell you this, though I do think they're gonna get there. I think the President has done what he can through executive action. Eventually, you're gonna need legislation to get that to things like PPP and then the school funding that Jordan mentioned earlier, I quite frankly think that might be the most urgent matter because school is back upon us.

I J I think we will get to a deal in a couple of weeks, but in the meantime the delay that is caused by Speaker Pelosi's refusal to negotiate a J that does cause very real problems across America here in Washington DC they might feel insulated from it, but the delay in this instance is increasing the harm and I think that's exactly right.

It is increasing the harm. Hopefully you get Congress to act mature here and get a result, everything is as the clock keeps ticking and taking ever coming closer and closer to election day get closer and closer Labor Day when you get more more focus on politics. But you know what that even though usually you would not get major pieces of legislation like this. Dodd this close to a Presidential election.

We are not in a usual time were in a pandemic. Schools are trying to reopen. We don't know if it will work out for most most bargainable take couple weeks to know if it causes some major covert outbreaks and I we just don't know.

I would try to assist families all across the country right now just getting emails on the right as we speak and meet over 1500 families of contact ACLJ for assistance in its moving targets because the schools are average consciously change policies as well summer doing it in the best interest of their students. Some are not. Some are not. Survey controlled by teachers unions and not some help to you getting cooperates not been a couple of calls with just yesterday people really are trying to help their people. There are people that are trying to help. And that's what you were trying to do is school superintendents are trying to mess right right thing.

That's right. And it's a field moving targets for everybody. So Congress is to get its act together get PPP done so that it gets nonpartisan gets those loans that should matter what support the work ACLJ if you can double the impact your donation ACLJ.org remover is broadcast everyday break all this down for you every day because that support as well.

ACLJ.org donate today? The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 can make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms to you and your family.

You forgive today online LJ