Transcript

Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution obligates government to protect God's rights

Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio. I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time. This is Jenna Ellis in the morning.

Bob Good: President Trump announced major combat operations against Iran

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, May 26 and a lot of news over the weekend, the Memorial Day weekend. And I hope that everyone had a great weekend and also spent some time in reflection of those who gave the last full measure of their devotion to the United States and to this great nation. And there's been a lot of talk and also I think a little bit of different angles and perspectives on where we're at in Iran. So according to ABC News, President Trump announced major combat operations against Iran. With with some strikes now happening, some new strikes as a peace deal looks like it probably is not going to happen. And NewSong York Times of course is parading around their headline says Trump's pressure had little effect on Iran's terms for a peace deal. They're still suggesting according to reports that they would like that no peace deal will include giving up their, their possibility of obtaining nuclear capabilities which is a no go for the United States. So where are we at in terms of the self defense strikes and where we're at overall with this war? Because we've seen a lot of perspectives and kind of basically two different camps. When the White House initially said I believe is on Saturday, it was sometime this weekend that a peace deal was eminent. You had one camp praising the White House saying this is the right way to go, a peace deal is the best thing for the United States and globally overall. And then you had the other side saying well wait a minute, we can't possibly have a peace deal. And what about Israel? there were a lot of different factors. So let's welcome in former Congressman Bob Good. And Bob, what's your perspective on all of this? Because I think it kind of boils down to whether at least the media chatter, it boils down to whether people trust President Trump or not. is where the focus is at in terms of a potential peace deal.

 The President is negotiating with Iran over a nuclear deal

Bob Good: Good morning Jan, and great to be with you. I think the primary problem with Iran is even if you think you have a Deal? You don't have a deal. We'll never really have a deal with this Iranian regime. they are unable to be trusted. they're going to lie. They're going to continue to pursue their ultimate goal to destroy Israel, to destroy the United States, and to have a nuclear capacity. And so while I think the President and our ally Israel, were right to do what we did last summer, to come in and to, greatly diminish, apparently not totally obliterate, as the President said, or not totally eliminate, as the President said, the nuclear capability, but greatly diminish that last summer in the 12 day war, to completely overwhelm Iran. They couldn't fight back. They were essentially emasculated, emaciated, embarrassed with their inability to fight. We overwhelmed them almost immediately. but many of us are confused about what the need was in February to come back after the President said we had totally obliterated the nuclear capability. It seemed very effective, to come in, to hit them, tremendously, to get in, get out, diminish them, set them back, perhaps create the climate for the overthrow of the regime. Obviously that didn't end up, proving true with what they did to kill some 40,000 people back in December. But the President has kind of been all over the place with his declarations of what's happening or what the conditions are in Iran or what the ultimatum is. He said that wasn't long ago. We must have total and complete surrender, unconditional surrender. This is a defeated nation, the war is over, and yet we're negotiating with them to try to make a deal. So none of us really know what we're exactly asking for, what the conditions are exactly. The United States is seeking, what Iran supposedly is agreeable to or not agreeable to. you know, we seem to be a little surprised with the Strait of Hormuz situation or their willingness to attack their neighbors. There's disputes as whether or not our experts told the President that, you know, Strait of Hormuz would be closed or that they would attack their neighbors. And, whether or not, the President was advised that or not, but, I think we're left, that's all that said, with two undesirable situations. Either we declare victory and declare a deal and just leave, and there's not real change there after all that's taken place, or we elevate, we escalate, we stay there, we have a presence going forward to prop up or insure whatever we think is an acceptable, longer term Solution which exposes us to the consequence of being there for an indefinite period of time. So there certainly is no easy answers, it seems to me.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And how problematic do you think that is for the administration? Because it seems like it's, it's very confusing even, to those who are trying to support the President or who are concerned about his, his strategies. I mean, people on both sides. And we're seeing people like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who, seems to be at least, publicly opposed to the deal. Two days ago he said the deal being floated, with Iran. This coming from X, seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman, Robert Malley, Ben Rhodes playbook. Pay the IRGC to build and a wmd, or weapons of mass destruction program and terrorize the world. Not remotely. America first. It's straightforward. Open the blank straight, deny Iran access to money, take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies in that region. Overdue. Let's go. And then, of course, the White House communications director basically said, you don't know what you're talking about. sit down and shut up. And, and so where do you see this for the administration, where the

Bob Good: president has been really strong, or one of the areas where he's been really strong, as you know, is refocusing our military on its core mission. What's the secretary Hegseth? What is the purpose of the military? To be the most lethal, effective fighting machine on the planet. That no one wants to challenge us, to overwhelm adversaries when necessary, with overwhelming force. And thank God for our military. We recognize and remember the importance of that.

There is concern with President Trump about declaring victory on Iran deal

The weekend that we just came to, as you spoke during your opening remarks coming out of Memorial Weekend here, however, there is concern with President Trump, the ultimate dealmaker, if you will, that he wants the deal, the art of the deal, ultimately, potentially irrespective of what the deal might ultimately be. And to have his name on the deal to declare a great, awesome deal that no one could have envisioned, no one could have imagined the greatest deal ever, being the trump card, if you will, versus the details or the particulars of the deal. I get a little concerned, for example, with another, international issue when he says, China has agreed not to attack Taiwan while he's president. Well, most of us are thinking beyond the next couple of years, you know, for five, 10, 20, 50 years down the road, not just the next couple of years. And so, you know, we don't want to have a deal that looks good for the next couple of years. We want a deal. That's that, if we have a deal, if you can make a deal, which again, I doubt that you can make a deal with Iran ultimately because they're not trustworthy. and so, But you worry a little bit about declaring victory and declaring a deal and declaring that it's a great deal that no one could have ever imagined and maybe it's not really as good as it's being said.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think anything that Trump is going to be a part of, he's going to characterize as the best ever, the biggest deal in the history of the world. You know, he always characterizes anything, like that, that and some of it, like the Abraham Accords, you know, that that was, I think, a fair and proper characterization. But there is a bigger question mark on this and how do you think the perception of the US and specifically the fractured Republican base where on the issue of Israel factors into all of this? Because there is a huge segment of the base that defines America versus America only. And then there's a huge segment of the base, that supports Israel and says, well, this has to be a deal with Iran that actually favors Israel.

Bob Good: Well, I think there are several problems that you're alluding to there. Number one, the base, if you will, or Americans in general, more broadly speaking, how did we go from eliminating the threat to the United States, which is an appropriate objective of the President, of course, that's his number one priority or should be as president, to getting involved in a sustained regime change and an indeterminate indefinite exit strategy, ultimate outcome and so forth, that's, that is a problem. And in the consequence to the United States, to Americans, which he seems to diminish at times and call it peanuts, but it really impacts us economically, financially. Regular income, Americans to have gas prices at 450, a gallon on average and potentially a long term thing. With respect to Israel, I'm very concerned about the growing fight on the Russian. I think Israel is a critically important ally to the United States. I believe their intelligence, support to us, their strategic importance to us, the only true democracy in the Middle East. They're fighting our enemies there. Israel's enemies are the United States enemies. And I think Israel is a tremendous ally to the United States. I support their right to do what they need to do to defend themselves and to ensure their viability, if you will. and I'm very concerned about this growing fight on the right, over Israel and the number. I think it's a Small vocal, minority. But that seems to be the only issue to them is to be anti Israel. It's the Trump issue, not Trump littlety. It trumps all other issues to some of these people and they want to divide over support for Israel. And it's very concerning to me because I think Israel elected, representative, elected officials in the United States should be America first, just like Israel's representative should be Israel first. But Israel is an important ally to us, I believe. And I'm unapologetic in believing that. and I'm concerned about that divide or that fight on the right that seems to be growing over Israel.

Jenna Ellis: I am too. And your position on Israel historically has been the position of Republicans in the GOP and largely treated support for Israel as politically untouchable. On the right. What changed?

Bob Good: You know, it's really emerged in the last couple of years and there are some very loud voices. you know, I'm very concerned about it, you know, and I don't really know where has it been latent and hidden for a long period, simmering under the surface. And now it's just people are feeling free or empowered to be expressive with it or, or has it grown from something just in recent years and we're seeing the manifestation of the effects of that. I honestly don't know, but I'm terribly concerned about it. antisemitism, anti Israel feeling has long been, seemed to be on the left. and now you're seeing again, I think it's a small vocal minority, but it seems to be a growing minority. And I think it's really concerning and it is one of a number of issues where I think Republicans will struggle to unify post primary into the general election for 26 and for 28 and beyond. it's very concerning.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And I think Republicans are even struggling to, to know how to talk about it and address it because you have one camp that this is their only issue. And even on the state level, you know, they're, they're talking to, you know, statewide, or even district level candidates about, you know, whether or not they support Israel, whether they're getting funded by that, you know, as if that is relevant to their, their, district and state level positions, that really don't influence foreign policy, directly like the federal government does. And so you have that group and then you also have the then the, the people on the right who are maybe the older group of the GOP that just want to shut down that conversation because they're calling Those people distractors, and they don't even want to have the conversation. So where, where do we go from here?

Bob Good: Well, and I may add that I, I speak as one who, didn't get AIPAC money and who had rjc, Republican Jewish Coalition and AIPAC spending millions of dollars to defeat me in my primary two years ago simply because the Republican Party leadership told him to do so. And then secondly, because while I supported, I support, our relationship with Israel, I didn't support borrowing money, for Israel because we're bankrupt, and I didn't support giving money to Hamas and Ukraine in combination with support for Israel, aid for Israel. So because I believe in fiscal responsibility and I didn't believe in again, giving the $10 million to Hamas, $10 billion to Hamas and the 50, 60 billion, whatever it was for Ukraine that was combined with Israel support my last year in Congress, then that wasn't considered acceptable by AIPAC and Republican Jewish Coalition, which spent millions to defeat me. So I hold that. I hold in spite not being financially incentivized as a candidate or as an elected official to support, the Jewish Lobby. I support Israel based on principle and believing in their value to the United States as an ally. I also, believe in the biblical, admonition that I'll bless those who bless thee and curse those who curse thee. I certainly believe, in supporting the nation of Israel from many facets and many standpoints. but I am concerned by those on the other side who, they write you off completely, they divide completely. If you're not against Israel, it's very concerning. I think it's concerning to us as a, as a nation, as Americans, and also as Republicans.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well said. Well, we've got to take a break here, but, we're going to talk more about this issue and the divide over Israel and whether support for Israel, is becoming a critical divide in inside the Republican Party, when we come back. But, former Congressman Bob Good, you can follow him on X. He also has a podcast that you really need to listen to. Excellent commentary. So definitely make sure you follow him. And we'll be right back with more, welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Why is Israel becoming such a flashpoint and divide inside the Republican Party

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And as we're talking about the potential peace deal with Iran, the various factions that are either opposed to it or applauding it, where we go from here, and ultimately, the impact that this may have on the future of the Republican Party and where conservatives, particularly Christians, should be, we have to ask the question about, why is Israel becoming such a flashpoint and divide inside the Republican Party? Are we seeing a genuine ideological fracture in the GOP or is this just a temporary disagreement over tactics? And increasingly as the group that's known as the Gripers or the Nick Fuentes, sort of, you know, clearly anti Semitic, type of, individual who subscribes to that ideology. As they increasingly, start going to events and pushing, you know, some of these narratives, the response from a lot of the the right has been we'll just completely shut that down. Which I think has the effect then of shutting down the conversation completely and having kind of this staunch, no, we're right, pro Israel. We're not even willing to entertain those because that's a distraction. It's disruptive. And then you have the, the younger people saying, well, wait a minute, why can't we just ask questions? So is criticism of Israeli policy and America support for Israel, overall now being conflated with anti Semitism in a way that shuts down legitimate foreign policy debate? Well, let's welcome in my former pastor and actually still current pastor still. He'll always be an advisor, in my life and of Calvary, Chapel South Denver, Salem radio host and director of Scripture says Gino Jurassi. And Gino, we've had a lot of conversations on the theological, directives that God gives us about Israel, Israel's place, and the overall, grand narrative of Scripture. And so how do you see this current debate in the political sphere? because this necessarily is a theological one at its core.

Gino Geraci: You know, Jen, I was listening to your, Your previous guest, the former congressman, and you asked a, compelling question. And that is, how do you see the fracture that's taking place in the Republican Party? What is the ideological drift that seems to be taking place? And he, he, he said, you know, I don't have an answer. And I don't pretend to have an answer either. But the way that I would think about this, Jenna, is we have Memorial Day right now, and if we ask a different question, and that is, what makes the Jewish state of Israel a Jewish state? What are some of the unique characteristics of a Jewish state as opposed to other nation states? I think that part of the answer lies in a nation's self, assessment or self analysis. In other words, what does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to be a Jew and in a Jewish state? And I think that that might give us part of the answer because if we ask him the answer the question, you know, the former congressman said, hey, we love Israel. It's an important ally in the Middle east and a democracy in the Middle East. And if there were no biblical reasons, to support Israel, we should still support Israel, but because of their identity. Well, what is their identity? What makes a Jewish state a Jewish state? And I'm going to suggest to you that part of the Jewishness of Israel is what's causing the problem. In other words, in their declaration of 1948 it guaranteed a complete equality of social and political rights to all of its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex. Now so you've got this dual commitment, Jewish character, democratic equality. But you also have attention given by the legal definition of the Jewish nation state, which declares Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people and the right to national self determination. And then what makes Israel different from every country, on planet Earth? It's the law of return. And this is probably the most concrete expression of Jewish statehood. It's a 1950 law that grants every Jew in the world the right to return to Israel, obtain citizenship. No other country has this automatic ethno religious right of return. And it sort of encodes the Zionist premise that Israel exists as a refuge and homeland for all Jews wherever they are born. So it's. So remember, they're speaking the Hebrew language, they're following a Hebrew calendar. Religious, law matters, by the way, I don't know if you knew this, but in Israel personal, matters, marriage, divorce, burial are under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox, rabbinate, the Rabbinic Council, not civil law. There is no civil marriage in Israel. A Jewish couple have to marry through the rabbi. And this religious, this empowers the religious institution. So I think that there's a kind of a relationship. Yes, there's a political component, but the critics, the skeptics, the cynics, the haters understand something that maybe even sometimes people on on the conservative right and the religious right don't recognize. And that is the Jewishness of the Jewish state.

Jenna Ellis: And this is, this is a lot to unpack. And this is where I think we can elevate interest. It is, and I think we can elevate the conversation above just pure politics and whether, you know, how we define America first and perhaps give some clarity on what Christians should believe versus what we've simply inherited, maybe culturally or politically about how we define Israel and how we define.

How should Christians think about the definition of Israel in those contexts

Because I think there's a couple of different things that we talk about, that we use that term rather than carefully separating the modern state of Israel, the Jewish people, as you mentioned, what is inherently what makes something Jewish? the biblical covenant promises, and then also current foreign policy decisions for nations other than Israel, which of course would include the United States. And so from a biblical standpoint, how should Christians think about the definition of Israel in those contexts?

Gino Geraci: Well, there's two ways of thinking about this or maybe even several ways. But the way that I think about it is how do the Jews themselves or the Jewish nation state of Israel, how do they self identify? How did you know? You talk about our friends on the left and they say, well you have to respect how people self identify. And I go, and I'll ask what do you think the Jews believe about themselves or the nation state of Israel? And by the way, is there something different about the biblical context or the covenantal context? Because I think that there's another element. Did you know that most modern nation states are a, political expression of territory, language, civic membership, but Israel has what's called a diaspora relationship. Israel maintains this relationship with Jewish communities worldwide who aren't citizens of their country. Remember the right of return. If you're a Jew and you're in trouble, you can go home. And so this means that the Jewish Agency, the Knesset policy, Israeli diplomacy, all reflect the idea that Israel speaks for and is responsible for a global Jewish people. and this concept, by the way, has no parallel that I know of in any other known, democracy. In other words, does India have this deep seated sense for all Hindus outside of India? are the Muslim majority states, do they have, have this sense in non Muslim majority states? By the way, most, some of them do. In other words, they don't see the, the ideological and social and civic separation as being meaningful. But I'm saying all of this to say that there is this kind of odd situation where I think from a, from a biblical standpoint, God has a plan and a purpose for the Jewish people and that the Jewish people and the modern nation state of Israel have a connection to one another. even though critics and skeptics don't necessarily believe that.

Jenna Ellis: So then how would you respond to. So for, Congressman Bob Good, who was just on says, you know, he, he believes in the Genesis 12, covenant that you know, I will bless those who bless Israel, God speaking. And and some Christians believe that applies directly to modern foreign policy.

Gino Geraci: Well, the way that I would do, I would nuance, that is, I would say the ultimate expression of the blessing is found in the Lord Jesus Christ himself. In other words, I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you. Now again, it goes to the heart of what is the, what is the covenant and what is the mission of the covenant. It finds its most incredible expression in the person of Jesus and the reality that human beings can be saved because of Jesus. But I suspect that it has also what I'm going to call a peripheral, a peripheral consequence to science, technology, knowledge, law and order. Think of a monotheistic religion. Think of all of the amazing, unique and specific things that the Jew, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David. What are the unique gifts that the Jewish people have given to the world. So I think that there's several of those things. But I also respect his position where you go, hey, you know what? We're in a situation where we have to exercise fiscal responsibility. It's not up to us to ensure the the health and well being of the modern nation state of Israel. Well again, that's where I think what you talked about earlier. It used to be that there was a sort of a consensus on the right that Republicans in general understood that even if you don't have a biblical framework, if you just have a political and ideological framework that says, hey, guess what, those people best represent our values and virtue in the land. And so to your question, why is it breaking apart? Is it possible that Republicans on the right have lost their own sense of identity? What meaningfully makes a conservative a conservative? And so they can with, with their own conscience throw Israel under the bus and say we don't care what happens to them. I think something really terrible is happening, not just because of, because we're beginning to lose touch with who we are and what we value. And that is a problem.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that is a problem. And I think that's what a lot of the older Republicans are seeing about this groper movement is, is that kind of view of Israel. And so they're kind of, they're wanting just to shut this down because they view it as totally dishonest and disruptive as I mentioned. And so how can and should Christians be both firmly opposed to anti Semitism but actually engage in honest moral evaluation of a government's action? Because I don't see it as particularly helpful, to always just shut down the conversation because I think perhaps the leaders of those m, of that movement, and I would include you, know Tucker Carlsen and now Megyn Kelly and some of these others in more of the disruptor category that can just be ignored. but the people who follow them, who are maybe the pawns who are saying, okay, we're thinking about actually engaging in that false ideology, they're the ones that we can and should still reach. And so how should we talk to them about. About Christians applying the same moral standards to Israel that we still would any other nation engaged in war while respecting Israel's unique position in Scripture?

Gino Geraci: Well, and again, I think you've hit the nail on the head. In other words, to even have a moral position, to even have a moral position gives. You have to give credit to the, To Israel. Israel, what? And their giving of the law is also serves as the basis of a moral underpinning. And justice disconnected from the God of Israel becomes something other than how we understand justice. And so this makes Israel genuinely singular among modern states. It's not a theocracy in the sense religious law does not govern most of its public life. It's not simply an ethnic nation state. It does guarantee civic rights across ethnic lines. And so, again, the way that I would talk about this is I would say, hey, does Israel best represent who we are and what we believe? It's not simply a liberal democracy. can you imagine if you go, and this is what you've talked about this. How is it possible that so many people identify with Sharia and Islamism and extremism or woke up is, and not some sort of biblical moral foundation? And I, this is how I would, I would talk to Christians about this.

Gerard Filitti: Who are you?

Gino Geraci: What is it that you deeply believe and, and, and do your deeply held beliefs, are they best reflected by this particular group or that particular group? Jenna, I think there's a reason why you are conservative because you suspect that the Republican Party at least used to best represent your own ideological viewpoints, and now even that's come into question for you, or you go, hey, wait a minute there. Is there a disconnect from my own beliefs? And so this is the hard conversation we have to have.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we need to have this conversation in the church, and the church needs to be the one leading this conversation, because like so many other things in civil society, law and politics, we tend to isolate those categories from their rightful theological underpinnings. And if we don't view them from, the biblical worldview lens, then we can get off in a myriad directions that are false. And as you rightly pointed out, Gino, I mean, I'm conservative, not just Because I believe in fiscal policy, I believe in limited government, I believe in capitalism. You know, those are all great things, but isolated. They don't actually say and express the moral reason for overall being conservative, which is the biblical worldview of government and legitimacy, which carries intrinsic moral value versus an illegitimate government. So these, these things aren't the same and debatable.

Gino Geraci: Right.

How should the Church be talking about Israel from a biblical and theological perspective

And let's talk about the elephant in the room. Okay? The elephant in the room is this. Israel is a state that defines itself against the possibility of its own absence. In other words, the memory of the Holocaust is intact. They understand that there is a group of people who would applaud their extinction. Can you imagine living that way? Can you imagine living and, and we are living in that world. There is a growing group of people who believe that it's in the best interest of humanity for the United States not to exist anymore. Can you imagine as a nation state, a growing group of people committed to your extinction?

Jenna Ellis: Well, as.

Gino Geraci: What are you willing to do to. Hold on.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I mean, and not to have this a one for one comparison, but I think a lot of the Trump supporters and also conservative Christians who've been, targets of, you know, not just lawfare, but of total, an attempt by the left to basically utterly conquer, them and, and annihilate them. You know, that, that's about as close as we will hopefully, ever experientially come to understanding, what it's like for Israel. And so, I mean, in that perspective it makes a lot more sense why, leaders like Bibi Netanyahu make the points and the, the considerations that they do. And also why, Jews here in America are so, dedicated to the nation state of Israel and have that, that allegiance because that's part of the fabric of their identity. So, so just in closing, how, how should the Church be talking about this more so from a biblical and theological perspective than just an isolated policy question? Because I don't, I think if we just isolate the policy, we, we won't actually, ah, ask and answer, the right questions.

Gino Geraci: I, I think again we have to ask and answer the question. Is there a God who, who begins the historical narrative, continues the historical narrative, and will the historical narrative come to a conclusion? What role does Israel play in that narrative? What's God's plan and purpose for humanity? Who are the actors and the principles that he's going to use? How is it going to unfold? In other words, how can we, evaluate what's happening now, not based on Speculation but based on what God has revealed in his Word M. And

Jenna Ellis: those are such great questions.

Jenna Ellis: I appreciate Gino answering questions on American Family Radio

And speaking of great questions and answers as well, you are the director of Scripture says and also got questions. You have.

Gino Geraci: I'm on the board of, I'm on the board of directors have got questions. But yeah, they have a great team and Shea Hoodman is the director. Yeah, it's a great, wonderful ministry.

Jenna Ellis: Yes. And and I so appreciate that. Which gives which gives a lot of people the biblical responses to questions that they have immediately. And so I really appreciate that Gino and everyone listening should be going to a church where you can ask these questions of your pastor. I can't tell you for how many years I've been calling Gino and saying I have a question. Let's talk through this biblically. And now he is so kind to come on air when I ask him and we get to ask and answer these questions, questions together for the good of the whole AFR family. but we need to be asking and answering biblically these questions in the context of the church so that we can be prepared to be the church in civil society as well. So we will be right back with more. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Gunman who attempted to shoot White House was previously known to Secret Service

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. We'll also over over the weekend a gunman is dead after opening fire near the White House checkpoint. Its Secret Service says so the deceased suspect in White House shooting, this coming from Fox News, was identified as a 21 year old Maryland man previously known to the United States Secret Service. So multiple sources confirmed to Fox News Digital the male gunman who allegedly opened fire with a pistol Saturday near the White House was fatally shot by the US Secret Service. And was identified as someone who had known mental health issues and was known to Secret Service as someone who apparently they had encountered before. So, so this individual won't say his name, who allegedly had prior encounters with Secret Service, had a history of mental health issues, fired about three shots toward the Executive Mansion before he was taken down. So let's welcome in Gerard Felitti who's senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And you know, I think this is one that we can safely say that the United States Secret Service intervened, timely and you know this is not one that we're going back and looking necessarily at what the Secret Service did in those moments. But if this if this gunman was known to Secret Service then how should we be evaluating the security protocols since you Know, these types of situation just seem to keep happening around President Trump. And I think that's the concern for Americans.

Gerard Filitti: And I think it's a big concern, as we've seen, that this is not the. This is hardly the first time. We just had the White House Correspondent's Dinner shooting, just last month. and this goes to show that there is heightened threat to President Trump and to his family after revelations about his daughter Ivanka being targeted as well by, Iran. So I think the Secret Service is actively looking at it process and protocols, and quite frankly, there's not much they can do with people who have, history of mental illness and keep showing up at the White House. I mean, this person who attempted to shoot the White House on the weekend apparently had been previously involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, according to some reports. But ultimately, it's a matter of the Secret Service being proactive, interviewing people, knowing who is a potential threat, which it does. A lot of officers have photo index cards of people who are repeat offenders, offenders, or potential threats. So the Secret Service is, I think, doing what it should be doing to keep the President safe. But it just speaks to the growing threat in this country of political violence and how the media and social media are agitating people who may not have all their, sanity into action.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And that raises the important question, should we be doing something differently to mitigate these scenarios before they even occur? And obviously, there are First Amendment implications, but at the same time, when you have. I mean, this is exactly why James Comey is currently under indictment by the doj. Because when you cross that line, but between, you know, just reporting versus advocating in those overt actions to incite violence, that is a completely different legal territory. And so should we be doing more when it comes to the safety and security, of the President and also to quell political violence?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think we, of course, should be doing more. But the question ultimately is more of a moral one than a legal one. As you pointed out, the First Amendment is not something that we want to violate. and it is not easy going through all the different statements that people make on a daily basis and triaging what is potentially actionable from what is not. But, ultimately, I think that this is where the role of grownups in the room comes in, so to speak, where we want that editorial guidance from newsrooms, where we want people speaking out and deep platforming or not, not giving voice to these more outrageous sentiments that do nothing but agitate people, that we need to be More careful with the tone. And there needs to be ultimately accountability to Americans by the news media, by social media for what is often posted without check, without comment and just leads to people being upset to the point where anything is possible.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so what does accountability actually look like in that? Because you're right. I mean there are so many things that the left would call this misinformation or disinformation. But you know, it's accurate to say that there are a lot of things that are posted and widely shared on social media that just simply aren't true. I mean, I was even looking at one, comment that the EPA director, Lee Zeldin had to respond to, to some account that it went viral that was suggesting and alleging that there were these you know, government planted mosquitoes that were being unleashed everywhere in the epa and Trump, Trump's administration was involved in it. And Lee Zeldin had to say this is totally false and here's why. But not everyone is going to see that clarification and that account, probably won't even be demonetized, you know, much less have any sort of accountability.

Gerard Filitti: I think it goes back to, in many ways to traditional media. Why we place, why so many people place an emphasis on getting used some social media is that it seems that they're dissatisfied by what they're watching on tv, what they're hearing from the old school mainstream media, that they believe it's to be too biased and not covering the right things and giving their own narratives. So that's forced people into social media, into the realm of being easily disinformed by accounts that may very well be bots or lack credibility or make the most outrageous statements that people take as facts. So in the old days it used to be that people were more discerning in how they consumed media. But I think that in the last few decades there's been a movement towards getting your news online, because people no longer find mainstream reporting to be fair or balanced.

Gerard Filitti: And it goes back to that if these media companies, the media giants, are really the ones who should be facing pressure and scrutiny, both from their viewers and readers, but also from, from advertisers to go back to old standards where they were the respective news in the room. And that is one way to marginalize these online contents that are more often than not inaccurate.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so, so well said. Because if there was more trust in the media to simply report, without bias and without, you know, clear favoritism or hatred, you know, obviously, so Many of the leftist media just have an overt and outright and obvious hatred, toward President Trump. It's no wonder that people, try to seek their news elsewhere, and then they have to determine for themselves who to trust and whether, the. The sources that these people are posting are legitimate. And then it just becomes, kind of more of a free for all than necessarily good journalism. But, when we could talk so much more about that.

The Anti Weaponization Fund was established to compensate victims of lawfare

But in just the last few minutes we have with you, Gerard Felitti, I also want to ask, your thoughts on this new DOJ 1776 fund. It's officially named the Anti Weaponization Fund, and it was a. It's a $1.776 billion initiative created by the Justice Department, established to compensate individuals who were targeted by lawfare and government weaponization under the Biden administration. So, very notably, Micah Caputo, who is a former, ah, Trump advisor, has now applied for that. and there are others that reportedly will as well. And the left has kind of, made fun of this, saying, you know, this is. This is ridiculous. It's a slush fund. it's never going to be able to pay out. from just a legal perspective, is this a legitimate fund that can pay out for claims of lawfare, which certainly there are a number of individuals that could legitimately claim compensation?

Gerard Filitti: I think the legal answer is probably. But this will be something that will be heavily litigated before we get the final, resolution to it. Ultimately, President Trump did a very smart thing. He used the judgment fund, which was already created by Congress back in 1956, to add this $1.776 billion settlement fund to it. And in so doing, he used a method that was already created by Congress. So this makes the challenge to this, to the constitutionality, to the apportions clause, much more difficult. in other words, you are going to have a harder time being a plaintiff withstanding to challenge this, but nevertheless, it still will be fought out in the courts. ultimately, I think that what will make this, what will make this succeed or fail is the method of how it's implemented. The existing Justice Fund needs some sort of finality from a court ruling, needs some sort of a lawsuit or an active case in order for funds to be paid out. It's not just a reparations fund for people who apply to it. So the devil is in the details. And I think what will come down, what it will come down to is how President Trump sets up the review process in claims and how Those claims are approved and paid out.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And so so far at least, according to the doj, the fund has a five person commission that oversees claims, that apply for financial compensation and, or formal apologies. And the funding source is an obscure, Treasury Department account that's traditionally used, as you mentioned, you know, to settle lawsuits against the federal government that's already apportioned by Congress. So how could this play out potentially in terms of a lawsuit that either secures it or says, you know, no, this is unconstitutional? Well, the heartache for a lawsuit is

Gerard Filitti: finding a personal expanding. Although members of Congress have said that this is something that they want to bring action over, it's doubtful that they would have standing to sue. This would be more of a key champ, or an, or an Administrative Procedure act challenge to the Treasury Department certifying payments. but ultimately I think that if the biggest challenge here is more of an optics one than a judicial one, I think that there is enough of a mechanism for this judgment fund that President Trump is doing what, what is within the rules, so to speak. But the, the, the optics of not having judicial review is what makes this difficult.

Jenna Ellis: Interesting. Well, it's going to be really interesting to see, you know, who applies for it, how quickly this happens and ultimately, you know, whether those claims will survive post 2028 as well. you know, that's another interesting question. If the next DOJ comes in and, and effectively shuts it down. But we're already out of time. A lot more questions I'll have to bring you back on. Gerard Felitti, appreciate it as always. You can reach me and my team JennaAFR.net.