In this episode, we delve into former President Trump’s newly signed executive order regarding the criminalization of flag burning. Host Logan Secular, with contributions from guest speakers and callers, discusses the implications this order has on free speech and the potential slippery slope it could create. The conversation takes into account historical Supreme Court rulings and considers the fine line between offensive actions and protected speech.
SPEAKER 03 :
we got breaking news president trump just signed a controversial executive order protecting the american flag keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever this is seculo we want to hear from you share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110
SPEAKER 02 :
And now your host, Logan Secular. Logan Secular, you just missed a little Monday chaos. Will and I were still prepping the show and all of a sudden one of our producers, Ali, runs in and goes, you have 30 seconds. So we’re a little out of breath. It’s because for some reason my watch was about five minutes slow. And here we are, back on air. And again, we are back talking about not only the news of the day, but of course we are celebrating and wrapping up with just a few days left our ACLJ 35 years of victory drive. It’s been a great month. We really could use the help though, getting over the line just a little bit more. Uh, we are a bit behind and we need your help. So go to ACLJ.org when you can. We are talking about some interesting news that I really want to get your feedback on. Um, This morning, President Trump signed a new executive order, essentially recriminalizing, if you will, or giving a specific criminalization to the act of burning the American flag. Now, President Trump has stated in today that would come with an automatic one year in prison sentence. Now, there’s a little bit of nuance to it because he’s saying, look, if you burn the American flag, you’re likely doing it to incite some kind of bigger, broader, violent attack. So whether that’s to cause a riot or something like that. I understand that point of view. But then there’s the free speech point of view. And if you start criminalizing things to this extent of burning the American flag, when we live in a country where you are supposed to be able to speak out against your government, you are supposed to be able to speak out against even your own country when you feel like they are doing wrong. I understand. I don’t agree with burning the flag. I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to the people who support America, to the troops, to everything that we stand for. However, do I believe it should be criminally illegal? I do not. Now, again, there’s a nuance here. We’re going to talk about it, but I want to know from you. We’re pretty free speech absolutionists here. You can say a lot of things people disagree with. You can do a lot of things people disagree with. Does that mean that they should be punishable with jail time? I would think not. Now, again, this is nuance, but what do you think? Again, I want you to think a little outside the box here. Don’t just think about the act of burning a flag. Because the act of burning a flag, I understand why you believe it’s disrespectful. I believe it’s disrespectful. But do you believe it should be criminal? And what happens when this small change becomes broader and broader? You don’t want, again, this is where I get a little concerned often with this administration. I love a lot of the stuff they do. But some of it, I feel like, is not thinking into what this then will turn into. It’s not thinking about round two. It’s thinking about their own presidency, the only time. Now, look, some of it, he’s going, look at the crime. Look what we did in Washington, D.C. Look, amazing. I have to say, no one has ever done something like this where you all of a sudden had a week in one of the murder capitals in the world where there was no murders. That’s pretty phenomenal. And if you can export that to Chicago, to New York, to L.A., you could have a revolution, if you will, specifically if you are still caring for people, caring for the homeless, the people that are really in need. If you can do that, I’m more power to you. However, there is a line and that line could inflict on your free speech rights. And that’s where things to me will get a little hairy.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. And we’ll get into some of the details about what the executive order actually says and how it is nuanced in the way it’s written. Right. Definitely more nuanced than what the president said. but also how this implicates prior Supreme Court precedent, like Texas v. Johnson from the 80s, where the Supreme Court found that flag burning constitutes a symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment. So how could they do this? And what does it actually say? And what does that look like? That’s what we’ll get into in the next segment. Join us by calling 1-800-684-3110. Can you oppose the act of flag burning, of which I do?
SPEAKER 02 :
At least right now, I oppose the act of flag burning. While also understanding its need to not be criminalized. I think that’s true for a lot of speech. But I want to hear from you. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m looking at the comments. I feel like it’s a mixed bag right now. Maybe you’re joining us on YouTube. Maybe you’re finding us on Rumble. However it is, we can still hear from you. I’d love for you to call in at 1-800-684-3110. We’re also going to hear from, I believe, CeCe Howell is joining us a little bit later, as well as Rick Grinnell. So stay tuned for that. Packed show coming up. I want to hear from you. We’ve got a Marine on hold already. See, those are the people I want to hear from. Give me your thoughts. 1-800-684-3110. And again, support the work of the ACLJ. Wrapping up our 35 years of victory drive. Have your donation doubled just through the end of the month. Do it today. Welcome back to Seculo. Phone lines are lighting up for this topic. And I kind of thought they would because I know, look, we have a lot of free speech absolutionists that are on this group of people that listen and watch every day. So you may see some things. And this is when it’s okay, by the way, to disagree. with what President Trump is doing, but also look into the details, understand why things are getting done, then maybe we could see a more nuanced point of view. Some of that is in this, what’s happening, what he signed in. Because if you just listen to President Trump, you hear, you burn a flag, one year in jail. It’s the straight to jail. That’s how it feels. But when you break it down, it’s a little bit more nuanced in the sense of the act of burning a flag is is inherently inciting a riot.
SPEAKER 04 :
So that’s what they’re arguing with this executive order. And so the purpose of it under Section 1 talks about the American flag as a special symbol in our national life that should unite and represent all Americans of every background and walk of life. Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative. Just on that, though, that is what the First Amendment protects. It protects offensive and provocative speech. But it goes down and says, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the court has never held that the American flag desecration conducted in a matter of. that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or is an action amounting to quote fighting words is constitutionally protected. So here’s the nuance they’re getting there because the Texas versus Johnson case from the 80s was where an individual outside of the Dallas Convention Center where the RNC was happening was protesting Ronald Reagan burned a flag as a symbol. He was arrested by Texas statute. And that statute, though, did say Texas statute prevented the desecration of venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. So the case did rely on a statute that had some of that within it, but the Supreme Court held that flag burning constitutes symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. So what the Trump administration is saying here is that it’s not necessarily just the act of burning the flag itself, but they will start to look into these cases where they see lawless activity and where there is protests that involve flag burning, and they will see if the people that are doing that have conducted other criminal offenses, whether it be inciting riot, whether it be it’s not their flag, they ripped it down from a public park and they burned it, things of that nature, which would be criminal activity, they are going to start doing investigations into that.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m sure there are rules about controlled fires and that kind of thing, so I get that.
SPEAKER 04 :
Even in California, where, you know, you’d see mass takeovers of streets and then burning flags and things in the streets. That’s a place where there shouldn’t be uncontrolled burns. Let’s just go ahead and admit the truth. But there was no prosecution of these individuals because and partially probably because the DOJ was maybe concerned about going after a case that would have that element. And they try to claim free speech.
SPEAKER 02 :
Does it specifically say burning flags or is it desecrating flags? Is it destroying American flags? Is there other words to it? Is it specifically flame based? I mean, that is something that does change the way you look at it, because I understand open flames in public. Probably not a great idea.
SPEAKER 04 :
So the title of the executive order is prosecuting burning of the American flag. They do use the term desecrating it, as well as burning this representation of America may incite violence and riot. American flag burning is also used by groups of foreign nationals as a calculated act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth.
SPEAKER 02 :
I had an Elvis-themed American flag in my bedroom for a long time.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s probably a desecration of the American flag.
SPEAKER 02 :
Probably, but I don’t want to go to jail for that if my kid decides I’d like to both honor my country and my king, if you will. Let’s go ahead and take some phone calls. Ralph’s calling, and that was a joke, in Louisiana on Line 1 on radio. Ralph, go ahead.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I’m a Marine. I served for eight years in the United States Marine Corps. I love this country. I’m the shield against the tyranny of evil men. But I tell you what, I 100 percent am against this putting people in jail for burning the flag. If you want to burn the flag, you go ahead and burn the flag. That’s your right. I stood up to defend that. And I will always stand up to defend that. I want you to have your free speech while I may not agree with it, while I may while I may abhor what you are doing. It is still your right as a citizen to do those things, and I will defend your rights even at the cost of my very own life. I will spill out every drop of my blood onto the altar of freedom so that you remain free.
SPEAKER 02 :
Ralph, I really do appreciate you calling in and having your point of view. Obviously, thank you so much for your service as a Marine for eight years, and the passion clearly is still there. God bless you. God bless your family. I’m glad that you’re still out there fighting the good fight. And again, that’s how I feel as well, which is I may find it disgusting to… that this is done. I may find it just horrible and un-American and all of those things, but does that mean I believe it should be criminally prosecuted behavior? If we’re talking about the solo act of destroying an American flag, I get concerned. I get concerned that also it is an unnecessary distraction that people can point to President Trump to show some of the, or to maybe illustrate some of the descriptors that they’ve had for him, whether it’s a fascist or whatever it may be. Because when you start criminalizing speech against the government, which is what you’re saying, that obviously starts to put a lot of us on our heels.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, and once again, the direction to the Department of Justice to look into these things, there is more nuance to it, obviously, in the way it has to be written because of Supreme Court precedent. But I think to your point, and I agree with the caller as well wholeheartedly, that it can give also the optics of starting to crack down on opposition speech. Right. When you say you always have to think what the next administration will do. Well, if you’re talking about speech that incites violence or that could disagree with, then you start talking about pro-life protesters. That’s immediately where my mind goes. And we’ve seen we had a client that was often show grotesque imagery. And that was beaten brutally that wasn’t showing grotesque imagery. But it does happen and it should be protected. But once again, so then can the administration say your speech, if you are protesting abortion or standing up for the unborn, that can make some people mad. Therefore, that could incite a riot and then cite even cases that we’ve handled in saying, Therefore, you cannot do this. This is not protected speech. That’s the slippery slope you have to be careful about. That’s why, as you say, we are a free speech organization. We do have to think about these consequences, unintended consequences. is this all for show because many of the things if they’re saying it incites a riot or if it is desecration of public property like they’re tearing down the flag off of a courthouse and burning it those can be prosecuted in and of themselves without having to make it about the american flag i think that’s where it could also put some of the cases in jeopardy and maybe why some of the previous departments of justice wouldn’t go down that tactic is because of the free speech angle And if you try to highlight it as that, instead of saying you’re violating all of these laws, which are on the books illegal, regardless if it’s an American flag, then if you’re tearing down even just a sign from a public space and burning that, you could probably be some sort of vandalism or criminal mischief. uh i think that maybe you could just still prosecute those cases and not even have to rise it up to this level but it does at least for a story for the administration give that patriotic american feeling to a many people within the base i feel like and so that’s where it gets tricky look i mean most of the comments do not agree with me and i understand that uh i think i’m you know what as i always am i’m happy to hear from you let’s go to mike who’s calling on line three who’s watching on youtube mike go ahead
SPEAKER 08 :
Hey, I just wanted to say that I do very much appreciate what the Marines said. However, I do not believe that the founders envisioned protecting speech that fundamentally seeks to undercut the foundation of that free speech to begin with. And I think that the symbolism of burning the American flag works to undercut just that. So even though I’m totally with you that I think that we should seek to be as free speech absolutist as possible, not at the expense of the very foundation that that free speech is coming from. And I would say that not only about burning the flag, but I also say that about the creep of things like Sharia law into our own country that seeks to fundamentally undercut what we’re based on. So I don’t think we should have a reactionary response to these things as much as we should have a principled response.
SPEAKER 02 :
Mike, I kind of don’t know if I follow fully, I’ll be honest with you, because while I don’t know about the founders’ point of view, obviously they’re a very hostile group of guys if you really spend time reading about them. They said some offensive things to each other. Yeah, they were pretty much known as the most offensive guys in the room very often. But let’s take that part aside, because I don’t know enough about what George Washington said about flag burning. I don’t know the quotes. When you bring up something like the Sharia law argument, I actually would start to argue that what you’re arguing is the same, which is you’re now arguing for speech to be censored based on the point of view of other people. And you have to put yourself in those shoes too and say, if you find it horribly offensive, but it’s someone else’s protected speech, that can work both ways. And if you start saying Sharia law is the law of the land, which some countries have now said, that means that your speech, which oftentimes, look at the UK, oftentimes is very innocuous, can now be criminalized. So I’m not sure, Mike, I fully find both of those things to be together. I actually find them to be together that if you are for Sharia law, I can see you very much being in favor of burning or against or criminalizing burning the flag because it’s criminalizing people’s right to think freely. So I’m not sure, Mike. I appreciate your call, though. We had a lot of calls like that. I’m going to take them. I want to hear from you again. Does it make me mad? Yeah. Do I hate it? Yes. Do I think you should serve a year in prison for exclusively that? No, probably not. But again, I understand where President Trump’s coming from. I understand that it incites riots and those kind of things. So let’s keep this conversation rolling. If you’re watching on YouTube right now, we do the show each and every day from noon to 1 p.m. Eastern time. So you’re watching live. Great. If not later on, hit that subscribe button. No, we appreciate it. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Seculo. Phone lines are jammed right now, and CeCe Howell, senior attorney here at the ACLJ, is joining us. I do want to give us an update on what’s going on in Massachusetts with our pro-life work. Again, free speech work, work that we have said. That’s what kind of changed the whole game in terms of religious freedom and in terms of the way we argued these things back 35 years ago when we started the ACLJ. It was 35 years of victory because we were able to upend it. You can see it as a positive, or you can read it on some of the… liberal websites as a negative and how the aclj and j seculo spun pro-life and religious freedom and turn it into a free speech argument which of course it is and that’s really what we’re talking about here today in general even talking about the flag situations where uh where is speech protected where is it not protected and of course pro-life speech has always been under attack it has always been something that we have had to fight for over and over and over decades and decades and decades and is it’s the kind of speech that of course they say you can have it you You can have it in a bubble zone. You can have it in this as a walking. It never is clear. It’s never crystal clear. Of course, that’s more to do with the states and localities that this goes on. Of course, we had our situation happen in Massachusetts, and we got an update.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, so Massachusetts, and again, you’re the one that brought this to our attention because you were there and actually saw the government campaign. This is where the government of Massachusetts has literally launched a campaign targeting and punishing pregnancy resource centers. And so we have filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts on this, that they have violated our clients, which is your options medical, a pregnancy resource center. They violated their first amendment rights. And as you can imagine, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. We actually overcame the first motion to dismiss and we’re allowed to amend a complaint. And now we are responding to the defendant’s second motion motion to dismiss. And just for a little bit of legal clarification, to overcome a motion to dismiss, the only thing that we have to show is that our complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted. So we actually have a claim that what they have done has violated the First Amendment. And that’s what we do absolutely. We show that the Supreme Court has said that the government officials absolutely violate the First Amendment when they use regulatory power to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. And that’s absolutely what is happening here.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, and Cece, I think that there is kind of a parallel in what we’re talking about here is because as we fight in court against the government for protecting the free speech and First Amendment rights of pregnancy resource centers, we’ve seen across… the country we’ve seen, whether it be attorneys general, like we’re fighting as we represent the same clients from Massachusetts before the Supreme Court in a case that will be heard this next term where the attorney general was going after with investigations, specifically pregnancy resource centers. And what it boils down to is that these organizations don’t provide nor do they refer for abortion. We’ve seen that in California where we had to beat Kamala Harris in court because of them doing the very same thing. There they were trying to force, compel speech of pregnancy resource centers to say, here’s where you can go get an abortion. And they had the dimensions, the font size, everything for these signs that had to be posted. These are all related. And that’s where they see that as offensive speech, the pro-life message. You can’t criminalize something you see as offensive. And I think that’s why we are cautious here with something like this executive order, that it could go down a slippery slope because we know that. That once you go down that slope, the next administration is going to weaponize that against conservative speech. And so that’s why we have to be careful when we talk about these things. And we see the First Amendment as such a valuable, treasured thing and one of the most important parts of our Constitution.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, absolutely. And you’re exactly right. It is a slippery slope when the government starts telling you what you can and cannot say. That is problematic. And that is why we have the First Amendment that protects that right. And we see here where viewpoint discrimination comes in. And it’s so apparently evident in this case in Massachusetts. There was not one complaint. against a pregnancy resource center now again you have to remember the government is saying oh pregnancy resource centers they’re public health threats they’re deceptive advertising we have to shut them down they literally have weaponized the government against them saying you know they’ve given explicit warnings of license revocation if you violate this, we’ll revocate your license, PRCs. We’re gonna create an official complaint mechanism where people can complain against you. We’re going to solicit complaints and we’re gonna fund a free abortion legal hotline specifically targeting you. So there is definitely a punishment armed to this. But where you can see the viewpoint discrimination ridiculously is there was not one complaint against a PRC that could validate this campaign. But there were at least eight complaints against abortion providers, complaints that had allegations that they used outdated medications, deceptive advertising and negligent treatment. And on top of that, they actually three abortion clinics failed the Department of Public Health inspections with serious violations, not using sterile surgical equipment, using outdated drugs and keeping biohazardous materials in a staff break room. And yet they do not go after and say, watch out for these abortion clinics. And that absolutely proves the viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not allow.
SPEAKER 02 :
I want to talk a little bit about what the ACLJ does in this situation, because I don’t know if maybe people are that clear. They know we go to court, but what does it mean for the pro-life pregnancy resource center? Obviously, it’s not at any cost to them. It’s not any cost to any of our clients. That’s the way we operate here, a nonprofit law firm. You donate, therefore we have the funds to support taking these actions to court and on the media as well. We did our media counter campaign. Of course, that’s going to go to a certain point. But when it comes to actually protecting what the ACLJ is doing, maybe people need to understand not only where we are in this process, but what that looks like. What that looks like in terms of, hey, we need help. Get connected with a lawyer. The legal teams start working together. This is not a simple send a letter kind of moment. This has been over a year.
SPEAKER 01 :
Right. absolutely so again when you fill out a i need legal help you get contacted by an aclj attorney and i think the biggest thing is these organizations these pro-life organizations they don’t have a lot of money they can’t afford to hire a law firm that will literally take a case all the way to the united states supreme court if necessary so again that is where your donations come in that we can jump in and help these people and get in a federal district court and take this case all the way up to the supreme court and defend their rights that are protected by the first amendment of course we can’t do that without you i mean obviously we’re battling massachusetts but this is a 50 state fight and it centers there right now
SPEAKER 02 :
Like you said, on Friday, we filed that reply brief to help stop those attacks. Because if we don’t stop it there, again, like we said, it’s coming for your estate next. And look, even if we stop it, these have a lot of funding behind them. It’s going to be coming for your estate next. You’re going to want to make sure you have a counter group ready to go. Of course, the ACLJ has been that. for the better part of almost four decades now of course we’re celebrating 35 years of victory but even the foundations of the aclj were founded well before then 35 is a nice round number here in terms of when the term the american center for law and justice was starting to be used but my family’s been at this fight for way longer and right now We really want you to be a part of it. Every gift is doubled dollar for dollar. It’s crucial last days. Again, it’s the last days of our match here when you can have your donation doubled. That is at ACLJ.org slash victory or scan the QR code you see on the screen. I am happy to celebrate 35 years of victory, all the wins that we’ve had here. And of course we hope they keep going, but they can’t keep going without you. We’re waiting right now on a major ruling on defunding Planned Parenthood and our ad campaign, obviously defending life is in its final days. These fights are expensive. Just take those billboard spaces. Just have the airtime. Remember, you’re hearing us often because we’re paying to be on. Why? Because we don’t want to be controlled by corporate overlords. We don’t want to be controlled by some network. We are independently run media, independently run legal, and that doesn’t happen without you because we are supported by you, the listener, the supporter, the viewer, the champion, the person that gives on a monthly basis. So right now I need you to do that. We have 30 more minutes coming up. If you don’t get us on your local station, find us broadcasting live or archived on ACLJ.org or however you get your podcast.
SPEAKER 03 :
keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome to the second half hour of Sekulow. Will Haynes is joining me in studio. Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us a little bit later. CeCe Heil, senior attorney at the ACLJ, was just on. So if you didn’t catch that, you can go after the show and listen to her segment talking about our pro-life work and why it’s important, obviously, to stand up for the free speech rights of pro-life activists around the country. And we got a call coming in from April we’re going to take in Pennsylvania who’s watching on YouTube because the topic of the day is just before we went on air, President Trump signed an executive order essentially criminalizing more so with a direct one year in jail sentence. What he said, of course, there’s more nuance if you read it, for burning the American flag, desecrating the American flag. It’s been a point where, of course, do I think that burning the American flag is good? No. No. Do I think it’s disgusting? Yes, I do. Do I think it’s belittling and demeaning to our troops? Absolutely. Do I believe you should be sentenced to a year in jail over it? I do not. Now, do I think that there’s other things that usually come from that that could? Of course. But if we’re talking about specifically just that one instance, of course, we are talking about something that you start getting a very slippery slope. And that’s what April’s called about to April. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hi Logan. Thanks so much for all you guys too. Yeah, I was listening to the president’s executive order and I was frankly shocked, but I know it’s something that he’s really triggered about. Uh, but I think it’s actually, as you look at his strategic goal awareness about how, you know, how much conservatives were persecuted during the Biden era. And I think it’s to trigger the left, to get them to take it all the way to Supreme court, to set precedent. So that everyone’s protected with their free speech.
SPEAKER 04 :
I mean, it’s an interesting thought, April. I do think that this is something that President Trump has talked about for a long time. He doesn’t like seeing the American flag burned, nor do I, nor does Logan, as you’ve heard. It sounds like a kind of a brownie points check in a box. To some degree, it does. I think that if there were a case, obviously, that was brought solely based off of the burning of the American flag and no other criminal activity, I think that it would be hard for the DOJ to win that case. The attorney general also said in the Oval Office that it will not run afoul of the First Amendment in the way that they prosecute these. So, once again, none of these have been brought yet. Not really sure how. I think, as we’ve talked about, if you are doing other criminal activity, if you are purposely trying to incite a riot, it’s not just the burning of the American flag itself that should get you in trouble. And I think it is, to April’s point, so many people saw the recklessness of the way that the cities were overrun for years where there were takeovers, burning of businesses, and we didn’t see prosecutions from that. Those things should have been prosecuted because they were criminal in and of themselves. They were riots. They were arson. They were destruction of property, vandalism. And those things should be prosecuted. And they weren’t. So whether or not this is a refocusing saying, hey, when these things are happening, be looking for the underlying crimes that are also being committed. I can get behind that. Because people do need to be prosecuted when they’re burning down our cities. And we saw that that wasn’t happening. But it comes with that big caveat. If the only thing they’re going after is one individual that’s burning an American flag, then that shouldn’t be prosecuted.
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s a little too nuanced. It’s a little too specific. It’s not inciting a riot. It’s not causing this. It’s when you start talking specifically about one act. and what that act means. And that act is really just a protest speech. As much as I disagree with it, you can very much consider it. You could say, okay, well, you can’t fly the flag upside down. You can’t wear the flag on a t-shirt. There’s been a lot of people who disagree with that. And where’s the line? Okay, the line starts getting a little blurry on desecration. We only have about a minute left in this segment. When we get back, Rick Grinnell’s going to join us. That’s right. That’s right, but then we’re going to take calls. So if you’re on hold right now, Lynette, I know you’re an ACLJ champion, and Jim, you’re also an ACLJ champion, people that give on a monthly basis. Lynette, you’ll get the first job because Jim called in second, so that’s why he’ll get bumped up to the second in line. And then the others will get to you as well. And then two lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. What are we going to be talking about with Mr. Grinnell?
SPEAKER 04 :
We will be talking about, one, some flashback bites that he gave talking about John Bolton back in 2020 and how all of that relates to that FBI raid that we saw on Friday.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yep, that’s right. So we’re talking a little FBI raid action here with Rick Grinnell coming up in just a moment. But again, if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, great time to do it. ACLJ.org. Wrapping up our 35 years of victory. You can hear me stop talking about it here at the end of the month or just give right now and really that we’d appreciate it. We’ll be right back. To Sekulow, Rick Grinnell’s joining us right now. Some of the news that came over the weekend obviously had to do with John Bolton and some of the raids that were happening, the FBI raids. I saw a funny meme that said it was John Bolton. They got my seven herbs and spices. So, I mean, there are a lot of things that are going on right now. The KFC joke. Yeah, for those who don’t know. If you’re listening to this show and you don’t, then man, I don’t know who we’re talking to.
SPEAKER 04 :
We have more people that know who John Bolton is than know who the Colonel is.
SPEAKER 02 :
Colonel Sanders was a real man. I don’t know if people know this. I watch a lot of videos on the origins of Colonel Sanders. He was a Kentucky Colonel, Will.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. We know this.
SPEAKER 02 :
You know this. He wasn’t like a… In the military. Right. But you can get, it’s like being knighted in Kentucky, kind of, right? So it’s just sort of an honorary thing.
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s an honor from the governor.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think like Rick is honoring people at the Kennedy Center. I think Kiss are also Kentucky Colonels. I mean, if they’re not, they should be. I’m pretty sure Tommy Thayer replaced him.
SPEAKER 04 :
But they are in a different army, the Kiss Army.
SPEAKER 02 :
The Kiss Army. They run the Kiss Army. Back off where we’re going here. Let’s talk about John Bolton here. We’re talking about Bolton Will. I think he wanted to flash back here. Rick Grinnell, he’s been on the hunt here for the last number of years.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. Yeah. So we’re going to play a little flashback from about five years ago, Rick, when you were on CBS this morning with Catherine Herridge, who’s no longer at CBS. But let’s go ahead and roll this and see what you have to think about your statements back then.
SPEAKER 12 :
If John Bolton believed any of these issues that he’s bringing forward now, he should have brought those same concerns forward immediately. These are very big charges, and he didn’t bring those forward when he heard them. He didn’t stand up. He packaged them for a book that we know he got a huge advance on. I just find that to be suspect.
SPEAKER 01 :
So you’re saying Bolton, in your view, is not a man of principle?
SPEAKER 12 :
Now, what I’m saying is, is that John Bolton didn’t recognize that the president of the United States was the president and that it was his policies that John Bolton should have been supporting, not his own policies.
SPEAKER 04 :
Rick, what we’ve seen as this is unfolded is that a lot of the speculation is that this raid was related to that very book and some of the materials in there that you were referencing there. And this seems to be one of those cases where it was people that had been around a long time in Washington that believe that they are the smartest person in the room and are the real leader in of the administration’s policies instead of the person who is elected by the people. I just want to get your thoughts on that.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, you know, nothing drives me more crazy than these people who didn’t campaign in Iowa, didn’t campaign in New Hampshire, didn’t raise the, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars. Their name wasn’t on the poster, but somehow they think it’s their policy that they get to push through. And that was classic John Bolton is he didn’t really operate in trying to advise the president and then implement the president’s policies. He just was in the position of doing his own thing. And he got caught a million times doing it. Now, look, this book thing is a real problem because he took elements of the truth and then manipulated them and lied about them and released classified information in some sort of a campaign. To to prove it. And he took classified information. And so, you know, I know for sure that Kash Patel, who worked at the White House then, knew all of the details President Trump did. People were outraged at what John Bolton was just doing and and doing it with reckless abandonment. and and i just believe that no one is above the law we’ve had lots of people prosecuted for uh taking classified information who are presidents of the united states i.e donald trump when they have the ability to declassify the information so it’s not classified after the president declassifies something But John Bolton was never the president. He never had the ability to declassify anything. And so I like the fact that they’re going to hold people to account. They’re going to look at the facts. And regardless of who it is, we’ve got to enforce the law.
SPEAKER 02 :
think it’s okay to always look back and remind people of what’s actually going on because I think when the news broke that John Bolton’s home and offices were being raided, of course you start flashing back to when this happened to President Trump and you go, oh, I’m not sure how I feel about this. You kind of have that gut punch where you feel like when it’s the FBI feels to be working maybe a little bit politically, but you forget very easily, especially when it’s someone like John Bolton that’s not president of the United States, what the issues were. And like you said, what the actual problem was, what he did that would cause this to happen. Because I think a lot of people go, are we really dealing with this again? Are we going back to the world of raids? But this is different. Like you said, it’s not the president of the United States, and it’s somebody who was doing things nefariously that probably deserve it.
SPEAKER 12 :
Look, I would I would say it even a little more bluntly is that I think John Bolton got away with it because Biden came in and didn’t prosecute him for what we could clearly see was happening. And so now they’re going to get to the bottom of it. They’re going to take their time. They’re going to look at the evidence. They went to his house and got the information and didn’t arrest him. yet. Who knows if they’re going to. But at this point, they’re looking at the information and will follow the law.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, Enric, even to that point, even the judge in the case where they were trying to get an injunction against the release of that book was saying that he gambled with national security by writing this and that there was no real question about whether or not he had done things that could harm national security. Now, the First Amendment, which we’ve been talking about a lot today, the judge decided weighed more in favor of allowing the book to be published than the national security risk. But even there, the government showed clearly how what John Bolton had put forward was at issue. But I also want to bring up the fact, something you said just a few moments ago, was that he took elements of the truth, manipulated it, and then put forward his own narrative it seems like every one of these people that we’ve been hearing that was their playbook they took words and phrases that they could put forward and manipulated the truth uh to make something completely different john bolton did it james comey did it john brennan did it all of these people had the same playbook about how to go after the people they didn’t like. And yet the Democrats now are saying this is retribution. No, the retribution was coming from those individuals when they were weaponizing our secrets as a nation.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yeah, exactly. It’s such a great point. I put Adam Schiff in there as well. Right. But remember one thing is that Kash Patel, who’s now the FBI director, was inside the White House and he had a full security clearance. And he watched this manipulation. He watched the lies being told in John Bolton’s book, the classified information that was being released. And again, I think this was supposed to be taken care of by Bill Barr. But when you know the truth and you see the release of classified information and then it’s not being dealt with, I think you have a responsibility, Cash has a responsibility to follow through and to make sure that the consequences are a part of the decision-making process of John Bolton. Because At the end of the day, if you don’t have a system that is aggressively protecting classified information sources and methods, and it’s somehow allowed to get out there just simply because someone has the guts to do it at the end of an administration and thinks that they can get away with it, um in order to sell a book i i think it damages us all it makes the americans who live in this great country less safe because our classified information is being spilled out and so this is a protection of national security uh and again you know the phrase nobody is above the law is is really important
SPEAKER 02 :
Rick, thanks for joining us today. I think it’s always important to hear from you when it comes to these topics because we are able to get a little bit more nuanced into them. And look, we’re breaching a lot of topics today. A lot of you are just watching right now, and a lot of you maybe have never seen us before. We know about 50% of you who watch maybe on YouTube. This is the first time we’ve shown up in your algorithm. So first I want to say hello. Welcome. I’m Logan. That’s Will. Rick Rindell is joining us. And if you’re brand new, I’m not going to ask you to give and donate. I’m going to ask you just to simply subscribe. We do this show each and every day, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time. Work your way back from there. So subscribe if you can. Over 517,000 of you just on YouTube alone. Again, that is on YouTube. On a pretty mainstream platform, we’re able to get our voice out there much stronger than we would be on any other, even conservative platform. In fact, you have this. We do have a strong audience also on Rumble, who of course supports these shows. and on Facebook and all of our social media platforms. But really that YouTube channel is growing and growing and it’s a great way to reach new people. So I encourage you to hit that subscribe button if you’re brand new. If you’re not brand new and you’ve been loving what we’re doing, we are about to wrap up. And look, we won’t be back. There won’t be an opportunity to have your donation matched and doubled until closer to the end of the year, until Christmas time. So if you’re thinking about doing it right now, even if it’s just, I could give $10 right now. That’s great. $10 becomes $20. I know how helpful that is. Maybe you can give $50 because it’s $100. So on and so on. Maybe you got some lottery winnings. Maybe you’re like, hey, this is half a million. Let’s see what happens. It’ll become a million dollars. Your donations are doubled right now at ACLJ.org. If you’re going to do that, I encourage you to reach out to the ACLJ. We’ll make sure it works. I don’t know if you can just put that on a card. I think that could be a problem. But maybe it is. I don’t know. I wouldn’t know. Go to ACLJ.org. Scan the QR code if you can. Support our incredible work and the incredible people you’ve heard on here. We’re going to take your calls coming up. I know a lot of you got a lot of feelings on the flag burning. We got two lines open, though, right now at 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110. I want to hear from you. So many are watching right now. Help join us right now. ACLJ.org. Be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. I want to hear from you. And three champions have called in. Three of you who give every month, which is awesome. Two lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. I actually have to look and see what champion has been on hold the longest. Let’s go to Lynette first, who is calling. Lynette in New York. Thank you so much for your support. Go ahead.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thank you for taking my call. God bless you. I I’m wondering similar to what a previous caller mentioned, if there’s some other nuance to, uh, the executive order, uh, that. That is, uh, would be important to me. Mainly when I pledge allegiance to the flag, I’m pledging allegiance to the flag and the country to which, to which it stands when my, um, neighbors or others in the community who hate president Trump, see my flag. and decide that they’re going to come on my property and take my flag and do whatever they want with it or stay wherever they are out in the street and pelt my flag.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, Lynette, that’s stealing your property, by the way. That’s vandalism. And that is theft. The nuance there is that is someone robbing you of your property. So, of course, in going onto your property to do so, that is a different situation. I understand that a lot of these things are tied together that, oh, you wouldn’t have a flag unless you stole the flag. You wouldn’t burn the flag unless you didn’t care. That’s true. Is there nuances in this law like that? Kind of.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, and it’s an executive order as well, right? And to Lynette’s point, this is the under Section 2B. It says in cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency determines that an instance of American flag desecration may violate applicable. state or local law such as open burning restrictions disorderly conduct laws or destruction of property laws the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate state or local authority for potential action so once again that that in and of itself wouldn’t be the fact it could have been anything it could have been stole A package off your front porch from Amazon, you know, anything that would still not be legal. You couldn’t be like, I hate, you know, Amazon, so I’m going to go burn a package and make a demonstration. That’s still an illegal act. Now, if they’re purchasing their own American flag and burning it.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right.
SPEAKER 04 :
That would be a different issue there. But once again, that’s why it is tricky and nuanced. And also, the president said the one year straight to jail, that’s not in the executive order.
SPEAKER 02 :
So I think that’s what he wants, but I’m not even sure. He wants you to believe you’re on the streets trying to do this. So, Lynette, again, that’s in section, what section, Will? Section 2, part B. 2B. Everything else is in. Not 2B. Not 2B.
SPEAKER 07 :
all right let’s go to uh rulon who’s calling actually hold on you’re not an aclj champion unfortunately and we’ll get to you soon jim’s calling california you’re up next uh hi guys um i want to weigh in on it i as much as i hate seeing it like you guys do seeing the flag desecrate in any way shape or form if it were to it’s It needs to be still protected free speech because look at what’s going on in the UK. You speak or post negatively about Islam.
SPEAKER 02 :
Exactly, Jim. Of course, the UK, you know, a place that I love, I spend a lot of time in really well. I mean, a lot more time than a lot of people maybe know. Maybe I live there. I don’t actually live there now. And they’re twice in a year. I do love going and I love spending time there. But what you’re seeing on the streets there and what you’re seeing in these protests are, you’re right, not American free speech. You’re seeing what they’ve determined, their version of free speech, which is a lot more strict and a lot more governing, including things that sure are offensive. But when is offensive speech stop and inciting a riot begin? And then that’s where you’re right, Jim. It just makes me nervous that we’re going to head down a road that we’re going to set our own trap for.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, in one of the ironies of the American flag, the symbol that it stands for is that you can do things that are offensive. And so therefore, if you take away the First Amendment, then the flag no longer means what it means. And to Jim’s point, there are people in London now that are being told they have to take down their English flag, not the Union Jack, but just the white flag with the Red Cross, because it could be offensive to the immigrant communities. I could see I could foresee an American administration it’s just a flag of their country right because England is a country within the United Kingdom so imagine saying you can’t fly the Texas flag in Texas because it could offend some people
SPEAKER 02 :
Not this administration, obviously. And it will offend some people, by the way. Florida flag, Texas flag, Alabama flag, all these ones. Look, California may offend some others, too.
SPEAKER 04 :
When it swings back, as American politics does, you don’t want the next administration to do what England’s doing and say, you can’t fly that flag, which is the United States flag or your state flag, because it could offend. So that’s where you also have to be looking down the road.
SPEAKER 02 :
Be careful. You can’t be a dodo. Don’t be a dodo. Let’s go ahead and continue on. Let’s go to Dee, who’s calling in Colorado, another ACLJ champion. And then I promise, Rublon, we’re going to get to you. Dee, go ahead.
SPEAKER 10 :
Thank you. I think that, yes, burning the flag could be seen as free speech. However, so is calling fire in a theater. And I think they’re equivalent. And I also think about the one-year sentence. It should be a year and a day.
SPEAKER 02 :
Dee, I think that I understand the situation. I understand what President Trump is saying in this executive order saying, yes, likely if you’re burning a flag, you’re doing it to incite more violence inside a riot. I don’t disagree with that. So let’s get way more nuanced when we are actually putting together these executive orders. I don’t want it to become this generalization because the generalization is where my nerves get. And then when you start playing into their own playbook is my concern also, which is you start using rhetoric like this. uh you know president trump just said uh he made a statement that said you know some people say they want a dictator they’d like a dictator i’m no dictator but people say that then they just take out that first part of the quote and then all of a sudden you have an ad okay the rolling stone put out the first part they didn’t put out the second part you may say who reads that who sees that more people than you know and i just don’t want us to fall into any unnecessary traps uh rule on you’re gonna hold for an hour i can’t even believe it i’m so sorry in georgia go ahead How you doing? I’m great.
SPEAKER 06 :
Listen, um, I’m just looking at the first amendment and it says that you shouldn’t be abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, which is written speech. How is burning the flag speech? You can say, I hate the country. I hate what it stands for. That’s speech. But burning a flag has nothing to do with speech. It’s an overt act, meaning to disrespect and incite to violence.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, the First Amendment also doesn’t end just with speech and press. It talks about freedom of assembly, right, to petition for redress of grievances. Legislative freedom. Freedom of religion. It is very broad. The Supreme Court has decided some things that are symbolic are speech and things like that. So it is more nuanced on that when it comes to what is categorized as speech, too.
SPEAKER 02 :
Let’s get the word burning out of this and just say desecrating, destroying, stomping. Those are things that I think are wrong. But are not, should not be criminalized. And because, of course, you start saying flames, fire, that I understand. If you’re opening a flame in public, yeah, you probably should be at least arrested. Because that’s probably not something good. Depends on where you are. I mean, I go to like some shows, concerts, and soccer events. Well, there’s a lot of flares going off there.
SPEAKER 04 :
Not a lot of arrests there.
SPEAKER 02 :
But they’d fight the cops back, I’m pretty sure.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s not good either. A lot of hooligans there. That’s not good either.
SPEAKER 02 :
I’m not saying it’s good. I’m just saying it’s true. All right. 30 seconds left. I hope you had a good day today on Monday. We had a good show. Well, for hopping in here with a big 12 seconds to air, I think we did a good job. Yeah. I’d like to give you a cheers. Congratulations. Cheers to you as well. Yep. Yep. Hip, hip, hooray. With that, and Allie for telling us. There you go. And Allie for finding us. And for Patrick for distracting us. So with that, I want to say thank you. Support the work of the ACLJ when you can. Go to ACLJ.org. Help the last days of the drive right now. We’ll talk to you tomorrow.
