In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has sided with Texas on its controversial redistricting map. This decision opens the doors for creative redistricting in states like Texas and possibly California, raising questions about the balance of power and potential political gains. Join host Logan Sekulow as he breaks down this complex issue, featuring insights from experts on the impact of this ruling on future elections.
SPEAKER 02 :
we got breaking news a major ruling from the supreme court on the texas congressional map keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever this is seculo we want to hear from you share and post your comments for call 1-800-684-3110 And now your host, Logan Sekula.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome to Sekula. We’ve got some breaking news coming up. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. I want to hear from you. It’s Friday. We made it here to the end of the week. A lot of you are joining us online. We appreciate it. So we’ll give a few minutes for everyone to start making their way in online. But, Will, we do have a breaking news item we want to talk about. The Supreme Court has ruled that Texas, their redistricting, is now allowed.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right a district court had blocked this redistricting map.
SPEAKER 04 :
I had to ask you because of course we had California a few weeks ago and I’d said so is this a good thing?
SPEAKER 03 :
So tell us Will. That’s right you remember there was a big fight over Texas’s mid-cycle redistricting map that normally they do it along with the lines of the census when that comes out they do a new map every 10 years this would be mid-cycle so about five years after the last census Where they put forward a proposed map, it got through their legislature and signed by the governor. Remember those Democrats fled the state trying to stop there from being cloture so they could vote on this. It eventually passed and we have it now. Obviously, left group sued. This map would, in theory, could add as many as five seats to the House for Republicans based off the way the map is drawn. And the left sued. They got a district court to block the map. So effectively saying the old current congressional right now, the current congressional districts that exist before the next vote are the ones that will remain in place. Texas appealed. The appeals court agreed with the lower court, however. The Supreme Court put out an order because there was an emergency application for a stay on that injunction placed by the lower court. Basically asking the Supreme Court to stop the lower court from blocking their new map. And the Supreme Court… went forward and said, yes, that Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court committed at least two serious errors. First, the district court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith. by constructing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature. And second, the district court failed to draw a dispositive or nearly dispositive adverse inference against respondents, even though they did not produce a viable alternative map that met the state’s validly partisan goals. So the Supreme Court has granted this stay, meaning they are allowing the use of this map for now. The lawsuit still exists at the district court, but at this point, it does not appear there would be time for the appeals process to be exhausted or even the merits of this case to go forward before the midterms next year. This is effectively allowing Texas’s redistricting to go into effect and them to have elections in the midterms based off of that.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. If you have any questions or comments about this, look, I have some questions and comments I’m going to hit up Will, and Jordan’s going to be joining us in the next segment as well. So give us a call at 1-800-684-3110, because you may be confused. You may be hearing this going, I don’t know, should we be doing this? But it’s part of what the census is about, why the census exists.
SPEAKER 03 :
So it all makes sense as well. Well, exactly. But the part of the problem why Texas even had to do this is there were problems that they were fighting over their previous map, the map that was based off the census. So they said, OK, people are complaining. There’s that. We’re going to go ahead and draw a new map. They did that. And of course, the left is never going to be satisfied. But on the other side of the country, you also have California. that did that move, which is being sued by the Republicans out there. At this point, we will see, as Texas moves forward, will Californians be allowed to as well? We’ll get into all that, what it means for the midterms coming up with Jordan. But a big move by the Supreme Court here on Friday.
SPEAKER 04 :
And of course, it’s Friday. That means it’s the end of the first week of our year-end drive. We want you to be a part of it right now. We’re facing some of the biggest legal challenges and media challenges we’ve ever faced in our country. And really, during this month, it’s a critical month for you. We need your prayers and we need your support. Go to ACLJ.org right now. Remember, with just you, the average gift to ACLJ is under $50. But right now, if you give $25, it becomes $50. Give. Make a big impact right now. Your donations are doubled. Right now. That’s at ACLJ.org. You can also become an ACLJ champion, someone that gives on a monthly basis, and your first donation will be doubled as well. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Secular. I did want to give you an opportunity to kind of reset what we were talking about. Jordan just joined us. 1-800-684-3110 if you have a question or comment related to this. Because like I said, it becomes a bit complicated when you hear about, well, it’s the Texas Supreme Court. It’s the issue of districting. Of course, a few months ago, we had the issues in California and whether we were for that and against it. I think it gets a little blurry on to if this is a win or not. Who’s it a win for? But of course, we know The California one was a response to what was going on in Texas because they did not like that Texas was going to do this based on the census. But here we are now, the Supreme Court making a statement saying, yes, at least for now, they’re giving a green light.
SPEAKER 05 :
I mean, And that means through the midterm elections. If you really read through this, this is an injunction that stays in place through the appeal process all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case and ultimately issues a decision, that would be the end of the injunction. And if the Supreme Court does issue that, then that would, of course… They could go back, I guess, at that point, but this is a huge win for the redistricting, especially in these states that have come under scrutiny by the Supreme Court saying, no, listen, you look at this, you look at the census, this is not done in a racial way. I mean, that’s really what they look at is, are you trying to put all Democrats into one district based off racial backgrounds and then kind of have these districts that have enough Republicans in it? so that they can win how does this get to the supreme court of the united states like how does how do they end up being the ones making the decision on there’s federal laws on the books that protect against gerrymandering now that doesn’t mean that most of our electoral maps when you actually look at them are wild i mean we have them here in tennessee where they’ll kind of you know they can be skinny and long or very kind of like square like and take it i think the last special election like i
SPEAKER 04 :
like it looked like a river.
SPEAKER 05 :
Last special election here just this week had 14 counties in it starting in downtown Nashville in the city all the way to where there are farms.
SPEAKER 04 :
All of us in this room right now are in one of those counties but we’re not in those districts.
SPEAKER 03 :
Right. I moved several years back a few miles away, even same zip code and yet am no longer in the district that would have been in that special election. But Jordan, I wanted to read a couple of these pieces from this. It’s very short because this was just on granting an application for stay. And what we’ve got here is where the Supreme Court says, in some of this language, a lot of times these opinions or orders that are given by the court are very succinct and just say, after review, application for stay is granted by the Supreme Court. This says, based on our preliminary evaluation of this case, Texas satisfies traditional criteria for interim relief. It goes on to say that Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the district court committed at least two serious errors and then explains those errors. But it also says this, Texas has also made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it. This court has repeatedly emphasized, this is a quote from the RNC versus DNC opinion of the Supreme Court. This court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. It goes on to say, the district court violated that rule here. the district court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal state balance of elections. So what we see here is the Supreme Court in an order giving an explanation of why it’s granting the stay, but also naming errors that it sees by the district court. It doesn’t necessarily have to do that in this case.
SPEAKER 05 :
No, I think what they are saying, and we’ve seen this now in time and time again at the court as these cases have come forward, lower courts saying, no, you can’t do this because they’re kind of looking at the 1970s, post-civil rights movement. And this new court saying we are post-civil rights movement and we can’t keep asserting federal jurisdiction over how a state based off their census especially these growing states like Texas and others and that’s how it’s based on the census when you when you add districts so each 10 years you can either lose seats or gain seats and we’re going to start moving away from just saying looking at the the racial factor and then of course this is a job that is actually given to the states you know, in the Constitution. It’s not the federal government’s job to do it. It really was put in place to fix the harms and the wrongs that were done when America was still racially segregated, Jim Crow laws. The list goes on to make sure that you weren’t just shoving one group of people into a district and then even though they were a significant part of the state, and then they would have a diluted impact in the Congress.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, in Jordan, as a matter of fact, that’s what Elena Kagan, Justice Kagan, in a dissent tries to argue that this is and that’s what the lawsuit was about because it came from the League of United Latin American Citizens. They were trying to argue this is a race based map. And what the Supreme Court is saying, no, actually, it’s just a political map. It is partisan. It is aimed to give the Republicans an advantage because they are the party in charge. That’s always the case when a legislature sets a map. That’s why some states have tried to move to an independent body, trying to decipher it. Not like that has done much better in states like California. But… when you look at the what even Justice Alito who writes a concurring opinion says that the dissent doesn’t even dispute that this is a purely partisan map even though they’re trying to say we shouldn’t have granted this day but he goes on to say that it’s the burden of the petitioner the person who’s suing against the map to prove and untangle racial and political preferences And that’s what the left is trying to always say. If you do a map that favors the Republican Party, they always try to claim in their lawsuits that is a racist map. That is done for racial purposes. What the Supreme Court’s arguing here is that there’s nothing in the evidence that proves that this was drawn based off of race. It is drawn based off voting records and things of that nature that you can’t automatically assign racial bias based off of political bias. And that’s a very important distinction here of why the Supreme Court decided to grant this stay on the errors that it saw in the lower court’s decision of granting an injunction.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I mean, I think, again, this is a big deal because what it allows, then it opens the door for other red states to be more creative in the way that they’re putting together. And it doesn’t mean you’re going there to disenfranchise people intentionally. You can’t do that. But what you can do is say, look, we have a we have a really quickly developing state, especially in states that are adding. seats because like Texas is growing Florida’s growing Tennessee is growing so in census to census you’re going to have to add more add more congressional districts when you do that it’s not easy to do by the way you’ve got to then go back to the map and figure out okay how do we proportion like enough of this vote and how to make it look like the other districts that’s really what you’re trying to do as best as possible this state you know how do we make it look like kind of it where it matches and it makes sense represents the state Right, exactly. And so not just necessarily the one urban or three urban areas within that state, but also the suburbs that are providing the workers that go to those urban areas also should kind of a say because half of their life is spent there. And so that’s why you’ll have a district that starts out in a city and ends up in the suburbs or even past the suburbs because of the commuter kind of…
SPEAKER 04 :
new world that we’re living in post i say new world really with of course this is a post 1970 the last 50 60 years yes we are seeing a lot of comments come in and a lot of them are frankly confused i’ll be honest a lot of people are like this this feels like a mess guys what are you even talking about and look this is why we were able to break these down for you got to listen closely i understand um we will be talking about other topics today don’t worry this don’t go anywhere but i know that this is it should be considered a big deal
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and to your point, Logan, that’s even what Justice Alito and the court is saying. So don’t worry, it’s not just you. The court in the opinion says the district court violated an established rule of the Supreme Court by improperly inserting itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal state balance in elections. So the fact that the court even blocked the map that the Republicans had put in Texas forward for their congressional map caused this confusion. But I think it’s also a sign that probably, Jordan, the lawsuit in California will fail as well against California by putting it on their ballot and being able to get the approval of the people of California. There’s a good chance that if the Supreme Court is kind of hands off here, that they will most likely be hands off there as well.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yes, and I mean, I think that’s the proper role of the court in most places. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to like every decision because, remember, it impacts everyone, not just the red states. It used to be how the Civil Rights Act applied was to only a certain amount of states, and they had extra scrutiny in the southern states. Now that’s been broadened out, so they’ve always looked at this, but a big win for Texas, yeah, does it mean it’s likely a win for California? Sure, but then the balance of power isn’t totally upside down, if you know what I mean. So California may be changing, but Texas is adding five Republican seats likely, so California isn’t able to accomplish what they wanted to do, which was outperform Texas.
SPEAKER 04 :
When we get back, we’re going to keep this discussion going. We’re also going to talk, give you a big update on the work of the ACLJ, those pastors that were cited in Colorado for ministering in a public park. There’s an update on that. We’re going to give you that as well as so much more coming up on Secular. Of course, it’s an important time, end of our first week of our year-end drive. Year is almost over. We need your support. December is a very important month. Go to ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Seculo. Phone lines are open. I know a lot of you are confused about that topic. We will keep going. I know Jordan had one thing he wanted to kind of wrap it up with before we move on.
SPEAKER 05 :
These didn’t make it to the court previously up until 2013. So before 2013, there was a special rule in place. It was called Special Review within the Voting Rights Act. It was Voting Rights Act. It was Section 4B. You may have remembered all of the protests that came out about this. But it was Shelby County, which is Memphis versus Eric Holder, the Attorney General. This was the Obama administration. And it said that the formula used in Section 4B of the Voting Rights Act and this preclearance. So DOJ would preclear it before it would even go through legal challenges. So… That ultimately really put a kind of bizarre situation for those states that had to abide by that. That’s been done away with. Now, it’s not like this Section 5 doesn’t exist. It still means that you can’t do this by race. And so that’s why you have the court challenges. What they’re saying is, and why we didn’t see as many court cases was because the DOJ was saying back to the states, no, go back and redraw. Now you have to go through the legal process, the full legal process.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah. Here’s what I want to say, and I think it’s important. The work of the ACLJ is broad, and the work of this broadcast is very broad. You’re not going to hear about this on a lot of mainstream news, not because it’s not a big story. Because you can’t answer it in two minutes. Right. They can’t break it down. You don’t have the right people on some of these shows to be able to really explain what this is. I understand it’s very complicated. I’m with you. I’m asking those questions as well. But this is why it’s important to have independent broadcasts like ours, because it’s not like this is any less important breaking news than a lot of the items you see online. on television or that you see on other broadcasts. It’s just one that’s a bit headier and takes a little bit more time to think about. Thankfully, we have a little bit more time here. We have a little bit more time on this one-hour broadcast that we do each and every day. And of course, if we wanted to extend and go longer, we can because of all of the digital platforms we’re on. So I want to say thank you. When you’re supporting the work of the ACLJ, I understand you’re also doing that, which is getting yourself educated or getting others educated on these really important in-depth discussion points but of course on the other hand we got to talk about some of the work that we’re doing right now because it is our year-end drive it is the year-end but there’s still the work doesn’t shut down you may remember a situation when you had a public park church was there there were ministers there pastors and of course they got criminally cited and there is an update now on that well
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s right. So if you remember, we talked about these churches in Colorado that would meet at this public park in a public pavilion and use it for ministry on a regular basis. They would provide food to the hungry. They would have worship services. And that not only did the city enact a resolution that tried to shut it down, specifically targeting the churches through this resolution, but also… criminally cited three pastors of these local churches in violation of this resolution. So one thing we’ve been talking about is our lawsuit against the city fighting back against their ordinance that they put in place. But as I mentioned many times, how busy our attorneys are at the end of the year, it always seems like December and January are some of the busiest months for the legal team. they will be representing these three pastors in court in their criminal cases for these criminal citations on December 18th. So while everyone else is starting to, you know, just prepare for the end of the year, looking forward to the first quarter when things maybe pick up for a lot of businesses, the ACLJ attorneys are going to be in court just days before Christmas for fighting to protect and defend these pastors that were just doing ministry, providing services to the poor and the needy and showing the light of God at a time when a lot of people need that. They were cited criminally. And so the ACLJ not only has to fight against the ordinance, but also defend them in these cases. And Logan, one of the pastors wasn’t even participating at the time, but because he was a part of the group and known, they cited him as well. So Jordan, once again, these are the type of things that we have to fight. And it’s not always just a civil case where we’re saying you’re violating the Constitution. Many times we also have to be the defense attorneys. Not just the ones suing, but the ones defending clients in court because the heavy hand of government came down against them in their violation of their constitutional rights.
SPEAKER 05 :
And when you start getting towards criminal violations of preaching in a public park, And by the way, they were also doing distribution. They were doing a lot of things to help the community. Right. I mean, most of what they were doing is actually helping the poor, which is what we’re called to do as Christians. And by the way, our government, including local governments, always encourage nonprofits to do that.
SPEAKER 04 :
And of course, happening during a time where there was a lot of food issues. Yes. When their government shutdown happened, of course, we ended a lot. There was temporary holds on a lot of food stamp programs. And they’re out there distributing food.
SPEAKER 05 :
They’re getting punished criminally for giving away free food to those in need. The hungry children, those who are waiting for their benefits to kick back in. And not only they get some, hey, you got to get a permit for this. It’s too many people coming. No, criminal charges are coming up against you. And this is when a discrimination based off religious grounds in the United States starts getting closer. to persecution. Now, it’s not there yet, but it gets closer because when you start criminally charging people, that comes with a kind of stigma that follows you if you’re convicted for the rest of your life. And the other point of this, Jordan, is many times when they enact these type of things… Could you imagine having this criminal conviction you have to explain and you go to maybe a new employer who sees it and somebody had to disclose, why did you get this? I was feeding the poor in a public park. I don’t even know if they’ll, they’re going to say, what? And they’re going to have to make you produce all these dollars.
SPEAKER 03 :
They may think that you’re lying about what you were doing.
SPEAKER 04 :
I had to do that once, a side note, when I opened, I was applying for a mortgage and I, there’s a church that I supported in Las Vegas. My good friend Vince was the pastor of, but it didn’t say, it just said the name Verve, which was the name of the church. They thought I was paying off a gambling debt because I was tithing there every week. And they’re like, there’s something in Las Vegas we have a concern about. And I had to show that it was a church and prove it was a church. It was pretty fun. That just made me think of that.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s fun. A criminal citation. It wasn’t fun, by the way.
SPEAKER 05 :
It wasn’t fun then either. You get those letters from the IRS asking any questions. You’re like, uh-oh.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, it wasn’t fun then either, but I’m just saying that a lot of that kind of stuff happened. When you have a criminal issue, and right now the ACLJ team is out there, when are they going to be there, Will?
SPEAKER 03 :
It’ll be December 18th. So pray for them as well. As everyone’s preparing for Christmas, they are also preparing for a hearing in court for these three pastors, which I assume the pastors would probably be focused more on Christmas services than a court date that they’ll be having to appear before. I would still love to be
SPEAKER 05 :
assisting those in with food needs uh leading up to the holidays what you hope is you get to a judge someone who says this is insane but that doesn’t always happen no it doesn’t always happen and that’s why it doesn’t happen yeah i mean listen we’re in court uh and i would i almost hope i mean there’s gonna be a hearing on this They didn’t dismiss it. So the judge is saying, I need to hear both sides here. Now, in America, in the United States, there are crowd issues. There’s time, place, and manner restrictions. But public parks, and you’re there because you’re able to use them. They’re for the public. And you might have more people show up sometimes than other times. And so for these food distribution drives more lately, where people have had tough times because the programs and things like that, the shutdowns, and just overall, there’s always those in need. And the church is doing its job as they’re commanded to do it in their scripture. And they get criminal citations.
SPEAKER 04 :
Remember, the ACLJ is there at no cost to these pastors. And that’s because people like you support the work of the ACLJ financially. And we are at… Come close to the end of our drive. This is their year-end Freedom Drive. Donations are doubled right now. Of course, we’ve got a few weeks left in December, but do it today. Be a part of this team. You know that there’s a big moment right now happening. They need your support. Go to ACLJ.org. Have your gifts doubled today. They’re tax-deductible. Of course, we have a second half hour coming up. You don’t get us on your local station. Find us wherever you get your podcasts. We’ll be right back.
SPEAKER 02 :
keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome back to Sekulow, second half hour of the show coming up right now. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. We spent a good 20 minutes explaining that breaking news item early on in the show with the Supreme Court signing with the Texas GOP and obviously the redistricting of Texas And that was opened up a huge can of worms. There was a lot of questions that were being asked. A lot of people in the chat going, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. We spent a good 25 minutes or so talking about it. So I’m gonna encourage you if you want to know that, maybe go back to watch that. But there is a question coming in from phones and maybe we could take that as well. Now let’s go ahead and do that. Martin in North Carolina. If you want to call in also, by the way, 1-800-684-3110. I’d love to hear from you. We got a half hour to fill. It’s a Friday. Let’s get some phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. Martin, go ahead. Thank you, sir.
SPEAKER 07 :
Appreciate all that you’re doing. Um, I’m trying to form this question correctly. If I understand Texas was done because of inadequacies in a previous census that needed to be corrected. Gavin Newsom did this out of political gain, uh, for Prop 50 out of political gain and bias. Is this going to, or how can it even benefit? Prop 50, because that was done for a totally different reason as compared to Texas. I can’t see it helping him at all, maybe hurting him.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I think, Martin, one, the ruling doesn’t deal with, and one, this is just a granting of a stay. So it doesn’t really get into the reasoning behind why they redistrict at all, other than saying the lower court made assumptions in granting their injunction, which blocked the law, which blocked the new congressional map. They came up with reasons that weren’t necessarily borne out and that Texas is likely on the merits to succeed in retaining their map. So the Supreme Court doesn’t go that far. But if anything, Jordan, the way I read their granting of the stay, so the Supreme Court allowing Texas to move forward, They’re giving a lot of leeway to the states when it comes to this, especially when we are in the middle of a lot of primaries being announced. People actually running for these seats that I think that if anything, it could actually help California retain their map on Prop 50 based off the way I’m reading it.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I mean, listen, every state’s… can come under legal review. Like I said, there’s this preclearance has been done away with for some states. In California, that wouldn’t have applied to California anyways. But you could still file lawsuits. And like the court said here… this is we don’t have enough information yet this is this is again kind of a rush to judgment it causes electoral confusion so we’re going to put an injunction in place until this makes its way through the entire legal process not just letting a district court decide for an entire state that they have to go back and to their last the last districts that they had drafted I think that was four or five years ago Does that mean that California gets a free pass? No. Does it mean that the courts are taking a little bit more of a hands-off approach to states? Yes, and as conservatives, you look at the 10th Amendment, and you see that states do have rights, and one of those rights is to try and make sure that their citizens are represented correctly in the federal government by especially in the house of representatives where you have the closest relationship with the voter to the elected official every two years they live in the communities and so the court’s saying states know better than that usually and we will still look at the most egregious
SPEAKER 04 :
abuses and egregious abuses i think could still be struck down by the supreme court but you hear the word there egregious not like well they could have done this a little better or a little better here and that’s how it used to be and we get back we’re going to continue this discussion as well as some updates on the fbi obviously we know yesterday had the big arrest we’ll talk about what that looks like now any updates that are coming from there and of course we’re going to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110 as we head in to the end of this first week of our year-end drive. I want to say thank you, but I also want to encourage you. We need your prayers, and we need your support. You heard about the pastors that are being arrested. You hear about all these issues that we’re involved in. And remember, the ACLJ is not backed by just major donors. The majority of people give somewhere between $25 and $75. So you can do that. Be a part of that team right now at ACLJ.org and have your gifts doubled. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to Secular. We still got some time for you to call in at 1-800-684-3110. We do have a bit more information. After yesterday, obviously that arrest happened, and when we went off the air, there was a press conference by Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, and they all kind of gave an update of what happened with that five-year, what they said was a cold case for five years. Now, we don’t have a ton of information on really who was involved, what were they taking off of, were people actually still working on this for five years, what happened here. But it did make some clarification, as we said, just about 30 miles away, you had this alleged bomber who tried to detonate bombs both at the RNC and DNC on the night of January 5th into January 6th, 2021. This was finally ended with an arrest and a raid.
SPEAKER 03 :
And we have some updates. That’s right so we talked about yesterday we knew that this was a 30 year old individual from Virginia and then throughout the day we got that press conference as well as we got the affidavit in support of criminal complaint from the FBI so this is the document submitted to the court with the charging document that goes through the allegations for probable cause for this arrest and it’s it’s fascinating because it goes through it talks about the cell phone data it talks about the license plate of this individual that was picked up around there and they were able to do all this work but here’s what is so fascinating because logan we talked about yesterday and we asked the audience if they had more faith in the fbi and i think one thing that is clear The FBI now is doing police work. The FBI under the Biden administration was not. How do I know this? Because they said they didn’t have to go out and get any new evidence. Everything that was collected in the immediate wake of this uh this crime this attempted bombing at both the RNC and the DNC was collected by the FBI and investigators right in the aftermath of that and then what did the Biden FBI do they turned their attention to people who had been on the mall or in front of the Capitol and went after and used cell phone data and went all across this country going after people that may have just been in the vicinity. But this is a bomber that they had all that same type information and did nothing with until Kash Patel and Dan Bongino got the investigators together, Jordan, looked at the data and were able to go get him.
SPEAKER 05 :
Did you know one of the giveaways he had a special edition pair of Nikes on that were only made in a limited number. Right. So they could literally figure out, okay, where did these limited number of Nikes go? And that was on the video. That was on the… By the way.
SPEAKER 04 :
Sneaker collector. That was on the video.
SPEAKER 05 :
Don’t do crime in limited edition sneakers. Yeah, I mean, it kind of tells you that, but this, again… that that evidence was sitting there. And if they would have looked at those shoes more closely and said, is there anything unique about what he was wearing that would then take this to a smaller group of people who have this limited edition shoe? And then you’re not looking for everybody that could possibly get to D.C., which is the entire country, in this manner and do something like this. And they just let it sit there. especially maybe because these younger FBI guys actually say like some younger group of people said wait a second I know that shoe yeah if you’ve got a pair of Nikes okay what kind of Nikes are they is there any special colorway there is there any special oh yes there is these were limited edition cuts down the amount of people you’re looking for.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think that we should hear from the director of the FBI, Kash Patel, because he’d been taking heat from even, like, conservatives about things like this. Like, where’s the results on these issues? This is bite nine from Director Patel on with Fox News. This is later in the day after the press conference. But it’s fascinating when he shows how simple it was to get this person after they actually paid attention to it. Bite nine.
SPEAKER 01 :
Here’s what we did. We went out to the country, brought in our experts, and Deputy Director Bongino led the charge and said, we are going to look at every single piece of evidence again. Trace, we looked at three million lines of evidence. We went back and looked at the cell phone tower data dumps. we went back and looked at the providers and what information they provided pursuant to search warrants at the time and asked questions such as why weren’t all the phone numbers scrubbed and why weren’t they connected and why wasn’t there any geolocational data done? Now that is either sheer incompetence or complete intentional negligence and neither of which is acceptable for this FBI.
SPEAKER 03 :
So either sheer incompetence or complete intentional negligence from the FBI under the Biden administration.
SPEAKER 05 :
Here’s where I lean towards incompetence and negligence both combined is because it appears that his, and these are sources now, so it’s not 100%, but that this is someone who thought the 2020 election was stolen. So if you were the Biden administration, you would think you’d want to find that person to show, see, that more of these insurrectionists, these violent people that are supporting MAGA. And instead, they were so incompetent because of doing their job that even one that might have… like you said fit their narrative yeah and by the way reverse that the Trump administration comes in they could have just let this sit just like the Biden administration did talking about this and guess what they didn’t and it didn’t matter to them ultimately what the motives were for this person they placed very dangerous devices near the U.S. Capitol the RNC and DNC that if they weren’t detected earlier or didn’t malfunction could have injured and killed many people and it didn’t matter what their political motivations may have been and Jordan I think to that point as well they tell us that this DOJ is all about just going after the left and going after democrats obviously not the case and they did this quietly and I also like the fact that they don’t raid houses until they’re certain
SPEAKER 03 :
And once again, the previous FBI could have been certain. They could have gone through all this. And that’s what you saw yesterday.
SPEAKER 05 :
They were spending their time on Donald Trump and those closely associated to him only.
SPEAKER 03 :
You saw the Attorney General. You saw now, we call her Judge Jeanine, but you know, U.S. Attorney Judge Jeanine.
SPEAKER 04 :
They still do. They still call her Judge Sinead. They did yesterday in the press conference. It feels a little demeaning.
SPEAKER 05 :
I know it’s technically… It’s one of those tough terms when people have those positions.
SPEAKER 04 :
It just feels like her brand name, not her… At this point, let’s… But even…
SPEAKER 03 :
You know, the deputy director of the FBI as well. They all got up there and were able to show the work of the FBI. And it just reminds you of what we had to fight in the FBI under the previous administration, whether it be our clients at the ACLJ, Marcus Allen and Gerardo Boyle that were. persecuted by the fbi they were not allowed to go get another job to feed their family but they were not getting paid they were put in this purgatory in the government where they couldn’t provide for their families all because they were whistleblowers they were being retaliated against and we know they went after pro-life protesters they went after parents of school board meetings they went after catholic churches finally the fbi appears to be doing their job
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, and I like this statement as well. This was from Patel. He said, we can arrest anyone we want. And we saw that a lot under the Biden administration. But we worked with our partners at the DOJ, the Attorney General, and the U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, to leverage countless subpoenas and legal processes before we ever decided to hit the House. like we did this morning and they hit the suspect’s place of business and that is the right way of doing law enforcement instead of hitting the house and hitting the place of business when you’re not confident 100% that this is or even 90% confident that this is the person who carried out the attacks we saw home raids being used for political purposes for charges that were not even close to anything like placing bombs around Washington, D.C. during a presidential inauguration.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, we should have a call about that, but I think let’s hold that until the next segment. So Bill, stay on hold. I’m going to get you in the next segment because I think a lot of people feel that way, and I see that in the comments as well. If you want to call in, by the way, we are going to take a lot of calls in the next segment. We actually do a few lines open, so it’s a perfect time to call in to help us wrap up the week. If you’re one of those people that supported the work of the ACLJ this week during our year-end drive, maybe you’re on Giving Tuesday, maybe you supported our work, I want to say thank you again, but of course… The year-end drive is still happening right now. We want to break some records here. This is a big month. November was a big month for us. November, December, always the two biggest fundraising months for any organization. But of course, it is also because our work really starts to heat up, it feels like, in these months. It feels like a lot of new cases come in. Our media work expands. We start planning for next year, what’s going to look like in terms of the broadcast, where we’re going to be, what new platform can we be on, whether that is obviously on YouTube or whether that’s YouTube or Rumble, but then obviously we’re also on the Salem News Channel or on your terrestrial radio stations or on SiriusXM. All of that costs something to produce. Understand that it’s not just us sitting in a room. There’s amazing hundreds of people that work on this each and every day. Be a part of that team too. You can do that by going to ACLJ.org and having your donation doubled today because we have an incredible group of ACLJ supporters and champions ready to unlock pledges, I believe up to a million dollars. So whether that’s $20 becomes $40, $100 becomes $200, and of course, you can max this out today, Will. If you want to give $500,000, we’ll figure out another match. So you know what? We’ll take it. We’re happy to have it. Most people know support. on that $25, $50, $75 level. We encourage you to do that. Don’t think that’s too little. It goes a long way right now. We’re not funded by major sponsors. If you hear sponsors on your local radio station, that doesn’t go to us. That goes to the network. It goes to the station. If you see a YouTube ad, know that that does go to us, but it is such a small amount of money. It doesn’t even pay for a salary, I’ll be honest, of one of our top crew members here at the ACLJ in terms of what that actually ends up being to us. But join the over half a million people that are also on our YouTube channel. We’re trying to break some records there, too, and hit 550,000. We’re going to come up and take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Make your donation if you can right now, and we’ll be right back. Welcome back to Secular. Phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110. I’m doing this for you guys. I said I would do it for a few of you because someone gave just yesterday $100 and then someone gave a $20 monthly, became a champion, $25 a month. I can’t believe it. a couple different you, and I see you in the chats today. I wasn’t sure if I was going to be able to do it, if I was going to go full sunglasses today for those watching. It’s very difficult, by the way. I can’t see anything, so I have no idea what the screen’s in front of me. If we want to take a phone call, we can. I don’t know who it is. I’m going to guess Bill in Wyoming.
SPEAKER 03 :
It is. It’s Bill in Wyoming on line one. Good guess, Logan. Bill, you’re on Sekulow.
SPEAKER 06 :
I agree. I’m glad to be talking to you because this is what really gets me. This was an attack on both. I emphasize both the RNC and DNC. Nothing was done in comparison to last year. I mean, last administration where apparently the FBI had agents that were too scared to go out in the dark to look for who was firebombing these crisis pregnancy centers. Right. Really gets me.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, I mean, Bill, we saw a lot of violence that unfolded under the Biden years in the Biden agencies that are supposed to investigate this type of stuff. We had assassination attempts on the president, the now president of the United States, but the candidate for president in this last election cycle. The lawlessness that was able to bubble up under the policies of the Biden administration were shocking they allowed things to happen like this because their policies weren’t on fighting crime Jordan they were on political narratives and political attacks on their enemies not keeping the American people safe.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, that’s right. You know, fentanyl crisis was booming and that was because the open borders, it was so easy for the traffickers to move this dangerous fentanyl across. And now we know that those numbers are down because it’s more difficult to get the drugs in. Will drugs always get in? Yes, they will always try their best to get drugs in because such a lucrative business. But there are simple things you can do. to really put barriers in place for those that’s not what the Biden administration focused on they focused on traditional Catholics they focused on these pro-life pregnancy centers they focused on conservative political speech they focused on January 6th and kind of blowing that out of proportion all those hearings after hearing after hearing and court dates and all of this again not doing their traditional job as a law enforcement agency to protect the people of the United States.
SPEAKER 04 :
And think about how big this is. I think when you bring up the fentanyl situation, it was like the number one story for years. And now it feels like no one talks about it. You never hear about it. It has gone away. The numbers, it’s still there, but the numbers have dropped significantly, but you’re seeing it a lot less. What I don’t want… is again the president and the administration and whoever’s gonna be running next time to forget about this. And that this has happened, that they’ve had a success in one of the things that was destroying America. Now obviously like you said, it still exists, it’s always gonna exist some sense, but even from a news cycle point of view, it’s a lot less.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and to that point as well, I was talking with a friend a few weeks ago that is on drug task force, high up in law enforcement in a state out west. And they help coordinate with all the other state agencies as well as local police departments on drug task force, SWAT operations and things of that nature. They have big cartel and gang problems in this state. And one thing that he told me was that they are actually seeing a response to the crackdown on migration and the border and all of these issues. The cartels are not sending as much fentanyl. They are still sending drugs to this country. But one problem they’re not having is overrun morgues and overdose deaths that were happening constantly. daily they were responding to, those numbers have dramatically decreased because the cartel’s business model is shifting. Not that you want them still getting illicit drugs into the country, but the lives of Americans are not being ended at the rate that we were seeing over the past few years because of the policies of the administration to crack down on what is one of the biggest killers in America.
SPEAKER 05 :
I think it just shows you how in just such a short period of time you know less than a year that you can you can get a crisis partially under control because you know a lot of the product was already in the united states and that’s still here being utilized but over time that’s going to dwindle and as you said well when these drug cartels find out okay this is where they’re going to really focus in on and like we’ve seen with the boats in the caribbean things like that um they say okay um We’re going to shift our business model to take the attention away from us. Is that good that they’re still going to be able to try to get drugs in? No. But is it better than fentanyl, which was just killing mass amounts of people even when they didn’t even know if fentanyl was any product? Yes. And so I think that what you have to look at here is long term, like when you write the history of the Trump administration, the issues that we were dealing with inside the United States that were so broad. I mean, the fentanyl issue went from cities to rural areas, from the rich to the poor. It was everywhere. It was all we were talking about. People were dying all over and the fact is it’s still a problem but now it becomes a problem you can actually start dealing with those who need programs so that they’re no longer need to use fentanyl to basically stay alive and instead of spending all of your time trying to track down the fentanyl once it’s already crossed the border because you weren’t securing the border.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, absolutely. And I think that is a big story. And I want it to be one that they continue to remember. I think that with conservatives in general, not just Trump administration, the victories become less and less prominent. That’s like what happened in the Middle East. And then, of course, we see the Middle East bubble up during the Biden administration. We got to go back and fix it and have the whole issue again. It’s easy when you get to the midterms to start. not resting on your laurels. They continue to go, okay, well, here’s the next thing we got to fight, which I agree with. You got to always be looking at what the next thing is, but you can’t forget the American people have short attention spans. And even the words fentanyl crisis are not even in the news.
SPEAKER 03 :
Well, and there was a video that started circulating yesterday online that was so crazy. that our entire team thought it was an AI video. It was of Joe Biden as a senator in 1989 giving a televised speech on the drug crisis, responding to President H.W. Bush saying he wasn’t doing enough. And you know what he called the cartels and the state actors in Central America and South America? Narco-terrorists. That was a red flag to us thinking, this has to be AI. There’s no way Joe Biden said, you know what president bush you know what you’re not doing hitting the narco-terrorist hard enough because this is an attack on our national sovereignty it can kill our citizens you need to use precision strikes to take them out that is what joe biden called for in 1989 now they are planning an impeachment of donald trump based off of the words of joe biden in 1989 we looked it up verified speech well
SPEAKER 04 :
word for word the president trump just received the fifa peace prize so i mean how are you gonna how are you gonna go after uh you can’t impeach somebody who’s just won a peace prize well so i mean it’s a it’s a big moment look i’m excited actually we’re gonna watch the world cup uh see where things get drawn up today it’s good it’s a very unique world cup too because it’s in it’s the united states kind of the base north america they’re also playing in the in the in canada and mexico i mean i think again
SPEAKER 05 :
That leads to the Peace Prize is that we can have these differences between our countries and disputes between our political leaders. And at the same time, you know, sports can bring people together.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, absolutely. I’m excited about it. I can’t wait. We’re going to definitely be attending this summer with my family. So I’m pumped about that. With that, though, that’s going to do it for our week. I’m encouraging you to support the work of the ACLJ if you can right now. I’m just going to leave that QR code up for the next 30 seconds. No reason not to. You see it, scan it. Go to ACLJ.org. Your donations are doubled. Remember, we’re not backed by just giant donors who come in. The average gift to the ACLJ is under $50. So when you give $25, even $5, that gift makes a huge impact. And right now, the impact of your gift is doubled through our year-end Freedom Drive. Have your gifts doubled today. Of course, tax deductible at ACLJ.org. Go through a whole list of what we’ve been working on. You just had a week of that. So I’m just encouraging you to pray about it, think about it. And if you can, over the weekend or right now, go to ACLJ.org.
