KLZ 560 AM DENVER'S CONSERVATIVE HOME STATION
Menu
Join us for an insightful episode as we discuss critical changes in immigration policy, highlighted by President Trump’s recent announcement to send 10,000 additional troops to the southern border. This episode explores the Trump administration’s response to the immigration crisis and details the collaborative efforts with ICE and the National Guard. We also cover legal battles backed by organizations such as the ACLJ, pushing against pushbacks from groups like the ACLU. Our conversation navigates through the complex legal challenges against the backdrop of rapidly changing administration dynamics. We invite listeners to join in the conversation and share their views
SPEAKER 02 :
Breaking news today on Sekulow is Trump to deploy 10,000 troops to the border.
SPEAKER 04 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, folks, so you heard it in the alert. As you heard yesterday on the broadcast, we talked about an additional 1,500 troops being sent to the border to help 2,200 that are already there from National Guard. And President Trump has now announced through the administration that we are looking at putting in an additional 10,000 U.S. troops. Now we don’t know if that’s 10,000 plus those 1,500 that were announced or in addition to those 1,500 but you’re looking at a significant increase going from about 2,200 to what we know is it definitely over 12,000 somewhere around there and it could be closer to 13,500 troops to again work with ICE and Customs and Border Enforcement on the areas where you’ve got the most illegal immigration going on to make sure that we are able to secure our border and again this is something that the president has the power to do the resource wise different than trying to go for the wall or changing immigration laws or changing definitions that might come under your legal attack here as a commander in chief if you believe that there’s an emergency at the border and of course we’ve talked about that the remember the Biden administration never wanted to admit that that this was actually a crisis though they had a crisis team inside the department of homeland security We’re just getting the teams, you know, ramped up. So a lot of this is coming out directly from White House or from sources because we don’t have, you know, Kristi Noem is not yet the secretary. It could happen soon. Same thing goes with Hegseth at DOD. But you’ve got to get people in there. But right now, these are the… plans that the Trump administration has to start dealing with the problem. It’s not the only way they want to deal with the problem, but these are the ways what you can do quickly as president that changes the kind of the scenario at the border immediately. I mean, just with these 10,000 additional troops, you think about the amount of border crossers that will be apprehended, but also the the cartels are going to have a tougher time selling the idea of illegally crossing the U.S. border and then having people give them their entire life savings and basically be trafficked by these cartels or indebted to them as slaves when they get to the U.S. or they are also being used as drug mules, bringing in the fentanyl that’s killing Americans. They have to think twice now because… it’s not just you might run into some pushback or maybe it’s a 25% chance that it doesn’t work this again when you put these kind of troops in the areas they need to be and border patrol knows this and the people on the border ICE knows this as well but they’re going to get pushback we’re already seeing Will to the ACLU trying to get pushback on deportations and saying that this is the people in the U.S. who don’t have any documentation that they are here legally or that they are even here awaiting trials or awaiting asylum hearings they have nothing no paperwork for at least two years and the ACLU is saying no you can’t just deport them they have to go through the entire legal process and what we know is that if you go through our entire legal process with the backlog that we have in the immigration courts which we haven’t really even gotten to that problem yet but You’re talking about people… You’re never going to deport these people. Well, that’s the truth. Unless you’d have to double or triple the courts, which then you’d be spending there… And just to handle who’s already here, if you have to then fight each one of those as a separate legal case. We’re going to take your calls, 1-800-684-3110. But see, this is why the work of the ACLJ is so important right away. You get the policy announced. We know what the Trump administration wants to do on the key issues that got President Trump back to the White House. Now we have to figure, okay, where will be the legal battles? Which battles can we win quickly? Which battles are going to be more legislative? Which battles are kind of left versus right? All of that work goes into now making sure we get the ideas actually put into place or else they’re just ideas. Support the work of the ACLJ as we begin those battles. Donate today at ACLJ.org or become an ACLJ champion, a monthly donor. All right welcome back to Sekulow we are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110 that’s 1-800-684-3110 so as you heard of the news I mean the the 1500 troops were given 24 hours to deploy these additional troops to the border then additional 10 000 troops and all sorts of different kinds so you’ve got intelligence troops uh just to figure out you know where the people are coming across what the cartels are doing it is a massive change in policy on the southern border. Is it everything? No. Is it a huge start though in changing the security of the American people all over the country? Absolutely, because you have to do these things at the same time. You can’t just go and focus on who’s here illegally now and let that continue to happen, right? So if everybody, if you deport one person, four more people come in illegally that day, you’re not really changing the numbers at all. So you’ve got to do both. It’s a big… crisis that this administration isn’t afraid to treat as an emergency in fact well that’s how the president was able is able to send the troops he had to declare it was an emergency the Biden administration they that it was not in their political interest I guess even though that they the American people understood what was happening across the country not just in border states but they wouldn’t do it and so they didn’t give themselves the authority to put more security on the border and that’s because they’ve got leftists on on that we’re pushing these basically open border don’t enforce the laws that we already have and of course don’t declare it an emergency because that means you’d actually be sending troops down who would stop people coming in illegally
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, and we were gaslighted by the administration for four years saying that it wasn’t a crisis, there wasn’t an invasion, that the border was secure. When in reality, what you’ve seen since Monday, when you not just look at the border and these steps that he’s taking to secure the border itself, the physical border, but Bill Malusian at Fox News put out last night that they’ve embedded with an ICE unit in Boston. So Northeast America, not anywhere close to the southern border. And they, just in the time they were reporting with them, witnessed eight arrests, including multiple MS-13 members, Interpol red notices, murder suspects and a volatile Haitian gang member with 18 convictions in recent years in the United States. And he yelled at the cameras, he ain’t going back to Haiti, an expletive about Trump and Biden forever. They also witnessed what they called collateral arrests that weren’t their target arrests of knowing where the violent criminals were, but people that were with the gang members that also were undocumented. So here’s what it really shows me. One about we knew that we were gaslighted by the Biden administration, but it wasn’t just that they were incompetent and wouldn’t do their job. The fact that ICE this quickly knows exactly where to go. I saw a report that they went to a prison in Colorado and picked up a illegal immigrant who had violent crimes against him that he was serving term for in prison. They went and picked him up, put him in ICE detention so they can start the deportation proceedings. The fact is, not only did they let the border stay open, they knew where the bad guys were in our city. They knew where the people that committed crimes against American citizens, like Lakin Riley, who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had charges against him. ICE knew where to go the whole time. It tells me that Secretary Mayorkas was rightfully impeached by the House of Representatives because they weren’t doing their job. They knew where to go find the worst of the worst. to get them out of our country, put them in ICE detention until they can go through the deportation hearings to get them out, and they refuse to. That is so much worse than them just not doing their job. They had people that were doing their job, knew exactly where to go, and it only took a couple days for thousands of these people to be taken into custody by immigration services, by ICE. That is really, really devastating to the American people that the Biden administration knew exactly where to go. and they did nothing. They didn’t care about protecting Americans because of their political narrative and now you see the left groups like the ACLU filing cases in federal court against the administration trying to block Trump’s expansion of fast tracking deportations. They’re trying to make it take more time when What right now, this isn’t, I wouldn’t even say this is securing the border face for President Trump. This is cleaning up the mess that is left to him by the Biden administration. And that’s going to take a while, but that’s also why it’s important to do it in two parts. Send the ICE agents, go get the people you know where they are, but at the same time, get the National Guard, the military down to the border to secure it so that you’re not playing catch up later when more of these people keep coming in.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I mean, this is, again, folks, what we have to understand here is you’ve got multi-pronged policies being put in place by, as you said, by, as Will said, I mean, this is to kind of clean up and just get you to square one so that you can then start looking at the policies that will really prevent, the long-term policies, whether it’s building walls in certain areas along the border where it’s necessary and utilizing that equipment. That you’ve got to work with Congress on board. Is it… that you need more people and you’ve got the military able and ready to be deployed within 24 hours. I mean, the fact is it tells you a lot about the United States. a president can come in in a few days not even have a secretary of defense yet and have you know 1500 troops deployed to the border in 24 hours and probably the additional 10 000 employed as not much longer than that once they put together what who that what kind of troops they need and who is available for these deployments and remember it’s not all the same kind of individual so I think right off the bat what you have to understand here is you’ve got an administration that wants to fight for you. They want to fight for the issues that you care about. What we have to make sure first is that they get their team in place so that while these announcements are being made and the left is saying, you know, we’re going to file the lawsuit here, we’re going to file a lawsuit there. that the team is getting in place in Washington, D.C., and that we’re getting prepared for what the ACLJ can do in response to the legal, it’ll be a legal onslaught against most of the policies, even policies that most Americans would agree on. They will use and they will try to use to divide us. They’ll try to use to attack us. But the truth is, and I think what we can seize on, you may be feeling it too, and it’s different about where you live. But we know the left has been clear, Will, they’ve had a tough time energizing their base because President Trump not only came in with more votes, with a popular vote, did better in blue states, even states he didn’t win, got a lot more of the vote, got a lot more diversity of the vote. So their traditional base has looked at it, I think, two ways. One is… Okay, we got destroyed in the election trying to run on our issues even by shifting in a new candidate and that didn’t work. So how do we fight this guy who is, we know from the first term, was able to get a lot done in four years. And you already see what he’s doing in one days. Most presidents at this point, you might get a few of those executive orders going and it might be a hundred, but that’s about all you’d see. You would already see them engaging international discussions, but this is a president who was already ready. He was ready before day one because he’s been through the process. He knows these leaders. He’s able to do. I mean, I’ve already seen him more speaking out, answering questions than I remember ever by doing. And the American people, that could go a long way. and getting public support for your policies. Then you have to get, though, you have to have the legal backing. If we don’t win in court, would these get challenged? Some we hope to win quickly. Guess what? They’re just policies. So we have to be ready and prepared. We want to take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk to us on the air.
SPEAKER 09 :
And Jordan, we should point this out as well, because Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well, especially in the mainstream media. This is a contrast. We’re going to show this photo. It’s of an SUV that was seized at the border in Arizona. Deputies found 10,000 rounds of 50 BMG ammo and nearly 20,000 rounds of AK-47 rounds. This comes out of a local Fox affiliate there, Fox 10 in Phoenix. They were stuffed into vehicles, and all this ammunition— 20,000 rounds of .50 caliber and 20,000 rounds of AK-47 were being transported by asylum seekers. So cartel activity, trying to exploit our asylum laws and processes, that’s what’s being brought over. That’s not being used for anything good. But you know how the New York Times is categorizing a lot of these moves by President Trump? Listen to this headline. How labeling cartels as terrorists could hurt the U.S. economy. The New York Times, the gray lady, is carrying water for cartels because of the trump administration’s actions to try to stop things like massive shipments of high caliber ammunition that will not be used for anything good in this country but further death and destruction by these terrorist cartels and the new york times is trying to say but it could really hurt the economy Are they going to say now that he announced the Houthis are back on the list that it’s going to hurt soybean farmers in Iowa? I mean, this is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, folks, this is why you got to start. You got to join the fight. And really, I mean, there was the fight. Obviously, there’s election battles. And we were successful. So let’s do something with this. And that means we have to be ready. The left is ready to take every one of these issues on in court. So you need to support the work of the ACLJ. You know our record there. You know we’re ready. You know we’re already working on it. We’ve already got our teams on a lot of these executive orders ready to fight back when necessary. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We need those resources to fight. All right, welcome back to Secular. We’re taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. We know tomorrow there will be the March for Life in Washington, D.C. President Trump is going to address that likely by video address. And he is one of the first, if not only, presidents in office that’s ever addressed the March for Life in Washington. a different tone obviously since the overturning of Roe versus Wade but there are a lot of abortion battles ongoing right now there’s some efforts to pardon some abortion protesters who have served in prison sentences because of the FACE Act there have been moves to try and repeal the FACE Act there have been moves unfortunately thwarted in the U.S. Senate on the board alive protections for those children who survive abortion procedures and there was hope that you could potentially get to cloture there but the democrats held together to stop that vote but that doesn’t mean that we aren’t seeing a whole change in the policies, which we will see from the Department of Justice and, of course, from the Trump administration. We’re also seeing, bring in CeCe Howell here, from senators who are notifying those places like National Archives where we’ve had issues and the Smithsonian where we had the issues with the students with their beanies to make sure they aren’t harassing or violating the First Amendment rights of any of these students not just peaceful protesters, this is a protest that goes through, it’s not a protest, it’s a march. They have permits, they go through the system, they get all the legal documents they need, the people go, it’s not wild, it ends, and the kids want to go see some museums, and it became a constitutional crisis, these museums trying to scream and yell and tell these people they’ve got to take their clothes off at 20 degrees outside or less, or put their clothes on inside out, or they’re not welcome there.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah. And, you know, again, we always talk about abortion distortion and we see this again. You have the March for Life happening a couple of years ago. And like you said, there were children, minors going to the Smithsonian, going to the National Archives. And in both places, they were harassed and told to take off. their pro-life clothing they literally at the smithsonian they were kicked out and and that one was the most egregious because they they cussed these guards cussed at these kids they kept harassing them as they kept going through the the air and space museum and when they kicked him out the guard literally rubbed his hands in glee as he kicked him out and made the statement and this is the most just ridiculous statement that you can ever make, that the museum was a neutral zone and the First Amendment does not apply here. And of course, we sued immediately at the Smithsonian and then the National Archives. They had a similar situation where pro-life people were told to take off their apparel or leave. All the while at the National Archives, while people were walking around with my body, my choice and pro choice, those T-shirts were fine, but the pro life T-shirts were offensive. So we sued in both of those cases. We won in both of those cases. And now we have Senators Young and Senator Cruz sending letters reminding the National Archives and the Smithsonian that they have to uphold the First Amendment and allow pro-life speech and pro-life t-shirts and apparel to be worn there.
SPEAKER 09 :
And Jordan, I think it’s also important to point out because this was egregious and we fought, but also in this time, as we’ve said, you know, the department heads of the cabinet are not all in. As far as, it’s not chaos in like a crazy way, but in just a, there’s a lot of moving parts. That’s a time when you see the leftists try to take their stand and make a point that That’s when it could be there could be a perilous time for those who are going up for the March for Life because there’s a lot of eyes are on other things, not on an individual that just has a beanie hat that says pro-life in the name of their school. But this is what was written by these senators. And that’s another reason why you support the ACLJ. Our close contacts and relationships with these very powerful senators that will Take the time to send a letter and remind these institutions through their oversight role. Hey, you’re on notice, by the way. We control your funding. We control a lot of the aspect of how you operate. Just remember to follow the law. And I want to read this. It says, furthermore. This is to the National Archives. February 15, 2023, NARA, National Archives, settled a suit, a civil case brought by the impacted individuals represented by the American Center for Law and Justice. As set forth in that consent order, the victims alleged that when they had visited National Archives, they were subject to a pattern of ongoing misconduct within the National Archives Museum by National Archives officials. contract security officers so these senators are pointing out not just hey generally be mindful that you protect free speech they are pointing to our case the resolution of our case our lawyers are able to help with the councils of these senators to give them the pertinent facts when they want to send these letters and They know exactly which case they’re talking about. It is the individuals represented by the American Center for Law and Justice. And when you support the American Center for Law and Justice, you support this work. You support U.S. senators sending letters to these government agencies saying, stop discriminating against conservatives and pro-life Americans. It’s unconstitutional and you lost in court already. So make sure you don’t do it again. And that’s what you support when you become a champion of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org or even with a one-time donation.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I mean, ACLJ champions, what does that mean if you’re new to us or new to supporting us financially? An ACLJ champion is you come up with an amount that you are comfortable donating monthly and it automatically comes out each month. So if it’s $50 or it’s $100 or it’s $20, you can do that at aclj.org slash champions. And that is really important for us and it’s become extremely important for us when we have these big battles where you might have, you know, 50 clients and you’ve got minors and young people and parents and different agencies of the federal government. I mean, the National Archives, different than this, all of those battles. You have to be able to act quickly, but then also be in the battle for the long term. So those ACLJ champions that we know that your support is coming in on a monthly basis is so key to that recurring support to know that we’ve got that coming in and that we can continue those cases. You know, it’s always our goal, as we say, that in any case that we are presented with, that if we are considering to take the case, that the cost is never the issue. That we don’t ever have to say this is going to cost too much. We won’t be able to afford to do this case at the ACLJ. And we’re able to still say that because of our donors to the American Center for Law and Justice. And as Will pointed out and CeCe pointed out, these cases, CeCe, these are things you have to act really quickly on. But then there’s the short-term impact and then there’s the battle.
SPEAKER 01 :
Absolutely. And what’s so great about it is we at the ACLJ are able to bring these cases to light. That’s why these senators even know that this situation evolved and what happened. We fight the battle. We win. And then we have success continuing on when we say, you know, these senators are saying Congress will closely monitor the Smithsonian institutions conduct next week. And we stand prepared to exercise all available oversight powers. If the institution fails to adhere to the constitution, that’s our win. That’s the ACLJ. And just like you said, we cannot do that without the support of our donors.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. We’ve got to have you folks. ACLJ.org slash champions. And if you make a one-time donation, that’s very important to the ACLJ as well. ACLJ.org. There is a lot of work to do. These cases are all just beginning again as the policies are announced. And the lawsuits come in from the left. We’re able to respond. We’ve also got nominations to fight for. So we’re just talking about the first few days here. And we’ve got to have the resources to make sure we’re fighting back and supporting these good policies while we’re on the offensive. You know, we have to move and mentally we have to move that way as well. After being on the defensive for a few years with the Biden administration, we’re back on offense. So let’s act like it. Support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org or give monthly at ACLJ.org slash champions.
SPEAKER 04 :
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk to us on air. We’re going to take some calls now. And we encourage you, again, to call in about all these different issues that we are working through in the first week of the Trump presidency. Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us, too, on the broadcast. He’s already gotten to work there, too, as a special envoy and with his role with ACLJ. So let’s go to the phones, Will.
SPEAKER 09 :
Yeah, we’re going to go to Phil calling in Pennsylvania on line one. Phil, you’re on Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Hey, you guys got me? Can you hear me?
SPEAKER 09 :
We got you.
SPEAKER 05 :
Okay. All right. You know, I mean, it’s fantastic what President Trump is doing at the border. I mean, we stopped the bleeding, but now we got to get the infection out. Last Friday, I mean, it was a blip in the news. Last Friday, the District of Columbia comes out and announces that 1% of their electorate, which was about 300 plus people, were non-citizens. chest thumping, very proud. I’m like, wait a minute. Did they just gift wrap a federal warrant for Tom Hallman to go in there with ICE and get those names and addresses? I think they did. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t that be a precedent to go county by county, state by state, and get these names and addresses of these people?
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, I think, listen, D.C. is unique. Obviously, there are people there illegally and there are people there that are not citizens who are there legally. I mean, there’s actually a lot of people in D.C. that are there on whether it’s student visas, temporary work visas. You’ve got a big international community, not just with the countries that are there with embassies, but you also have you know international organizations there so it’s it’s not what’s unique is that Washington DC allows those with these uh certain statuses who are not citizens to vote in local elections so when they have uh when they have votes that are not uh federal but are just DC specific which are still federal so the issue there uh but they allow people who are not US citizens to vote like for mayor and for their uh you know for their representatives on the city council I do think what you brought up is an interesting point is that because these liberal places have tried to, I guess, make this kind of like statute, you know, they’ve actually put the documents together and these lists of people. You certainly can go through and see, is anybody on that list here without the proper documents? um you know extensions or have they have they outstayed their time here legally are they still in the united states that’s a lot of the questions because we don’t even know who’s here half the time um and i guarantee you on those voter rolls uh it’s it’s happening in blue cities across the country uh it’s not for people who are here technically if you’re here illegally you would not qualify even into these liberal states so that’s that that’s the legal difference is they’re not voters who are in the United States illegally. I don’t think it should happen this way, but they are voters who have some kind of more permanent status.
SPEAKER 09 :
And also to clarify for Phil as well, and it was about 500 voters that they announced, which was a very small percentage of the electorate, but those individuals weren’t able to vote for President of the United States or any federal office. Those voters, when they register, are put in a category and only get local election ballots or local measures. So it isn’t as if D.C. subverted the federal election law by allowing them to vote for president of the United States. I agree with you, Jordan. I still think these cities and municipalities shouldn’t be doing it. However, they have done that. They have their own rules within how they elect their own city members and council members and mayors. If they want to add to that, they can. I don’t think it’s been challenged yet. I do know that Congress last year tried to put forward a bill which would block that because U.S. Congress and the federal government has a lot of control over over DC for obvious reasons. But once again, these people weren’t specifically illegal aliens or illegal immigrants to that point. But it does raise a lot of questions about things going forward in that nature.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. And folks, again, We’re just getting started in the work that we can do, but you have to use every moment you’ve got. So you don’t want to just say, oh, yeah, we’ll get to that ultimately. So let’s get the team in. I mean, Rick Ronell’s already gone to work. He’s going to be joining us in the next segment of the broadcast. You can support the work of the ACLJ right now at ACLJ.org with a one-time donation at ACLJ.org or to give monthly with a recurring donation and become an ACLJ champion. Go to ACLJ.org slash champions. They are the key. to the why we never have to ask can we afford to do this case it’s just are we ready to go We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. That’s 1-800-684-3110. One note to Tulsi Gabbard, who’s part of our team, has got a confirmation hearing scheduled for next Thursday before the Intel Committee at 10 a.m. on a director of national intelligence. And so we’ll follow that closely. There’s more to do on that nomination as well, but we wanted to put that out there. Let’s go to the phones, Will, at 1-800-684-3110. You definitely have time to join us on the broadcast.
SPEAKER 09 :
We’re going to go to Jennifer in Oregon on line four. Jennifer, you’re on Seculo.
SPEAKER 03 :
So, I serve this country. I took the oath to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic. I nominate our governor for Gitmo. She just ordered… Oregon employees to undergo training, mandatory training, on how not to cooperate with the federal government on courting illegals.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, well, this is what we’re going to see, right? State governments battling the federal government. And, of course, these states rely on a lot of federal funding. So that’s when you have to go from policy will to then actually putting laws in place. Because what the laws do is say to that… governor of Oregon yeah if you do this there’s going to be economic consequences to your state right now that this is a policy announcement of we’re not going to work with them and we’ll tell you how not to work with them so we have to be able to work with congress to make sure there’s teeth and some of that you don’t have to do legislatively some you do and again none of our states in the United States are operating without federal funding and significant federal funding even your state programs that you would think are run entirely by your state oftentimes get big federal grants so that means that they are responsible for following the law and the bigger the policies within that law which again this is not like we have to write new laws to deport people who are here illegally I don’t know the left is acting this is some kind of like we have to rewrite the constitution to deport people who are here illegally that is not necessary you prioritize you let the the people who handle that know where your priorities are we know the priorities are the most dangerous people first and then move on from there
SPEAKER 09 :
And if you remember back during the Obama years, Arizona had that bill SB 1070. I mean, this is a blast from the past, but what Arizona was trying to do is try to actually strengthen the way that the state could enforce the laws on the books, really, but by allowing local deputies and sheriffs to be able to, if they found someone who was here illegally, then be able to detain and report properly and that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Obama administration argued no the border enforcement is ours. You don’t get to do this on your own. You can take directives from us and do it but you don’t get to make these laws about securing the border on your own. That’s the job of the executive branch. That’s ours. That’s Congress makes the laws. We enforce them. You listen. And so it actually got overturned at the Supreme Court of them trying to do that. Now I understand that states can claim prosecutorial discretion, that they don’t want to use funds because they have to use it here and here. So it’s a lot more conniving way to get around it. But they’re doing the same thing. They are just choosing to not enforce the law in a different way that should be. Unfortunately, you can’t just go and and force a prosecutorial discretion issue in the court system. But that’s what we’re looking at. And I know that we have Rick Grinnell joining us now. So we’ll get back to this discussion. But it is very frustrating. And I feel for Jennifer.
SPEAKER 1 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 02 :
And I think this will become more normal in our discourse as we get used to being on, again, we’re not just the opposition fighting and pushing back on the defensive side, but taking more of an offensive… actions and working like we should, which is that we’re on offense right now. We have the White House, the House, and the Senate. Doesn’t mean everything’s going to be easy, but we don’t need to be acting like we’re on defense right now. The American people put these folks in place. And Rick Grinnell is joining us now as part of our team. Rick, you’re also an envoy for special missions by President Trump. You’ve already gone to work there at a meeting in Davos with NATO. Tell people about that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I did a satellite video interview from my home in Los Angeles, but into the Davos breakfast on Ukraine. Farid Zakaria interviewed me. And in the lead up, I was hearing from the NATO Secretary General and some others talking about you know, how we just got to have Ukraine and NATO and this is how the problems are going to be solved. And so when it came time for me, I felt like there needed to be a little perspective in that room because it seems like a lot of globalists were just thinking that, gosh, we’re going to just end this war and put Ukraine and NATO and everything is going to be fine. So I just made the point that, you know, you’re going to run into a buzzsaw in America if you in Europe think that you’re just going to start expanding NATO membership with the expectation of the American taxpayer paying for the new members to come in and the commitment of defense cooperation treaty protection. You know, we have members of NATO who haven’t paid their fair share. Donald Trump just announced that they should be paying 5%. We struggled to get them to 2% and then 3%, they kind of ignored, and now he’s raised the bar to 5%. And so the question really is, is Europe ready to kind of shake off this woke culture that they seem to be trapped in and concentrate on their economies? The economies in Europe… are really struggling and what Donald Trump did today via satellite into Davos was amazing. It was classic Trump, very clear, could not be more proud to be serving this president who is filled with common sense after years of people just, you know, leaving common sense and racing towards this woke ideology. Those corporations in the room, when I was speaking and Donald Trump was speaking just a little bit ago, they became very shaken by the fact that America isn’t going to concentrate on this woke uh, political stuff that we’re going to concentrate on the economy. And I got a taste of this when president Trump asked me to do Kosovo, Serbia negotiations. And he told me, you know, concentrate on growing the economy, getting them to work together, creating jobs for young people, hope, uh, not about political posturing and words on a piece of paper, fighting with politicians. It just doesn’t matter to the people’s lives. And I think that’s what we’re hearing, uh, The new day, President Trump is equipped, working hard, and classic Trump. And Davos, I think, got a taste of it this morning.
SPEAKER 09 :
And Rick, one, it’s a real treat for our audience who’s used to hearing from you, senior advisor here on the broadcast, but also now current presidential envoy for special missions and carrying out really one of the first public roles of that job. And they’re getting to hear from you just hours after that took place. But one, we saw in a clip that the secretary general of NATO was saying, You know, and thanks to Donald Trump, we were paying more into NATO as if they were so glad to do it. They just needed someone to ask them. But you were very pointed, especially with the secretary general being Dutch and said that the American people are the ones that are paying for the defense. You cannot ask the American people to expand the umbrella of NATO when the current members aren’t paying their fair share. And that includes the Dutch who need to step up. Obviously, from that statement from the Secretary General saying that we are paying more, but having direct words like this from you, the presidential envoy, they’re not used to being talked so toughly to after four years. How is it received from those members?
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, I think the Germans are used to it. They’re used to me, but… Look, I think that Secretary General Mark Rutte is a nice guy. I think he means well. I like him. But he was the leader of the Netherlands for years, and they didn’t step up and pay their fair share. And he got a promotion to go from being the leader of the Netherlands to being the Secretary General of NATO. And now… He’s there saying that we should all do more. And what I wanted to make clear was, I agree, Mark. I think that’s a great idea. Let’s work together to get there. Tried to be a very calm voice. But I think it’s really important to be direct and to not say a bunch of stuff that doesn’t really help push us forward. And what I said is that, you know, here the leader of the Netherlands is now telling us, as the Secretary General for NATO that we need to step up and do more. But when he was the leader of the Netherlands, he didn’t do that. He didn’t move his country to pay their fair share. And so I just said, look, this is something that you didn’t do. when you were the leader. And now we’re struggling. We need it to get done. The Dutch need to step up. Everybody at NATO needs to step up. The American people deserve that.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. Rick, as always, we appreciate your insight. I mean, this is very interesting because of your role already engaging at Davos with this panel on NATO and letting, you know, NATO know. It’s not going to be the U.S. paying for everything, every expansion, every war, every conflict that they want to engage in, that they’ve got to pay their fair share if they want to continue, again, even talking about expanding. How about just getting to 100% of what they owe in their payments? We’ll be back on Secular. I think it’s going to be very cool to have Rick Riddell joining us on the broadcast still. He’s able to do that with that role as a special envoy. And as you see President Trump immediately in the White House. And that’s why people like that are key. Because when you don’t have a team in place, you’ve got to go to people who you trust who can represent you at these major forums in the first three days of your presidency. And really… spell it out not in a way to start a fight amongst our allies in NATO but to say you know what stop talking about expansion when you’re not even paying your fair share today so we’re not going to talk about you know you know, the unending war in Ukraine or bringing in new countries into NATO until you’re paying your fair share. And then you can start talking about that. But first, you got to get up to speed. And they, for too long, have been used to the United States, maybe for a few years, with a Trump presidency, the first time saying, you know what, this could significantly, you know, impact NATO. But then they get Biden back and suddenly they can start saying, spending and not really have to worry about the oh the U.S. will cover this if we need it and they’ll handle the majority of the cost and we can just keep adding on to the deficit spending if you will inside this international organization and it was important I think for the Trump administration just these first few days and to use Rick to say remember we are not a blank check. And so you’re talking about all these ideas, wonderful ideas that cost a lot more when you’re not even paying what you should right now. So let’s work on that and then start talking about, let’s stop talking about expanding. And by the way, that’s not helping with Vladimir Putin either. By the way, just trying to bring it into that conflict and then talking about expanding NATO at the same time with our resources and our tax dollars, which we know our president, he wants to take care of us first and the American taxpayers first and the American people first. And to make sure these other countries, who have much more interest, by the way, in how close they are, geographically into making sure this conflict does come to a close but you’ve got to pay your fair share and you know though you’re not hitting those percentages it’s fair game for the country that you’re used to relying on to say you know what I mean we want to we could play a big role but we cannot be the only role in this economically let’s go to the phones Jordan we’ve got Bob calling from Ohio he’s listening on radio Bob you’re on Sekulow
SPEAKER 06 :
Thank you. Yeah. I wanted to say great work you guys are doing in regard to the Smithsonian and the, uh, archives issue that you talked about earlier. And I think there’s a large number of us out here that would, uh, be happy to see that these people that actually, um, treated these people so badly, uh, when they were visiting, uh, the archives and such that they would be, um, identified and, uh, At least fired, if not prosecuted and imprisoned.
SPEAKER 02 :
I mean, listen, what we had to fight for was first the training to make sure, again, who took the wrong action here and where did it start? And it was different in both situations. So the National Archives was different than the Smithsonian, which are different entities. but we fought that out to make sure our clients were made whole in the way they were treated and to make sure and that’s what the senators are doing with these letters to make sure that they got the correct training and they have not got received any incorrect training before the March for Life tomorrow to make sure because we changed and made sure that they had to go in and make sure that they were educating their security employees correctly on the free speech rights of visitors to these museums.
SPEAKER 09 :
That’s right. And just in the Smithsonian case, our clients received a tour and apology from high up within the leadership. They had to do retraining. I believe in one of the cases, it was a third party security contractor. So they had a little bit of cover, but those people were not to be reassigned to the archives by the company that was contracted with them. the students and were able to show the footage and of the events but also they were given monetary damages the Smithsonian had to actually pay damages and the senators say in their letter while we’re pleased that the victims of this harassment received justice it clearly should have never happened in the first place and no sum of money could truly undo the atrocious acts. So they are putting them on notice, and they reminded them of what they had to pay out and what they had to do. So hopefully this strongly worded letter, and we’ll be watching as well. And if there are people that go tomorrow, that are listening today, that feel like they are treated differently because they have a March for Life sweatshirt on or a hat that says pro-life, go to aclj.org slash help and we will spring right into action. We’ve got the template. We’ve done it before. Our attorneys are ready to help. Let’s go back to the phones. We’ve got, let’s go to Forrest. He’s an ACLJ champion calling online to Forrest Geron Sekulow.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hi, I’m flabbergasted that Joe Biden should be able to… shield from all prosecution his son his family going back 20 years as well as anthony falchion chris gray the j6 committee and all their staffers my question is i have a follow-up question is um has a truly blanket retroactive preemptive preemptive as in before prosecution indictment pardon ever withstood the scrutiny of the u.s supreme court and if so can it be re-examined the way hobbs re-examined roe v wade i have a follow-up question
SPEAKER 02 :
Listen, first of all, if you’re talking about the pardon power of the president and the fact is on a federal level, it’s not going to be tested. And you could try to test all you want, but it’s very broad. And if you read the Constitution, it’s broad. Now, it doesn’t impact state laws and state prosecutions. But again, it’s not that – I don’t think people were so shocked. I think the shock was his presidency. He didn’t include himself, the self-pardon issue. But again – I think most Americans, what we’d like to do is de-weaponize the federal government. And that means get the federal government out of politics. So don’t pick your targets based off their political views on issues and whether you agree with those or not. We’re supposed to be going after the bad guys and the bad actors and the criminals. And start with the very worst, especially our federal government. Let’s start with the biggest, baddest, and worst guys. And then, again, the pardon power, it’s broad. But, you know, we’re not supposed to be using really our law enforcement to go after our political opponents. And we shouldn’t become we don’t want to become that that embrace that either. But we have to make sure that that we are going to be treated that way. I mean, there is a fair balance there.
SPEAKER 09 :
Well, and if you look at it as well, what President Biden actually did was give a gift, I would say, to those that were imprisoned for January 6th related offenses, because the Constitution says he shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. It doesn’t really put limits on that. That is some of the most broad language in the Constitution. The only exception is except in cases of impeachment, which is that political process that we are all too familiar with here at the ACLJ. But I think back to that point is that the only thing that was really binding presidents was political fallout and or what they call norms or traditions. And Joe Biden decided to throw all those out the window on his way out the door. And I think there’s even reporting already that the scope of the January 6th pardons was more narrow until Biden did all those last minute pardons. And then President Trump was like, you know what? Forget this. We’re just going to go ahead and pardon everybody so we can move forward in America and get all this behind us.
SPEAKER 02 :
Right. And I think that is a lot of what we want to do. The best would be to get this behind us and let’s stop using law enforcement and law enforcement agencies to take out or down or bankrupt, as President Trump is talking about, financially ruin our political opponents, starting with former presidents who run for president like President Trump, who was treated the worst. This is not what these agencies are for. And I think, as he said, we can move forward and stop politicizing law enforcement or else you’re not living in the United States of America. Support the work of the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org. We need you.
