Join Logan and Jordan Sekulow as they navigate through pressing political narratives in America. With the midterm elections looming, the left appears to be adopting a page from Trump’s playbook, crafting new martyrs out of legal tangles to spark political fervor. Amid spirited discussions, the episode explores the nuances of political lawfare, revealing how these strategies could redefine campaigning. Additionally, the spotlight turns to Tulsi Gabbard’s surveillance concerns—a shocking revelation that’s stirring debates on privacy and civil liberties. Don’t miss this engaging session as the ACLJ team breaks down complex issues with simplicity and clarity, ensuring their audience stays
SPEAKER 02 :
Today on the show, the left’s midterm election strategy has been revealed.
SPEAKER 05 :
Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Seculo. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.
SPEAKER 02 :
And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. Will Haynes is joining me in studio. This is Logan Sekulow. Man, we’re rocking and rolling. I hear that. It was like the music was pumping through my veins. We got Jordan Sekulow, my brother, joining us live in studio in the second half hour. And we’re going to be taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That’s 1-800-684-3110. As, of course, all elections, whenever this happens, it feels like, hey… If it worked for the Republicans, maybe we need to take it on ourselves. And it looks like that is what’s happened. Again, as politics always flip-flops, as campaign strategies always flip-flop, as promises are always broken, and things like this seem to happen in politics all the time. Of course, we are still talking somehow about Congresswoman McIver. Yes, the one who broke into the ICE facility, got arrested, got detained, wouldn’t take a plea deal, and now, as expected, they’re fundraising off of it that’s right and emails came in this morning specifically from a name most of us had never heard Until the last week. And that is from Congresswoman McIver. And now it’s essentially saying that this is going to be lawfare. At the same time, you have Andrew Cuomo also saying, hey, this is political, what do they call it? Political interference or election interference for them investigating some of how New York treated COVID. Those are the real talking points now coming from the left. It’s very clear where they’re going from. What they saw was that the conservatives were able to rile up a base and that every time President Trump was charged with a crime, every time that there was some sort of new in-court appearance, it did nothing except to get people more motivated to vote for President Trump because they could see right through the politics of it. Now they’re claiming it’s the same, but now for them. Because when it happens to them, it has to now be lawfare. It has to be some sort of election interference. It can’t be the fact that there are actual issues that came upon here. Not theoretical ones. Not ones that could be, you know, maybe interpreted or misinterpreted. You’re talking about someone who broke into an ICE facility, got into a physical fight, had to be removed,
SPEAKER 06 :
now claiming the trump administration is going after me that’s right so what you’re seeing here is a very cynical ploy by the left in dc to try to replicate what happened to president trump but by conjuring this up in a way so you have a congresswoman that went for a political stunt got charged with assault. Actually, her hearing is this morning, so stay tuned. We may hear something out of that if there’s a bond set or something like that. But now, instead of taking the plea deal, saying, ah, this can be good, this is almost the test case for the Democrats as they look forward to the next election cycle. If they can raise a lot of money off this, if they can make Representative LaMonica McIver a household name someone most of the country probably even a lot of people in her district had never even heard of then you bet they are going to replicate this strategy around the country and instead of it being prosecutors real welfare trying to figure out and come up with and hunt around for charges they could charge President Trump with to keep him out of office these are now Democrats trying to find ways they can get charged so that they can stay
SPEAKER 02 :
The ACLJ is there to fight back. I want you to become an ACLJ champion today if you can. That’s someone that gives on a monthly recurring basis. We’re not paid for by major sponsors. We’re not even paid for by major donors. There are some great major donors. That’s fantastic. But the bottom line, the bread and butter all comes from people like you who support at a $10, a $20, a $70 a month level. We’ll be right back on Secular. Welcome back to Seculo. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. I want to continue this conversation. We’re obviously talking about not only Congresswoman McIver, who is sitting out now fundraising emails saying the Trump administration is going after him. We’re also talking about former governor and current mayor candidate. Andrew Cuomo, who now saying the targeting of him is lawfare and his electric election interference due to his handling of the COVID-19 crisis. And they want to do an investigation on that. And both of them plus Moore are going to be claiming this. Why? Because it’s very clear. It worked for President Trump. You didn’t have to even win in court. You could lose in court and what did it do? It would rile up your base. It would get people excited because they could see the politics right through it. Now the question is, what do the Republicans do? How do they respond? Do they respond in a way that is similar to how the Democrats did? But the difference is, is that these are what I’d say a lot more substantiated claims. They’re not saying they’re necessarily stronger claims in terms of what the sentencing could be. But it’s pretty clear she broke into an ICE facility. I mean, we’ve seen the videos. We know what happened. She’s not even claiming that she didn’t do that. They’re claiming they had the right to do it. But of course, we know that there are proper ways for them to do it. I think they should have that opportunity to be responsible. But she also now, as expected, as I told you would happen, started making the media rounds to maybe some more friendly media. So Jen Psaki. Yep. I’m sure you’d love to hear that name again from MSNBC, former Biden press correspondent. press secretary, had her on the show just yesterday. Let us take a listen to this bit. First, you’re going to hear Jen Psaki, followed by Representative McIver.
SPEAKER 11 :
At the time, you described it, and so did your colleagues who are with you, as being assaulted by multiple ICE agents. Is that part of the argument that you want to make now and that you plan to make in court as you proceed here?
SPEAKER 03 :
So I definitely plan on making that argument in court. I can’t wait to have my day in court, you know, where we can have due process, which this administration has stripped many of being able to have due process. But I’m looking forward to that, to telling the truth. about what happened on that day.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, so again, she looks forward to telling the truth about what happened that day. Due process, I can’t wait to have my day in court. Why? Because, well, again, this is razzle dazzle. This is a showman at work. And you know what? That is part of today’s political landscape. Unfortunately, that is just the truth. It’s what happens. You see something that works, you’re going to replicate it. You’re going to start using it in fundraising or start sending out emails from someone that a week ago we didn’t even know the name of. I currently couldn’t even tell you the district that she’s in. This is someone who is brand new to the political scene, if you will. Clearly not brand new in terms of her, she’s been elected, but in terms of the national scene, and they’re seeing a moment. And look, again, everything’s marketing. Everything’s publicity. I understand that greatly. It’s part of what we do here at the ACLJ. It’s part of what we do here on Secular. You gotta promote. You gotta get out there. You gotta talk. You gotta do it. The difference is, is you don’t just steal from the other side, change the playbook. But this is what happens historically in Washington.
SPEAKER 06 :
That’s right. This is the playbook that they mocked. They mocked President Trump for saying that they were politically motivated prosecutions, even though you had anyone, even all the way to Bill Maher, saying it’s very obvious what they’re doing here. These are politically motivated prosecutions. And when you think about the types of prosecutions that were happening against President Trump, you think about the documents case when obviously Joe Biden was looked at and then got the her report, which now we find out was a very accurate description of his state. But however, it was justice for no accountability for President Biden. But they still went forward against President Trump. You think about how they tried to use the 14th Amendment against him, saying he was a part of an insurrection, even though he had never been charged with that and didn’t have an opportunity to have due process in that. She talks about due process in that bite. And yet they were going around the country trying to take him off the ballot. That is lawfare. That is finding an angle and then exploiting it for political gain, using the law in that context. What they’re doing here is they’re co-opting the same playbook that they once mocked President Trump for doing. In reality, prosecutors aren’t going around coming up with a falsified business records count. We’ll think you overvalued your property. So therefore, we’re going to try to take half a billion dollars from you. What they’re doing is we got to go cause a ruckus, not take a plea deal so we can be charged. And then we can say this is off there. Look what they’re doing to us. Instead of it being the prosecutors trying to come up with a charge. It’s almost like the politicians themselves are like, where can I go find a way to get charged so that I can exploit this and send out fundraising emails. They send out a fundraising text. This isn’t just from her office. This is from the DCCC. That’s the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee. That’s the major fundraising arm for Democrat House candidates. So it’s not just her. It’s all Democrats trying to raise money for congressional campaigns off of this story. so why wouldn’t they take a plea deal well I mean there could be many motives for not wanting to take it and one could be innocent of saying I don’t want to have anything saying that I did something wrong but the other angle to it is definitely if she said sure it’s a plea of disorderly conduct or something over you can’t raise money off of it move on real quickly that’s kind of how it works
SPEAKER 02 :
So to me, it’s very clear. And look, again, I’m not saying there’s not necessarily anything wrong with it. I’m just saying it’s, you know, be transparent about it. Look at it from the big picture. The big picture is they see this as a marketing and PR moment. And of course, there is a question of how you respond. I want to take a call, actually, George in Tennessee, because he’s asking that question. I think it needs to at least, we need to open up that question. George, go ahead.
SPEAKER 07 :
Hey, good afternoon. Thank you guys for taking my call. I appreciate it. Hey, so what the Congresswoman, I forget her name now, but whatever her name is. MacIver, yes. MacIver, thank you. So clearly what she’s doing is it’s a money play. It’s a notoriety play. That’s apparent. But here’s my dilemma. So this week, President Trump is having his crypto meeting. So how is that play and that stunt any different than what President Trump is doing this week to raise money through his crypto ventures? Like they both seem like they’re offsetting in terms of how far away they are from the intention of our political process. So can you guys help me think through that?
SPEAKER 02 :
Look, I’m not sure exactly the details of what you’re talking about, so I don’t want to act like I’m an expert here, but I will say that you are right in the sense that I think political marketing, political PR, fundraising, all this, we’ve all been inundated with it over the last, look, it’s nonstop. It used to be you had about a month leading up to an election and then you stopped getting those text messages. You stopped getting those emails. You stopped getting, but now it is nonstop daily. Why? Because they figured out that as of right now, that’s what works. So I guess if you don’t want it that way, don’t respond to it that way. I mean, I was getting texts yesterday. I was sending these guys from political campaigns. And a lot of times, look, the truth is the people who are running the marketing, They may not even care about the candidate. They may not even care. They are running on tried and true ways to raise money and to get support behind all the different things. It’s not about to me whether she should be able to raise money on this. I got no problem with that. It’s more, that’s the motive. The motive is marketing. The motive isn’t marketing. truly actually caring about these people. It’s caring about yourself. It’s building a brand. That’s where we need to look at it. You look at it from a motive. You need to look at it from, do these people actually care about what they’re saying? It’s the messages that we’ve always had. where they’ll say the Republicans are the ones that have all of these problems that are racist and do that. And then when you really look at the policies, you really look down and who is actually keeping a lot of these communities down, who is actually not doing the jobs of feeding the homeless and are involved in a lot of their local missions or their churches and all this. If you actually look at the details, you’ll see who is… there for people and who is just spinning talking points.
SPEAKER 06 :
And George, to a little bit on your question as well, I have no problem with them raising money off of anything they want to raise money off of. That’s their prerogative. President Trump was selling mugs with his mugshot on it. So he fundraised off of it. That’s clearly why they’re co-opting it. The difference is, is that President Trump didn’t go out and seek these situations where he could be charged. What I’m afraid of happening is this being a very big fundraiser for them. And then you start seeing bad behavior by other members of the house that want to get in on that action. And so they go and they go and cause trouble here. They disrupt here. They try to get arrested just for the sake of fundraising. It’s a bad example to the nations, a bad example to the constituencies that if you reward bad behavior for, Instead of there’s a thousand different ways they could have played that scenario out and they didn’t. They chose to do the photo op to make a big issue out of it. A congressional oversight visit should almost be something you don’t even know about happening. that that it just happens then they can give a report and do that but instead it become a whole thing and it ends up with charges against a member of congress the mayor of newark was was arrested and charged originally with criminal trespass on federal property but they dropped those charges so it should have never gone down that way to begin with and now what we’re seeing is The game plan. Go cause trouble. Get in trouble. Raise money. Try to flip the election.
SPEAKER 02 :
Get in the press. Get coverage. Get on the news. Become a household name. It’s very easy. It’s very, you know, it’s just where we’re at right now. So just see through it, folks. Let’s actually look at what’s going on. We’ve got a couple of phone lines still open at 1-800-684-3010. My brother, Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the ACLJs, will be joining us in the second half hour. So you want to make sure you stay tuned for that. We’ll take some calls coming up in the next segment. So make sure you’re following that. We’re also going to talk about the federal air marshals who have been surveilling our former colleague, Tulsi Gabbard, currently director of national intelligence. We’ll talk about that when we get back. Welcome back to Seculo. We did want to pivot a little bit and talk about our friend Tulsi Gabbard. You remember her from being on this show for many years. And then, of course, now is the director of national intelligence. Again, that doesn’t happen, by the way. Without people like you that watch this show, support this show financially, we were able to bring in the best of the best during a lot of these years. And that is proof of the fact that she is now the Director of National Intelligence. She already had an incredible track record before that. It’s not like we found her. I mean, she was involved in so many different things and obviously served our country for many years, ran for president herself. But she was a great contributor here, a great person to always bounce some things off of. But of course, we found out while she was still working with us, that she had been put on what’s called the Quiet Skies program. And we also know that that was just recently confirmed. Now, we knew about this, Will, for, I mean, a year plus now that this was happening to Tulsi. She was pretty much notified, I think, that it was happening. However, it’s now been confirmed or confirmed by other people in these oversight committees.
SPEAKER 06 :
so what happened yesterday was during a hearing with christy gnome who’s the director of homeland security rand paul raised this issue once again and what many in the media are calling it really the first confirmation now obviously we talked about it here we had confirmation not just because of whistleblowers but because we were representing tulsi at the aclj through some of these issues we had foyer requests out on it but We knew that it was real, but in the media with their fact checking and things sometimes has to wait until someone like Rand Paul says, I’ve got the documents and confirm it. Can you believe it? But here’s what’s interesting is that Senator Rand Paul just got these documents Sunday night because this hearing was yesterday from Department of Homeland Security about Tulsi Gabbard on Quiet Skies. When he first asked for these documents, was August 21st of last year. It’s been just shy of a year that the senator conducting oversight, because we’ve been talking about members of Congress conducting oversight. It’s been almost a year when he requested in his official capacity on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee of the Senate information on this. And he just got it. And you want to know why he just got it? Because Kristi Noem is the director of Homeland Security now and not Alejandro Mayorkas. Because when the Biden administration was there, they tended to try to stonewall, delay, cover things up, not let transparency happen. So when you hear about members of Congress going to conduct oversight unannounced at a border detention facility, And then they get charges against them and they say, we’re just trying to do our oversight. No, there are ways you can do it. And Senator Paul even waited almost a year on something which concerns the civil liberties in someone being spied on by the federal government. That’s now the director of national intelligence. That is Rand Paul’s top issue. And you know what he didn’t do? go break in to the Department of Homeland Security and get arrested to raise money off of it. So I just wanted to show the juxtaposition of that is that it actually, I didn’t even plan to say all that, but it just took me back of the absurdity of what the Democrats are doing right now. But I do want to play this bite because he’s not just done with the confirmation of it and now Tulsi is Director of National Intelligence. He wants this program to see change. He wants to stop the violation of civil liberties. And that’s things that we fight for here at the ACLJ every single day. Let’s play by one from Senator Paul during this hearing as he’s talking to Director Noem.
SPEAKER 01 :
With regard to TSA Quiet Skies and Tulsi Gabbard situation, I suspect there are going to be other people that were caught up in this thing as well. I’m horrified by the idea that we took a former congresswoman and we’re surveilling her and riding on jets with her. There was another story of an air marshal whose wife, I mean, might have been at January 6th or something, and now we have air marshals riding following another air marshal or his wife. So I want to hear the whole story of what happened. I want to hear that people have been let go, that they’re no longer doing this. If there were abuses of Tulsi Gabbard’s liberties, I want to hear from that. But I want repercussions to come from this, and I think you’ve said something’s coming. Please let us know, and let us know how the program… the destruction of civil liberties can be minimized. I frankly probably have trouble with the whole program, but let’s see if there’s some way. But we need significant reform. If it needs legislation, please come to us with that.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s him talking, that’s Rand Paul talking to Kristi Noem. So not necessarily someone who is unfriendly to this idea of reform. That’s right.
SPEAKER 06 :
And as I mentioned earlier, it’s no longer, thankfully, Director Alejandro Mayorkas, who was overseeing the abuses of these programs against American citizens, against former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence. Just when you think back on that story, and I remember when it broke. There was an article out of a DC outlet, kind of a more unknown outlet at the time, and just reading it without even having had the discussions with DC. Director Gabbard at that point about it, reading it and thinking, this can’t be happening in America. This can’t be real, that she’s getting these designations on her tickets, that they’re having bomb sniffing dogs follow her around the airport, that there are people on the flight that are constantly monitoring her, taking notes, and covertly, not supposed to be known, but that’s what was happening to her. Former Congresswoman all of a sudden didn’t play by their rules, wasn’t a Democrat anymore. And so they sought political retribution. They sought to monitor her, to intimidate, to silence her. It didn’t work, but we can’t let that happen again.
SPEAKER 02 :
I want to quickly, before we head to break, because my brother Jordan Sekul is going to be joining in the second half hour. It’s going to be packed. We’re going to take some calls, though, later on, 1-800-684-3110. I want to pivot back to Congresswoman McIver, and let’s take a call. Oh, actually, our call, we had an ACLJ champion who was up, and I think they just went away. So you know what? We’re going to hold those calls. Sorry about that if you’re on hold right now, but I wanted to make sure if you become an ACLJ champion, you tell our phone screener, you get bumped to the first. She would have been the first call of this segment. So unfortunately, that’s what happens with this. We only have two minutes left. in this half hour. Now, if you don’t get us on your local station, if you’re listening on the radio and some of the radio stations, especially Christian radio stations, don’t catch the full hour of this show every day. We do it every day for an hour. Go to ACLJ.org. You can watch it later on or live from 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time. That’s right. We broadcast 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time. Go join us live. You can do it on YouTube. You can do it on Rumble, ACLJ.org. Of course, you can find us later on on your favorite podcast apps, however you get your podcasts, or on the brand new redesigned ACLJ app, which I encourage you all to download. It’s something that’s a great way to engage, sign our petitions, become an ACLJ champion on there. If you become a champion, you get a special sort of skin for that ACLJ app, a special experience. that’s just for ACLJ champions that’s someone by the way that gives on a monthly recurring basis that’s a monthly recurring donor and you could do that today we know the ACLJ is hard at work we’ve been battling back in court on numerous cases just in the last weeks exposing actual corruption political targeting we know there’s a lot of political targeting that was happening of Christians of conservatives back from the the tea party days all the way up into these current days of President Trump. And tomorrow, we’ll be in court on two major FOIA requests against actual lawfare that was waged by the left. And there’s a lot more going on. 20 cases. Look, I got the facts in front of me. 20 cases we’re fighting just alone to stop the weaponization of government against conservatives, against Christians. And the fight continues on. So while I can read you through all of these facts, I can go through all the stuff that we’re doing. Go to ACLJ.org. Look around. If you want to become a champion while you’re there, you should. None of our content’s behind a paywall. And it’s not behind a paywall because we want you to share it. We want you to send it to your friends. We want you to get educated. We want people like the HHS to stumble upon one of our blogs and then create an investigation. Yeah, that happened. We’ll be right back with my brother, Jordan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 05 :
Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
SPEAKER 02 :
Welcome back to Sekulow. Second half hour coming at you. My brother Jordan Sekulow just got in studio with us. He’ll be here for the next half an hour. So join us live right now with him. 1-800-684-3110 if you want your voice heard on the air today. Great time to call in because we will have a really great discussion coming up in the next segment specifically about what’s going on with Jordan’s trips to Washington, D.C. and to Europe and everything that is happening around the world and the world of the ACLJ. However… We want to continue that discussion, Will, that we started with, because we know a lot of people are just joining us right now. As we have seen now, a bit of a flip in terms of talking points, because now you have a Democrat running for their midterm elections going, you know what worked? You know, it worked really well. was that whole lawfare thing, that whole, let’s say it’s election interference, political persecution, that this is happening right now. So we’re gonna create some new characters, and some new characters that are gonna get some press, gonna get some attention, and now we can just take the playbook that Donald Trump successfully ran on when he was unjustly gone after, but first we gotta create some crimes. We gotta create those crimes, so we gotta actually go commit some crimes.
SPEAKER 06 :
So, Jordan, what we’ve seen now is we’ve seen first it was that judge in Wisconsin that that helped break the law by helping an illegal immigrant that was before her on a criminal matter evade a warrant. Then you have Andrew Cuomo now saying that the DOJ investigating the covid deaths in nursing homes. is election interference and lawfare against him. And now you have what is kind of the most egregious case to me out of all these is this Congresswoman that until a couple days ago was not a household name in politics. but I’m getting now an email from the DCCC that’s just from her as if I would know normally who that would be, raising money off the fact that she’s been charged with assault at an ICE detention facility where there was a scuffle. She was trying to say it was oversight. Didn’t look like oversight I’ve seen before. But what is your take on the left trying to now think this narrative of, oh, if we can get charged with things, It could be a winning strategy for us.
SPEAKER 04 :
You mentioned something important, though, that Republicans and the new Department of Justice and law enforcement officials aren’t engaging in lawfare because these are Democrats or liberals that are actually engaging in crimes. That’s not lawfare. That’s conducting law enforcement. If you go as part of your role as congressional oversight to an ICE facility and you don’t follow the rules and you assault someone, even though you may have an initial right to be there, that doesn’t give you a right to commit a crime of assault. So it is not lawfare then to prosecute an actual crime. When we used lawfare, we’ve been using the legal system to tie up elected officials so they could not fully function and carry out their jobs, whether it was the Mueller investigation that led to nothing, whether it was an impeachment after a president had left office, whether it was the first impeachment, which took, again, so much time away from important issues. The U.S. Senate president basically stalled out, the House stalled out in its ability to do its work over nothing. Look at what Alvin Bragg, what that amounted to, nothing. So the difference here is that you’re right, Will, for them to get the attention, they’re actually having to commit crimes because conservatives who believe in the rule of law don’t criminally target our opponents for just having policy differences from us. They are actually committing crimes.
SPEAKER 02 :
They should be prosecuted. Yeah, I think that’s the big difference. It’s pretty clear for a lot of people. It’s not theoretical. It’s not, oh, maybe you could consider this a crime. It’s not lawfare. Right, you were committing crimes, but this is clearly the game plan. And the game plan is to be able to send out emails, to create stars, to send them on MSNBC, to now have a new, deeper bench. Because we know that has been a big problem for the Democrats heading into the midterms, which is into the next presidential election already, is that their bench is not legal. stacked and it is very stacked on the other side you can probably pick out 10 people who could be your next president of the united states if it’s a republican but the democrats got to come up with some new faces this is maybe one of them sure this is a test to see how it goes so far who knows who knows how much they’ve fundraised on this they may have may be very successful We’ll find out, certainly, as the months progress. In the next segment, Jordan’s going to give us a little preview of what he’s been doing in Washington, D.C., and what’s been going on at our European Center for Law and Justice, and so much more. You want to make sure you stay tuned for that. We’re going to continue this conversation as well. Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. Back in just a moment. Welcome back to Secular. If you’re watching on YouTube or Rumble, you got to see a bit of a preview of what Jordan and his team have been doing in Washington, D.C. Of course, that was also with West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey as you were up there, Jordan, last week. We know we’ve had you on talking about what was going on in the Supreme Court, but that is just a small piece of what was going on.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, that’s right. That week alone, we were in Washington, D.C. You can see from some of that footage, if you’re watching the broadcast, I was meeting with our legal team there. We are rebuilding our government affairs team as we speak. And so I’ve been on the phone this week with a couple of folks who look likely to be joining that team as well in a very important time. You know, we talked about this is still in that first 130 days or so. And so we want to make sure we have the right team for the moment to carry us through these next few years, but then also to carry us through the additional next 10 years. And so we are investing in that right now at the ACLJ, as well as, of course, when we’re in D.C., we’re able, because of the support of our donors, to do a lot more than just the Supreme Court case. Obviously, representing the state of West Virginia was a great honor. It’s a great honor for our ACLJ donors and members to be standing with an entire state and their Attorney General J.B. McCuskey. But at the same time, we were meeting with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Schmidt of Missouri, a couple of members of Congress as well. I know we’ve got meetings coming up. Our team, while I am overseas, will be again with Speaker Johnson and some of these more controversial budget bills that are going through. And it’s another BBB, but it’s not Build Back Better. It’s the Big Beautiful Bill, which is TV. every day as we speak, but there’s a lot going on. And what I want everyone to know out there is that your ACLJ team is getting a handle on all of the issues we believe you’re concerned about and then putting the resources there. So that’s really my focus right now is whether it’s here in the United States or around the world, getting the resources to the teams, rebuilding teams that may have lost some people to the administration. That’s always kind of a positive. It’s a good and a bad. because you want people to be in those important government roles, but you also then kind of have to restart. And of course, we’ve been through that a number of times, so it’s nothing new for us. But at the same time, being ready for the moment, you know, the battles change, the rhetoric gets more and more heated. And I think, you know, we also have to be prepared for what could be coming from the left down the road. When we talk about real lawfare and real legal issues, also just the uptick in the rhetoric, which has gotten very extreme.
SPEAKER 02 :
I think we should actually take a phone call. We have an ACLJ champion calling in who has a question specifically about what you were doing last week, what was happening in West Virginia. Jerry’s calling in West Virginia. Again, an ACLJ champion is someone that gives on a monthly recurring basis automatically. Of course, you can cancel anytime. But when you do that, one of the little perks I always say is you call in, you tell our phone screener, I get you bumped to the front of the line. So Jerry has not been on hold the longest. He’s actually been on hold the shortest, but he’s on live right now. Jerry in West Virginia, go ahead.
SPEAKER 09 :
Hey, good afternoon, guys. Appreciate everything you do. Just a quick question. I want to know what happened with the Supreme Court case with West Virginia and Of course, I’m from West Virginia, so I want to know where we stand on that.
SPEAKER 04 :
So the oral argument is done, the briefing is in, and we are now awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. I’d say the predictions go from anywhere from saying that these universal, kind of this idea, is it universal or is it nationwide injunctions? I mean, they even got into distinctions between those terms. Is it that? Yes, it was almost a two hours and 40 minute long oral argument. Or are there some cases where you are issuing an injunction and it just happens to affect a huge amount of people because there’s people that are very similar to that person and they might not have the same legal rights to continue the case, but the case did affect them at least at that lower level and might provide some temporary relief. So I could see the court doing that. I think there will be some tempering down of the ability of these district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. I do think that’s where we go. On the other issues, I’d say it’s up in the air. I don’t think we reached the merits on the citizenship issue. I don’t think there was enough briefing done on that. I don’t think that that actually had time to, a word that was used a lot was percolate. It didn’t have enough time to percolate through the judicial system, through the district courts, to the court of appeals, ultimately to the Supreme Court. they were kind of having to make up and this is uh never a great scenario for the supreme court they were having to make up kind of what a trial would look like on the fly like well let’s look at laws from the 1820s let’s look at this case from 1930. it wasn’t like pulling a tight case that was just you know here’s the briefing here’s the cases you know what’s going to be covered because this is what has been covered in multiple court of appeals multiple district courts and trial courts and so you kind of know what you’re getting by the time you got to the supreme court when it’s over two hours long and and you’ve only got one case that day you know that it could be a very complicated opinion but we don’t shy away from that in fact our Our brief was filed to speak to that directly. We got into the most complicated issue and focused there to give justices an opportunity to say, you know, this is wrong, what is happening, and here’s a way to move forward.
SPEAKER 02 :
How many times have we had to explain that a loss is a win and a win is a loss? when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States because these opinions are not always cut and dry. Sometimes they are. Sometimes it’s very clear, but often you have to, we always hold off on reporting because you have to go through these decisions line by line because the news will break in and say, here’s who won. And then when you really look at it, you’re like, but did they? But did they win? How did that actually play out?
SPEAKER 04 :
We’ll be able to do that, I think, probably towards midsummer on this one. I do think it’s one where you’re right. It would be a good thing, I think, for our side if we’re having to parse through it because I think if it’s too short, that’s probably signaling that they just didn’t really accept the argument, which I don’t.
SPEAKER 06 :
believe will happen jordan and i think also for the caller as well this obviously was a case that is new um it’s it’s not something that happened it’s been in the in the court system for years and it’s just now reaching the supreme court um obviously the opinions from the kind of set schedule you typically get at the end of the term end of june and in early july But with this, do you think we could potentially get a decision quicker since it was rushed up on just even the injunction issue, not even on the merits of the case itself?
SPEAKER 04 :
It’s possible, though the injunction stands. So this group of people isn’t in a kind of limbo right now. So I think that if they want to take their time, they can. I think there are simple ways out of this case for the Supreme Court that would be very positive for us. There are more complicated ways out of this case for the Supreme Court that would be very good for us as well. And our position focused in on these judges just having… If district court judges have this kind of power, we have to rework our entire judicial nominations process because we need to start vetting every single one of those district court judges down to every rally they’ve ever attended, their political donations.
SPEAKER 02 :
It’s all public. It becomes like voting for a candidate.
SPEAKER 04 :
At least court of appeals. At least it’s like a court of appeals judge, which gets a lot more scrutiny in Washington, D.C. And if these kind of cases stand, then that’s, you know, I talked to J.B., the attorney general of West Virginia. If this is the new way of operating, well, West Virginia is going to go into Texas and find judges and say, let’s get an injunction against New York. Or if it’s the federal government, let’s just get a nationwide injunction against the federal government.
SPEAKER 02 :
It’ll end up being they both play the game.
SPEAKER 04 :
Right. And do we really want that in a nation which is the greatest in the world because of our rule of law?
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, what we’ve learned also, though, is if you don’t end up playing the game, you get left behind as well. So you have to make sure that, though we may not think it’s right, if it ends up being the law, you have to play the cards that you’re dealt. It’s kind of like what happened in the election last time. It’s like you had to start embracing things like mail-in ballots and those kind of things to actually early voting. You had to start getting people rallied up around those ideas because they weren’t going away. If they’re not going away, then the worst thing you can do is to put your head in the sand.
SPEAKER 04 :
No, I mean, you’d immediately pivot your legal strategy to say that, you know, if this is not a one-off kind of just related to President Trump, we talked about how 67% of these in history have been issued against President Trump. Well, why can’t they be issued against the next Democrat president then? Why can’t a group like the ACLJ go in and do that and really start being able to prevent them? from carrying out the policies, which I’m sure we’ll strongly disagree with if we do get to that point. I hope that’s a long way away or maybe we don’t ever get there. But if they do come back into power, this would give us a way to say, you know what, the Supreme Court said this is okay. I could stop the president not by having to go all the way to the Supreme Court, not by having to get legislative action.
SPEAKER 02 :
Virtually nothing.
SPEAKER 04 :
By going to a district court who will issue an injunction because they don’t like the president’s policies either.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah. All right, I want to take some calls coming up in the next segment. Jordan’s going to stick around for this last segment. So if you have calls that are maybe more legal focused, it’d be a great time to call in or just in general on any of the topics we talked about today. 1-800-684-3110. And of course, I want to always encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ, but this is a great time to just give us a call. Ask a question. No questions are stupid questions, as they say. All questions are fine. We’re able to answer some questions here. Be kind to your phone screener. That’s all I always say. 1-800-684-3110. We encourage you, though, to become an ACLJ champion today. Someone that gives on a monthly basis. We know that often with the ACLJ, we are talking about all the different ways you can support. And today we’re talking about being a champion. That’s where you kind of set it, forget it. Say, hey, I want to give whatever level. I think $5 is the minimum just due to processing. $5 or more, you become an ACLJ champion. Of course, it’s tax deductible. There are great, fun little perks. But always what we say is we want to keep our content not behind the paywall. We want to make sure everyone can see the great ACLJ content because when you share it, then you can actually change hearts, minds. It’s not just talking into an echo chamber. We’ve seen that. And we saw the HHS find one of our blogs and then create an investigation based on one of our blogs. I guarantee you, as Will said, that maybe just some sort of online membership is not part of their budget. for us. So you know what? We are happy that they were able to do that and we can get to work with them as well. We’ll take your calls when we get back. 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Secula. We’re going to take your phone calls coming up, but we want to give Jordan an opportunity also to give us a bit of a preview, Will, of what’s going to be happening over the next few months.
SPEAKER 06 :
That’s right, Jordan. We said a little bit about it in the previous segment, but obviously you were working on very big things in D.C. last week. But also you’re about to go be with our European Center for Law and Justice, the ECLJ, for an extended period of time, working on some major things that to our audience we can’t reveal yet.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, there’s some things we could talk about. Our first part of the trip next week will be in Budapest, and we’ll be meeting with Prime Minister Viktor Orban. We have done some work with Prime Minister Orban before through the European Center for Law and Justice, but we thought… We did our first trip back to Europe as a bigger team. Of course, that office has been operating for decades and all of our offices around the world. But post-COVID last year, to kind of get things started, to kind of say, this is where we want things to go. So let’s look at what we could do a year from now. Let’s get fully up to speed on being able to travel around and hit multiple places. So we’ll start off the trip that way, then head back to our offices in Strasbourg, France. The European Parliament is meeting in Strasbourg. So you’ve got all the different parliamentarians from all the member states of the Council of Europe. And we’ll be holding receptions actually in our office. So we’ll be holding receptions and we have a residence and an office. We’ll be holding receptions there for those members. So we’ll be able to start developing and personal relationships that our team there may have, but to expand their relationships. A lot of these new conservative movements that we’re seeing pop up all over Europe, they want the direct relationship with the United States. And I will tell you, that is a change when it comes to European politics. I always say this. It’s taken decades for groups like the ECLJ and even us when we visit Europe to find a home in major political parties. I mean, that did not exist even 10 years ago. And it does now. And so we think this is the time to seize the moment. We have some potential countries we might be hitting along the way. So, I mean, we’re looking right now at Serbia, looking at Italy as well. Italy is a country that also has gone much more conservative in their minister of justice. And then there is a huge announcement today. that I will be making from Europe. I don’t want to get ahead of it, but a huge announcement that has major ramifications for, as you talked about, freedom of speech in Europe, political freedom and association, has huge legal ramifications that affects a major European country and a major European country. political figure so I don’t want to give away more than that but I will say that people will be excited to know we’ll be meeting with that figure as well to talk not only about what we’ll be doing but also what we could do here in the United States and maybe bringing that figure over to the United States as well so I think our audience our supporters our members are going to be very excited about this one and it is really kind of the the crux of why we’re making this trip.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yeah, and I think it’s an important time in Europe, and I think it’s an important time in the UK. You’re seeing also, as you said, not only a place for conservatives, you’re seeing a huge rise in Christianity even in these nations, specifically in the UK, more than they’ve ever had before since sort of the 60s. when they started having a real downturn in the church there, you’ve seen a real evangelical movement start to build. And of course we want to be a part of that as well, because I think it’s very important to remember that we live in a pretty small world and that we want to always focus on what’s going on in America, what’s going on in the United States, that we have a presence everywhere. And of course that all is connected. Let’s try to take some phone calls real quick before we have to wrap up. Let’s go to Martin in North Carolina. He’s got a question watching on YouTube. You’re on the air, Martin.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you, sir. I appreciate you taking my call. I was talking to the screener about the ICE detention with them pushing the wing, but people seem to forget the left tried to do that same thing down at the Department of Education. And I’m not going to say for sure, but while I was waiting, I was looking back. in some of the videos, I’m not so sure that Representative McIvor was not there as well. So we need to keep in mind, bullying our way into things is not proper protocol, and that’s not the way these people should be handling themselves.
SPEAKER 02 :
Martin, I’m going to cut you off because we’re running out of time here, but I want to let Will respond because he’s got some information.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yeah, that’s right. Representative McIver did lead Democrats to protest that. Department of Education moves when Doge was going in there. So this isn’t just a one-off for her. This is them strategically moving around places trying to cause a scene instead of doing what would be real oversight. We talked about Rand Paul earlier talking about working with Christy Noem about the quiet skies and doing real oversight, getting documents, investigating things of that nature, showing up with cameras is not oversight. That’s a sideshow.
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, that’s a press conference. And again, now they’re doing press conferences that they’re trying to rile up law enforcement. Again, you could join protests. You could protest that you don’t like the policy of the Department of Education being returned to the states and the power back to the states. You could protest that all you want. We were outside the Supreme Court, plenty of protests there. That is fine. Do it peacefully. Do it lawfully. And that’s very American to do. When you start assaulting police officers, you’ve reached a new level of, it’s not even civil disobedience anymore. That is just criminal conduct, violent criminal conduct. And members of Congress are not immune from being prosecuted for violent criminal conduct anymore. because they believe that they had a right to be someplace and yet still didn’t follow the rules of a place like that, which is a detention facility, which even though they have oversight over, has got a lot of rules in place. It’s like, yes, you can have oversight over the federal prison, but when you go in there, you don’t get to make up your own rules as a member of Congress.
SPEAKER 02 :
All right, let’s go ahead and take one more call. Ronald in South Carolina. I apologize to Phil and Joel. We’re not going to be able to get to you today. Ronald, you’re on the air.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yes, thanks for taking my call. I enjoyed the explanation that Jordan did in defining what lawfare and criminal acts and the difference of that. And so this MacGyver representative, I don’t think she actually thought this thing through because this type of criminal record will stay with you forever and it may affect her security clearance as long as she’s in the White House.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, this is the difference. Elected officials don’t have those same issues. Now, it could, for instance, if you had a party in charge, for instance, her own party, and decided what you did, this conduct was wrong, we should remove you from committees where you have those clearances. So basically, you’re taking off committees, and the DNC or the DCCC decides to primary you in a campaign and basically remove you from Congress.
SPEAKER 02 :
That’s not happening here. We’re getting marketing emails. From the Democrat Party. Right, exactly. She’s not paying for these personally. From the DCCC, who I was just talking about.
SPEAKER 04 :
So they are leaning into this and saying, again, I think the Trump team needs to be aware of it. And again, if there’s actual criminal conduct, you can arrest people. You can charge them with assault. At the same time, know that they’re playing this game with you.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, and Jordan, they tried to offer her a deal. Yeah. And she rejected it. Why? So they could send fundraising emails. Because you know what’s not as good of a fundraising email? I just made a deal with the Department of Justice.
SPEAKER 02 :
I pled guilty. Right. I understand. She probably doesn’t want to do that as well. Hey, thank you so much for joining us today. We’re going to have a packed week still coming up, so make sure If you are brand new to the broadcast or you haven’t yet, hit that subscribe button if you’re watching on YouTube or on Rumble. If you’re on any of our other social platforms, make sure you’re always engaging with us because we post new content each and every day. Brand new live shows each and every day, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern time. You can listen to the show. You can watch the show. You can get engaged, get your comments in, get your questions in each and every day. And of course, you can support the work of the ACLJ. as our team is hard at work. You heard what Jordan said, what’s going on in Europe, what’s going on in Washington, D.C. This is not something that’s cheap. It’s not something we can do for nothing. We have to have your support to continue these fights, whether that is, again, at a $5 a month level, or whether that’s at a $5,000 a month level. Know that we appreciate it, and all donations really matter to us. We really appreciate it. Talk to you tomorrow.
