BREAKING: Senate Judiciary to Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Censorship

Breaking news!

The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena the Twitter CEO over censorship and looking to a hearing next Friday. We'll talk about that and more today on JSecula Live. Well, there is a lot of news to talk about today. One, you've got, of course, the hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. They are coming to a close today.

There's just the testimony. She's done. She's finished her portion, her two days of testimony. She did an excellent job. I think Democrats on the committee just looked outright foolish whenever they tried to challenge her.

And their statements, again, they just don't resonate with the Americans. And trying to make her out to be some kind of radical because of her faith or because she's pro-life and all those issues. I think she did an excellent job. She had no notes. She had the notepad. She showed up. She brought no documents. She brought no. She didn't have people whispering in her ear.

She was able to go through. Again, I think she put forth her judicial philosophy in each scenario she was brought to, whether it was the hot-button topics that people kind of tune into politically or that are politically charged. Or the issues like business issues, antitrust issues, economic issues.

A lot of the issues that go before the Supreme Court that don't get as much attention. So those hearings wrap up. And then you've got likely will be a vote next week.

It'll be on the 22nd. That will be her vote out of committee. We expect a party-line partisan vote, 12 to 10. And then it heads to Mitch McConnell.

So you see the kind of flow here. President nominates. The Judiciary Committee has their hearings. They can hold it over for a week.

That's normal practice. Then they vote. And then it goes. Then it's in Mitch McConnell's hands, the Senate majority leader, to figure out the voting time on the Senate floor. Because it opens time for debate.

So you open it up for debate and how long that will go. And then you'll file a cloture motion ultimately. And then an actual vote to confirm Judge Barrett. Right now, it looks like that is on track. Now you know with these Supreme Court nominations and in time with COVID, you don't want to rule any possibility out of something coming up.

So don't get overconfident ever until the confirmation is done. But I wanted to update you on that now that we've got some huge breaking news. Because the Senate Judiciary Committee is very busy right now, obviously, with this hearing on a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment. But Dad, they have now announced, after Twitter made that move to censor a New York Post article about Hunter Biden yesterday, they have now announced that this action by Twitter had just gone too far with the censorship. And they've been doing this for a few weeks.

And it's really close to an election, so a lot of different laws come into place. And they have announced that they will have a vote to subpoena the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, and have him appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Friday, Dad. Well, here's the risk of what is happening.

And I think we have to be very clear as to what this is. And the risk is that what you have is a major social media platform skewing the news. And skewing the news in such a way that the only reason they backed off of it was because there was other news outlets started reporting the New York Post story. So putting the whole issue aside on what's in the New York Post story, the idea that social media platforms are going to now be in the business of kind of skewing what you're going to see and what you're not going to see is very dangerous, especially 19 days out or 18 days out from an election for the President of the United States. And they then closed various people's Twitter feeds, including the White House press office. The press secretary, Kayleigh, was actually frozen. So that happened to our colleague, Rick Grenell.

I mean, this is what's got to stop in order for there to be at least a free flow of information back and forth. I want to add one thing on the Supreme Court nominee. Amy Barrett proved why she will be a great justice. She was unflappable. She answered the questions. She did it forthrightly. She drew the line where it would be inappropriate to answer a particular question on how you'll vote in a particular case.

And frankly, I think some of these centers ended up looking, quite frankly, Jordan, ridiculous. All right, folks, we're going to start taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110. This Twitter censorship hasn't gone too far this close to an election where they selectively censor out news that appears to hurt Joe Biden.

They don't do anything about Chinese propaganda. So 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, playing parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. This is Jordan Sekio. So we've got breaking news. So the three senators stepped out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They include the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, Senator Hawley. So those three senators have made statements and have announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a vote to subpoena Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, for his testimony next Friday before the Senate Judiciary Committee in relation to this censorship of selective censorship of news outlets. Listen to what Senator Ted Cruz had to say. I think he kind of summed it up perfectly because whatever you think about the news that's reported and what's come out about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the laptop, listen to what Senator Ted Cruz had to say.

I think this is the key. The committee today will be noticing a markup on Tuesday to issue a subpoena to Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Friday to come before this committee and the American people and explain why Twitter is abusing their corporate power to silence the press and to cover up allegations of corruption. And let me be clear, I don't know if these New York Post stories are true or not. Those are questions Vice President Biden should answer. But Twitter and Facebook and big tech billionaires don't get to censor political speech and actively interfere in the election. That's what they're doing right now. And so on Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee, the full committee will be voting on subpoenas to subpoena Jack Dorsey to come before our committee.

All right, so there you go. I want to go to Thad Bennett too in Washington, D.C., Thad, because I think this is a major announcement. Conservatives have been upset about this specifically because it's been conservatives that have been targeted. Our own Rick Renell, special advisor to the ACLJ, a former acting director of national intelligence and cabinet member, was locked out of his Twitter account just last week and had to have that resolved. And that's someone who has the ability to get it resolved.

A lot of people don't. And so this, again, Thad, has been resonating amongst conservatives. And now Twitter has gone and started banning newspapers, one of the fourth largest newspaper company news outlet in the country. This is not supposed to happen in the United States of America, Jordan. I mean, withholding information from voters right before an election, that happens in Banana Republic, not the United States of America until maybe now. Look, Jack Dorsey could have gone out and used the platform that he runs to say that, I don't know, maybe he should say this story in his view is unverified and salacious. I've heard those words somewhere before. He didn't do that.

He stopped millions of American people from being able to access the same information that he used to come to his conclusion. But Jordan, I want to underscore something you said about Ted Cruz and Chairman Graham and Senator Hawley's announcement that they are going to subpoena Jack Dorsey. By the way, Senator Hawley has also invited Mark Zuckerberg to be a part of that.

He traditionally, Jordan, has been more willing to appear voluntarily. Either way, I expect both of them will be there on Friday. I think they will use subpoenas for both if they have to. But at this point, I think that will only be necessary for Jack Dorsey.

But here's the point I wanted to make. They're going to take that vote on Tuesday. Then they're going to report Judge Barrett out of committee on Thursday. And then they're going to have this hearing on Friday.

How would you like to be a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee over the last couple of weeks or next week? It's going to be going to be a very full week for them. Yeah, this is really big. I mean, you know what, I think that the main thing we're saying, and I think this is the point that has to be reiterated, and let me say this very clearly.

The idea that these tech companies, and we utilize them, I mean, look, we're on Twitter, we're on Facebook, we're on all these platforms. But the idea that weeks before an election, literally days before an election, in fact, the election is going on right now in many states, people are voting. The idea that they would skew the news, which is what they've done here, there is no justification for that. And they'd have to be particularly careful when you're in the vicinity of an election. Now, as Senator Cruz said, whether what's in there is true or not true or partially true, I'm not going to get into that.

I have no idea. But this idea that you would take the fourth largest distributed newspaper in the country and start censoring out their news items. And the only reason you allow them to be posted is because, well, others started reporting it. I think that's the problem. So we'll see if it gets addressed in these upcoming hearings.

But again, it does show you what an interesting couple of weeks it's going to be. And folks that are listening, let me tell you what we could do. I'm thinking about this and kind of talking out loud. And that is, before that hearing, I would like our members to express their concerns over this kind of censorship. And maybe Matt and our team, Ben and others, could start looking at and our social media team putting together a petition that we could deliver to these senators right when that hearing starts. Ben, when is the date of the hearing with the tech companies?

Yeah, it's going to be next Friday, so the 23rd, Jay. So we'd have to move. I mean, Jordan, we'd have to move quickly. But I think we could get 100,000 signatures or more maybe from each of the 50 states.

Because people had enough. Unless, of course, Facebook and Twitter stop us from telling people about signing the petition and things like that. See, this is the problem.

The fact that I can utter that sentence and it's not a joke. Yeah, I'm just hoping we stay on the air. I mean, seriously, when we talked about today going on the air and doing what would appear on Twitter, and it appears on Twitter that the Senate is going to subpoena the CEO of Twitter over censorship. Which, by the way, there are a whole host of different laws and structures within the government. There's FCC. There's, of course, the election interference.

The list goes on and on. It's just totally within the purview of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be reviewing this. But then, of course, they can shut you off. Now, the question is, was this the step too far for Twitter? Because they now, not just individuals, but they're now going after corporations. Corporate news outlets that have been in existence for many, many, many years with different publications that share different views.

That don't come to conclusions but report what they've received. New York Times does the same thing. I think a lot of these outlets, again, if it was about Donald Trump, I don't think there'd be any censorship, and I think the New York Times would have published the same information about one of Donald Trump's family members.

If you just substitute the name, and they put out the information, and Twitter wouldn't censor it. Yeah, they're going to take down New York Times articles or Washington Post articles about the Russia investigation, which has now been proved to be completely false, a lot of the reporting, or the Steele dossier. Are they going to go back and say, now that's not, you know, we're going to start censoring those out? Of course they're not.

So this is what, you know, we used to call this in the classic litigation sense, and I handled a lot of these cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is viewpoint discrimination. It's not like we're saying we're not going to run newspaper articles on our platforms, we're just not going to do that. Instead they say we're not going to run this message, or this viewpoint, on Facebook or Twitter or whatever it might be, but Jordan, you're right. Before we went on air, we said, you know, we've got to be careful ourselves here because we can be the victims of the censorship, and one of our colleagues, Rick Cornell, has already been that.

Yeah, absolutely right. Let me play Senator Lindsey Graham on this. He is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, so for this to move forward quickly like this, of course he has to be on board as well, he had this to say. Nobody in Twitter and social media shut down anything about Trump and Russia.

So we're going to proceed Tuesday. Hopefully the Democrats on the committee will be as interested in this as we are, because it's us today, it could be them tomorrow. That's the poll point, is that it shouldn't be partisan at all. Unfortunately, it could become that, because you've got the more liberal news outlets going after another news outlet.

I mean, it's kind of sickening to see, actually, in a country where we have freedom of the press and the Constitution, First Amendment, and freedom of speech, and they love protecting their sources and confidential sources, and they've gone to the Supreme Court and gotten those protections for themselves, and the famous New York Times cases, they love putting out classified info that gets leaked to them, unless it's something about, unless it's near an election, and it's something about the candidate they prefer, or sometimes even will endorse in their editorial pages. And that's because, and the Supreme Court has been unanimous, that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. Now, whether those standards would apply to a private-owned social media company, that's a different story. But, so that's a different, those are different legal issues. But the general rule, I mean, you shouldn't even be thinking about it, is that an outlet, if there was any state action, and there'd be a legal question on that, you cannot discriminate based on particular viewpoints. But let's go take it a step further here. Now they're going to call for a hearing.

I hope the practice is, I wish the hearing wasn't necessary, unfortunately it is, because you cannot have this kind of censorship. Jordan, what are we, 19, 20 days away? I mean, 18 days away from the election? This is like happening really soon, and the idea that you'd be skewing the votes, I just think is really dangerous.

Absolutely. I mean, this is, again, we're under three weeks. We're under three weeks now from the election date, and people have got to understand that this becomes interference.

Picking and choosing what information gets submitted. We're 19 days away. 19 days away. People are, you know, the early voting in states that have that, that's now underway. In person, early voting is underway. I see the lines. I drove in to the studio today. I mean, there's actual lines for early voting.

And this is just the first couple days where I am. So, this has an impact. And I think the bigger story here is, it's, believe what you want or not, like Ted Cruz said, or get to the bottom of and have Joe Biden answer the questions. Why did his campaign say there was no meeting ever and now they're suddenly saying they're not putting that out? That's, you know, politics, they got to answer that. But why are we censoring people from sending out tweets? And by the way, we're preparing a response to Twitter right now on behalf of Rick Renell because of him being blocked.

That's actually going out today. But only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected. Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. And here's the issue I go to, because this information came out from Catherine Herridge, and we haven't had a lot of time to cover it yet, but this is key. This is the FBI declassified a spreadsheet that the Bureau, I'm holding up in my hands, the spreadsheet from the FBI, which again, it's not very impressive.

It's long, it's a long spreadsheet when you have to print it out, but this is the spreadsheet used by the FBI to try and corroborate the Steele dossier. Now there's a lot of problems with it, but one of the main problems you'll see is that to corroborate the allegations, what do they cite? News stories. They actually cite news stories, not as reports, but as a way to corroborate allegations.

They're the FBI. If they see a news story, they're supposed to go and corroborate if they think there was wrongdoing or something they need to investigate. But they were using that news sources. This gets to, again, they abused the use of the news at the FBI under the Obama administration, and now they're censoring the news through their tech company, friends. Of course, news that they made sure got leaked out, or at least was leaked out. Remember, Christopher Steele's contract with the FBI was terminated for what reason? Leaking information to the press. So he leaked information based on nothing, right? Unsourced, unverified, got a media story. The FBI then takes the media story that they fired Chris Steele for leaking, turn it into a FISA warrant, and take it to a FISA court.

That's what they did. Well, I mean, look at this. I'm going through the footnotes. So for each one of these, if you're watching, there's a report, there's an allegation, and there's the corroboration and analysis notes.

And they put quotes in there. And if you look at the quotes, on the first one, they're just quoting for corroboration, the Washington Post, and then the first footnote is a Politico article. The second one is a Washington Post article. The third is a Washington Post. Fourth, Politico. Fifth is Washington Post again. I think Amazon is involved with this, folks, since they own Washington Post. You've got to ask Jeff Bezos about that, huh? Washington Post again, Washington Post again.

I'm going through just the first 14. It's literally all news sources until they get to a couple of State Department records of Hillary Clinton's travel. And then it goes back to Washington Post, Washington Post, Politico, Washington Post, Washington Post.

That's the first couple of pages of sites. All news outlets, both those same two, Politico and Washington Post, one owned by a huge tech company, Amazon, and again, they're using that to corroborate. Not as something to say, we need to look at it because it's being reported. They're saying, well, if they're reporting it too, it must be something that we can actually use to justify, ultimately, investigations that led to FISA awards to spy on American citizens who happened to be, they left out that FBI attorney has pled guilty to a crime, that American citizen was a government asset, a U.S. asset.

Carter Page, his cover was blown because the FBI attorney who has pled guilty to a crime left that information out before it got to the FISA, people putting together the FISA application to get a warrant on Carter Page. And they cite news outlets, but yet these same big tech companies are now censoring news. So this is the problem, as Ted Cruz, Senator Graham said, you have to do something about it, and it's not just because it's happening to conservatives, it's because it just shouldn't be happening. Dad, that is the key here, is that these companies could, they are private companies, but there are laws, there are rules, and they have to abide by it. Well, they all have internal rules as well, and evidently, you know, they made this big statement about how they were going to be fair and neutral, and they were not going to violate the laws, and they were not going to violate their own internal policies.

And my question to these tech companies is, but it sounds like that's exactly what you're doing, and I don't know who pushed the button to say the New York Post was going to be the one tagged. I don't know who was the one who decided, oh, that's going too far, we're just not going to do that. But that's not what the law is set up to do. And I think that there's something else here, you know, when our colleague Rick Rinnell was censored and ultimately opened, you know, the question that I ask is, of course, did they ever say to Rick or to Rick's team, hey, we shouldn't have done this, this was inappropriate. Did they ever say that? Did they ever acknowledge the wrongdoing of this one-sided censorship that they're engaged in?

No, I mean, this is the issue, is that they kind of just go ahead and they unblock you after the public pressure, after they've been contacted by attorneys, but they don't say that what they did was wrong. And so we're actually, in Rick's situation, demanding that, demanding that they acknowledge what they did was inappropriate and wrong and so that there's some record of them actually saying it wasn't just some kind of accident or some kind of algorithm, but it was a decision that was wrong and apologizing for that kind of action. And see, this is just building on the issue, and that was much, I think, much less because he's an individual and they were trying to say, well, because he was holding up the ballots, that it was somehow, they were given to him by someone he knows who said they could be shared. The ballots were to someone he knows, two deceased parents who had been deceased for a number of years, and the friends gave him the, said, you should show people this is happening. I've held out ballots that I've received at different addresses and that my wife has received at different places we have lived, and we've gotten live ballots sent to us.

I held them up on this broadcast. It's something people are doing, Dad, to show that this mail-in ballot is causing a problem because there's so many live ballots floating around, and if bad people get a hold of those, or if, like, my last address where we were renting, but we were registered to vote there, if people got, they wouldn't necessarily recognize the name and say, oh, this is the people in the house before because we were renting. But they got live ballots, and by the way, that was a huge swing state. What if they don't even read it closely and just start, and send it in, or they just don't understand, say, okay, I need to send this back in some way. I mean, there's so much, so many problems with that, and yet he got censored, he got blocked, he could not access his account. Then it got unblocked, and it just kind of, but nothing from Twitter. You know, it's like, and that's someone who has prominence.

If you're a normal person, it's much tougher. Yeah, Craig Parshall from our office, who's our senior counsel, of counsel to our ACLJ, and is our expert in big tech. I mean, that's what he does. He does it for organizations all over the country. He's on it, and we're, because even though they have opened it back up, you want to be in a situation where this does not happen again. So how do you prevent it from happening again is to get a formal recognition that it should not have happened in the first place, and that's what we're doing. And your support of the work of the American Center for Law and Justice allows us to do that, so that we can help not only our team. By the way, we've represented ministries and organizations that have had the same problems, the very same problems and issues on other matters with Facebook and Twitter and other social media platforms. We've had great results.

Craig gets great results, but I know that Juice for Jesus had trouble with something, and Craig was able to get it fixed. And again, it took, he's got a great knowledge in this area, but your support of the work of the American Center for Law and Justice doesn't only bring you this program every day, doesn't let us fight just for those FOIA cases to find out what's going on in government, doesn't just allow us to do the work globally as it relates to Israel or religious liberty in Europe and freedom and life issues, but it also makes sure that airwaves can be open for communication, so support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. Go to ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org to support the work of the ACLJ, make a tax-deductible donation if you're in that position to financially do so. We appreciate that, so we can continue to do all this work and respond immediately as situations arise. Go to ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. I mean, I have to wonder now, if Twitter stays on this path, whether we need to just say, let us know you're being censored. We need to think about that too, to send a mass amount of these to get the people unblocked, because most people don't have access to attorneys to get it done.

We'll be right back. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. I'm talking about freedom.

I'm talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Second Half Hour, Jay Sekulow Live. We're at the final witness for the hearings on Judge Amy Barrett. So she's done testifying, and that was yesterday and the day before. You hear from the witnesses that that will close, and then they will schedule a vote for the Senate Judiciary Committee for the committee. And that will occur next week. And if this stays on track the way it looks, that will be a partisan vote, 12 to 10 out of the committee.

Don't expect more than that. But then it goes to the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, who can then kind of put the schedule together for when there's debate on the nomination so that senators who aren't on the committee can have time to weigh in and make their remarks on the Senate floor. And then ultimately it comes to a cloture vote and then an actual vote on the nomination.

That's where we're looking. Where do we look for on a date to actually see when people will be seeing the yeas and nays come in, if you will? Week of October 26, sometime in that week. It depends on when Leader McConnell files cloture. He's already said he is going to take it to the floor the Friday after the vote, so that would be the 23rd. He could choose to file cloture that day, Jordan, so the vote could be as early as Monday. My guess is it'll probably be more like Tuesday or Wednesday, but we'll see. Like you said, that's up to Leader McConnell.

It's his choice to make, but he's committed to taking it right to the floor. Earlier this morning, Jordan, in executive session, Chairman Graham officially put it on the calendar. They officially held it over, and they officially noticed the committee vote for the 22nd.

So that is going to happen. And I just wanted to make one note. Right now, that final witness you've talked about, it's a woman by the name of Laura Wolk. She was a student of Judge Barrett's at Notre Dame Law. Jordan, she became the first blind female to ever be a clerk on the Supreme Court of the United States. There's quite a moment hearing her testimony right now. She's testifying passionately in favor of Judge Barrett. Judge Barrett was very essential in making sure she had the equipment and the assistance that she needed at Notre Dame Law to succeed. Clearly, Jordan, she succeeded, became a clerk on the Supreme Court and is thriving in her career now. So pretty powerful testimony right now to close up that hearing.

Alright, so that's where we are with Judge Barrett and her path to becoming Justice Barrett, and we'll continue to update you on that. So there will be kind of a weak fan where there will not be much to see on the hearing or to hear about in the hearing. And then there will be the vote in the committee, and then it moves on. So after today, it kind of goes a little bit quiet for a week. On the actual, not that people will stop talking about it, but that there won't be official business going on that we can watch and tune into and see. And then they'll come back together for that vote.

Is that right there? Yeah, I actually think it's a good point that you make there though, Jordan, because one of the arguments today from Democrats on the committee is that they don't have time to consider this nomination. Well, what about the next seven days?

I mean, are they going to complain over the next seven days where there's not a whole lot going on? That's the whole reason that Chairman Graham allowed this holdover, so that he can look at all this material that she turned in, look at all the responses to the questions that she gave, and make an evaluation, Jordan. Okay, hold on. Hold on. We've got breaking news then.

Dianne Feinstein just did it again. Hot mic. She didn't know her microphone was on. Take a look.

We have the audio. Here's what she said. Take a listen. She's been pro-life for a long time. So I suspect that her is deeply personal and comes with a religion. You heard what she said there. She's been pro-life for a long time.

And I suspect with her it's deeply personal and again, this is the part that's really key. Comes with a religion. Comes with her religion. It's not the fact... I don't really care that Dianne Feinstein says she's been pro-life.

That's true. Senator Graham even said that as the chairman. It's the way she said, I suspect with her it's because that just comes with her religious belief.

Because at God of... Caught again. Exactly what they've always wanted to do. They were embarrassed to do it this time in a live mic, so they got caught in a hot mic.

They didn't want to do it when they're there asking questions, but that's all they're thinking about. You know what this means, Jordan? Amy Barrett will be the associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in about two weeks. Yes, because Dianne Feinstein just made the ad for the Trump campaign.

That's the truth. She's making ads for all senators that are Republican and the Donald Trump for his campaign. She did it once again. She made Amy Barrett a star. Now she made her a Supreme Court justice.

I think you're right. We'll be back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Jay Sekula Live. This is Jordan Sekula. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. This is breaking news, folks, that again is just because C-SPAN, unlike some other news outlets, when the hearing is ongoing and they take those breaks, they just kind of keep the camera on. I mean, that's known. The senators know that. And the senators, by the way, no one's like in their face with a microphone right now, but they do have to turn off their mics and other senators do. And there's live mics.

You've got to know that if you're in that room, there's cameras on you, it's live right now, and that what you say is probably being picked up by people. Well, Diane Feinstein wouldn't say it during the hearing when she was speaking to her microphone this time, but she's done it again, attacking, obsessing over Judge Barrett's religious faith, saying just moments ago when they were in a break, and it will play you the sound again, that her pro-life views just come with her religious faith. I mean, again, they are barred by the Constitution of the United States from even considering your religious faith, Article 6, when they are deciding whether you are fit to serve in a position in the government. But yet, they are obsessed.

So I will say this again because we're going to a break. Senator Dianne Feinstein made Amy Barrett a star amongst conservatives all across the country. Not just conservatives in the legal world, but conservative activists. And people were so excited about her because she brought attention to her hearing by an attention to Amy Barrett before she was even a judge, because she said the dogma lives loudly within you and deeply and all that. And so that became huge. And then Durbin said the orthodox Catholic thing. And so people said, well, let's really follow her then on the bench because this is absurd what they've done.

It got all this attention. Usually circuit court nominees don't. And it really elevated her as someone to watch.

Well, they did. And so now she's been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States because of what Dianne Feinstein did. We knew she would get the nomination, I think. Definitely came with the fact that she became elevated as someone who people were paying attention to who helped advise the President on making these decisions. And now she's been caught again, dad.

We're playing a second, but I believe and you believe too. So Dianne Feinstein made sure, you know, ensured she'd be a circuit court nominee because that was it after she said that. They just basically stopped and just moved the nomination through because the pushback was so strong. But she just did it again. I think they're done again because this is going to be all over the news in a minute. And people don't like the Constitution bars, this obsession they have over people's personal religious faith.

I want to ask our production team if they could find for me may take a few minutes. Jeff Toobin statement when he referenced Dianne Feinstein, he said she shouldn't even be on the committee and then made the statement. Then when they attack her religion again, he said, yeah, good luck with that.

That's not going to work out very well. And yet they did it, you know, it's even if they don't say it publicly, now they're saying it privately, but on a hot mic. So I think it'd be good if we can, we'll play what Dianne Feinstein said. But let's also dig up what Jeff Toobin said just a couple of weeks ago, leading into this hearing. I think that's very relevant. Yeah, I mean, this is, let's, let's listen again to Senator Feinstein.

So let me just explain again what happened. So the hearing is live stream on places like C-SPAN and when they take a break, they don't, they don't shut off their, their stream because the senators are moving around. They let people see the imagery of that and kind of like what happens. Senators all know that you can see the cameras, you know, they're all over actually. But C-SPAN and they also, they get the audio feed from the microphones.

I mean, they're not doing anything wrong by that. That's how they hear. That's how they're able to broadcast the audio, but they keep it running because they don't go to commercial break. So if there's, if it's silent, it's silent on C-SPAN. They don't care. And if it's just crowd noise, room noise, that's fine. Well, Senator Feinstein was either, was talking to someone and she said this and either that person's mic wasn't off or her mic wasn't off.

It's being broadcast live. Take a listen. She's been pro-life for a long time. So I suspected her in peace, personally, and comes with a religion.

So there, I mean, there it is again, Dad. It comes with her religion because it's, and so she's pro-life for a long time and it just comes with her faith. By the way, you could be pro-life and not religious. You could think that, you know, killing a baby in eight months is wrong.

You could believe that abortion is wrong for scientific and medical reasons. It's not just about religious faith, but the fact that they're obsessed so much with religious faith is what upsets me so much. It's outrageous.

It's disgusting. And the founding fathers knew, even, that they should never, ever decide about anyone's qualifications, whether they're qualified or not, to serve in a government position based on that person's religious belief. And they actually barred in the U.S. Constitution. Way before you get to the Bill of Rights and the amendments. Oh, yeah, right. You can't have, you know, religious tests. I mean, it can be any clearer than that.

There are no religious tests, which Dianne Feinstein obviously doesn't agree with because she always comes back to a religious test, even when she doesn't want to say it during the questioning. Now, do we have the Jeff Toobin soundbite? Uh, Will?

Too sick. Here we go. No. What are you saying, Will?

We're all kind of, we're working on it right now. All right. Let me just, let me just figure out, I'm not sure what's going on, the Toobin there, but we'll take your, okay, we got it. We got it. We got it. We got it.

Here you go. Her incredibly inept behavior during Judge Barrett's confirmation hearing had an enormous consequence that helped the forces that Dianne Feinstein has spent her entire career fighting against. I mean, that's just what happened. So again, but they did it, Dad. I mean, that is the key.

And Than, go to Than 2. This is Article 6. They're not supposed to do this. And she got caught the first time because she did it right to her face, to Judge Barrett's face. Many of us are concerned because, you know, it feels, sounds like the dogma lives loudly within you.

And that was outrageous. Dick Durbin, who's now talking right now, you know, he called her an Orthodox Catholic, which is just a made up way, I guess, of saying that a Catholic actually believes in the tenets of the Catholic faith. But these are not their jobs. And yet they obsess over it and Dianne Feinstein continues to obsess over it with this nominee. Jordan, I think this is an example of out of the depths of the heart, the mouth speaks. I mean, Dianne Feinstein said it in public last time. She wasn't willing to say it in public this time, but very revealing. As soon as the cameras not go off, as soon as she thinks maybe that nobody's paying attention, she says it again.

Jordan, but I just want to reiterate this point. I mean, you've made it, but we have to say it again. Why is it that you can be pro-choice and agnostic and not get this question at all? Of course you're qualified based on your legal experience, but if God forbid you're pro-life and fervent in your faith, you have to come before a committee and get this kind of animosity. Not only is it inappropriate, it is unconstitutional plainly under Article 6. But you know, when it comes to the life issue, I've said this for 40 years, I'll say it again today, there is an abortion distortion factor.

It like it changes all of the rules of the Constitution, it changes all the rules of normative behavior, it changes all the rules for confirmation for justice's Supreme Court. Do you think for a moment, did anybody really think that this wasn't in the back of Diane Feinstein's mind or at the forefront of it? The Senator said it during the confirmation hearing when Amy Barrett was up for a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

She mouthed it again to a live mic that she may not have known was live, but folks don't deceive yourself. This is what they want to do with people of faith. This is the animus. They're the ones that have animus. They're the ones engaged in discriminatory conduct. They're the ones that want to change the rules if you have faith or if you're going to actually put your faith into action on an issue like life. They're the ones that distort the meaning of the Constitution. They're the ones that hold up the Constitution and are willing to shred it to get their way.

Literally willing to shred it. There's no religious oath test clause in the Constitution of the United States for a reason. The Founding Fathers were smart. They understood exactly what this Senator is thinking. And as Jeff Steuben said, good luck with that. It did not work out well with you last time. And let me tell you what it just means this time. Confirmed. So Diane Feinstein, congratulations.

And I thank you because I think that Amy Coney Barrett is going to be a fantastic Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. You did it again. They can't help themselves. They hate religious people.

I mean, I will say this far. They have a serious disdain, maybe a level of hatred for people that actually have deeply held religious beliefs. Now, many of them are associated with a particular religious faith and will say that they've got religious beliefs. But if you actually, again, they have this secular worldview of their religion. So if you have personal actual religious faith, it's not just like a cultural or part of what you do as a community, but you actually believe it.

Oh, they hate you for that. This person actually believes what you go in here at church, or they actually believe what you go in here at the synagogue or the mosque. They got something wrong with them. I mean, they may go to the church or the synagogue or the mosque, but I don't actually believe that stuff. They call themselves Catholic, but they're not pro-life, even though that's a main tenant of the Catholic Church. And so again, this idea that if you're actually a person of religious faith, you're somehow, there's something wrong with you. It's disgusting. And it's why I think the left might just continue to lose and continue to lose.

Don't know? I mean, we're less than three weeks out from the election. People don't like this disdain they show for people just who have religious faith and actually believe it. We'll be back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. Welcome back to JSecYoLive. So, again, I want to take some phone calls, but I want to hit that one more time just so people are joining us. This is breaking. It has happened in the midst of it. It really hasn't gotten to the news yet because you've got the hearing started again. But it's out now in social media, and it's because it was happening during one of the breaks. But C-SPAN doesn't cut from the breaks.

They don't have commercials. And they just kind of let people see it for various reasons. They keep the camera on.

You kind of see what's going on in the hearing room, and you see the senators walking around. And there's microphones everywhere, and they can turn those off. I have a button right here that can turn my microphone off.

But if you don't turn it off, and you could be definitely talking to somebody who maybe it's their mic that's not off. So there's lots of microphones everywhere. There's video cameras everywhere. And all these senators, especially Diane Feinstein, who's been there forever, know that C-SPAN doesn't stop their feed and cut to break. So it's like you're not really in private.

You were in public. And it's very public. And they've caught her again basically attacking Judge Barrett's religious faith. It comes with her faith that she's pro-life. So nothing we can do to change her about being pro-life. You know, here's the thing. It is a breaking news alert in one sense, but in another sense, it's not a breaking news alert at all.

You know why? Does anybody really question that those members of the Senate Judiciary Committee don't think that the fact that she is a person of faith, that that cuts against what they want? Of course they do. So now they mouthed it the last time she was up for the Seventh Circuit, and they got a lot of pushback.

And they got a lot of, I don't know if we ever found the bite with Jeff Toobin where he says, good luck with that, if they try that again. But of course, so it's a, okay, so I'll play that in a moment. So in a sense it's a breaking news alert because she's caught on a live mic. But in another sense, of course, this is how she thinks. Because they think if you're a person of faith, you don't get to participate in these kind of positions. Or you cannot be a public servant or a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. You know, that's the irony of all this. But Jeff Toobin from CNN said this about Dianne Feinstein.

I want you to listen to it, especially what he says at the end. Dianne Feinstein was and is a distinguished public servant who has served for many years on the Supreme Court. She is now 87 years old, and she has repeatedly engaged in behavior in recent months that seem out of step with what Democrats want to do. And, you know, she is going to be the leader of the Democratic forces on the Judiciary Committee, and all I can say is good luck with that, Democrats. Well, and Jeff was prophetic in that sense because that's exactly what happened.

All right, let's take some calls. As history ties, I was looking at it because this is out mostly on social media. It was actually CBN News. It was not C-SPAN. It was our friends over at CBN News who kept their feed going, and they didn't cut it or anything. People saw it, that they are in their feed, which they have access to because the government gives you that, the audio and to the mics.

They just had like a one-camera feed going, nothing unique or special. Well, good job, CBN. And, you know, our special advisor Rick Rinnell, you know, this idea that he tweeted out that the way she sounds there is that being somehow a person of religious faith comes with baggage. It comes with being pro-life.

Instead of like freeing you from baggage, it comes with baggage. And one of that with Judge Barrett is like, well, so long as she's so religious, well, she's going to be pro-life, and we can't do anything about it. You know what she's kind of saying there? She's not going to be one of those Supreme Court justices that moves to the left. That's what she's saying. She's too, she has a religious belief, and we're not going to be able to convince her at cocktail parties to ultimately come along our side.

Yeah, because the dogma lives deeply within her. Yep. I mean, just let us sit in, folks. Let's take the calls. People, hold on. Ed in New York on Line 1. Ed, welcome to Jay Sekio Live.

Thank you for taking my call. I heard you mention that there is a law about these big tech companies censoring people and organizations. Why is there no teeth in this law? Why do they have to keep bringing these big tech guys before committees to answer questions? Why aren't they fined billions of dollars?

Really, really make a mark. Well, you can't just fine people billions of dollars without due process. So I want to be clear on this. I think Senator Graham and Senator Cruz, Senator Hawley, are right to call for a hearing to find out what happened.

There is no magic bullet here. There is no law. You could say, okay, you're charged and $5 billion is what you're going to pay because you made these statements. That's not the way the law works, Ed. I appreciate you calling in.

I appreciate you listening. And we would not want the law to operate that way because if it did, it would affect all of us, too. So what do you do? You call for a hearing and you find out exactly what happened before you take the next action. These are private companies. The rules are different. It's not a state actor here. But they have such a big footprint that there are applicable laws. But the idea that you just go in and fine them $5 billion, well, our team doesn't do that. No, I mean, no, no. You've got to have the investigation.

You've got to have the hearing. You've got to see the pattern in practice that they continue to do it. They continue to do it selectively to a group. So it's not just wrong censorship on both sides, but is it censoring a particular viewpoint?

Here it appears to be mostly conservative. There's FCC rules. There's all these different rules. Some are fines, like you talked about, and then the others are, again. But to develop those fines, you've got to kind of see this record of when they said they were going to start doing this censorship because the left was calling on them to do it, which is so ironic in many ways. How would they do it? They said they were going to be fair.

It was going to be very selective and go through practices, and now it's been only conservatives. That's the problem with this. Let's go to Kay in South Carolina on Line 3. Hey, Kay. Hey there. I'm so glad for all that you all do. Thank you very much. I know that the Amy Coney Barrett hearing, it was wonderful.

She held up great, and I'm excited to have her join the bench. My question is, there's talk now that the Democrats are going to try the only trick, I guess, that they have left, and that is to boycott these so that they wouldn't show up. What can the Republicans do, and how can we overcome that? A vote is all you have to do. Go to Than Bennett on that. All you have to do is vote because if none of them show up, there's still a quorum, Than, and the vote goes forward.

Yep, you don't need them. They've said they're not going to provide a quorum to either the committee or the floor. Well, guess what? They don't have a majority in either the committee or the floor, so you know what? Actually, in some ways, Jay, maybe the vote would be easier if they didn't show up. There's enough Republicans to provide a quorum. There's enough Republicans to confirm her. Yeah, especially now, Jordan, with this latest revelation of Dianne Feinstein's, which is no shock, because we know this is what she was thinking the entire time, so who's surprised at any of this?

But let's be realistic here. If they don't show up, she's still confirmed. If they show up, she's still confirmed. So you know what it means at the end of the day?

She's confirmed. I think what, and they don't understand that because these senators may not have seen this yet that this has happened, so that Blumenthal and her and Feinstein, I think probably Feinstein is learning about this right now because they're showing the hearing, and she was speaking as the ranking member of the hearing, and then she left, and now I'm sure she is finding out what is now all over social media, and that is her hot mic moment on this. So I feel like you're going to go from these senators who have already been, I mean, again, they have looked, the ones who have tried to engage look ridiculous, but I think this will, again, this will kind of wrap this one up again because they've made another ad. During 19 days before the election, four Republicans running for the Senate, for the President, because they are tacking, their ranking member of the judiciary committee, the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is showing her disdain once again for someone because of their religious faith. And is that a tenet of the Democrat party?

Yeah, secularism. Now, again, we'll talk about this more tomorrow in the broadcast, the other stories we're getting to. Go to ACLJ.org, support our work, ACLJ.org.

We'll talk to you tomorrow. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.