On today's show, we've got a new update on a massive Intel review that follows the whistleblower's bombshell report. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.
And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We have a pack show. Mike Pompeo is going to be joining us today. We also have an update.
It is ACLJ Law and Justice Week. Here, as we have all donations are effectively doubled because of amazing donors ready to unlock any donation made. They're ready to unlock their pledge to double. The donation, which is really amazing right now. But we're able to do that because we also want to showcase our legal work.
So, a little bit later in the broadcast, you're going to see some of the work we've been doing against your favorite CNN.
So stay tuned for that. Again, Mike Pompey will be joining us a few segments. And I want to hear from you at 1-800-68-430-110.
Now, all of the topic today, actually, the main topic ties back to the topic that we had yesterday. Typically, we try to mix things up. Don't try to give you the same type of topic every each and every day. But, Will, there is a pretty big update. To what came out of that whistleblower claim and that report that came out yesterday from Tulsi Gabbard.
That's right.
So, what we're seeing now is that the current inspector general of the intelligence community, Christopher Fox, is now doing a top-to-bottom review of the whistleblower format and process within the intelligence community, as well as looking at. The urgent concern whistleblower complaints that were taken in by his predecessor, the one that we talked about yesterday, Michael Atkinson, whom had used this process, ignored safeguards, allowed for things to go forward, still pushed this complaint about that led to the impeachment of President Trump in 2019. After he knew that this individual had lied to him. After he knew that there were the DOJ saying this isn't something of urgent concern. You haven't done a full investigation of this.
The urgent concern. Complaints are a way to get something to Congress quickly before the Inspector General has time to do a full investigation and review of it. We know that he never looked at the phone call that was supposed to have this impeachable information. Neither the Inspector General nor the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge of that.
So now the whistleblower is not just looking at that, or the, I'm sorry, the inspector general is not just looking at what. Was brought to light by the Director of National Intelligence yesterday, but also how many other times this process, this urgent concern process, was potentially abused and weaponized by the deep state to try and use this process to bring down or stop policy or harm the duly elected President of the United States.
So we are going to see. is what is found here. But this now is unlocking, as you've seen it happen in the FBI, in the Department of Justice, now the intelligence community. When they start to re-examine the way some things were done, they start to find out it wasn't just done once. This was the pattern.
And the toolkit. To get around legitimate safeguards that the deep state would use to go after President Trump in the first term and also to ensure it's not happening still to this day. But there's a lot to unpack here. We'll get to in the next segment. We're going to have documents to really dive deep into.
So you're not going to want to miss that. We're going to get into it. We're also going to have. In the next segments coming up, I believe in two segments, we got Mike Pompeo, and I want to hear from you. Phone lines are open at 1-800-68-430-110.
It can be on any of the topics we've been discussing this week or that you see in the news as well. Doesn't just have to be on this. We'll happy to discuss it. We're also going to break down some of the work of the ACLJ as we are currently in a battle with CNN. You're not going to want to miss that special presentation a little bit later.
That'll be in the back half of the broadcast. But. Stay here. We're going to have a great show. And with that, also, it is Law and Justice Week.
And that is why we're going to focus on some of the cases here that we're working on. Right now, we're engaged in one of the most active Supreme Court terms in our history. The ACLJ is getting cited in so many different things. We are highlighting these fights during Law and Justice Week. In center stage, this week and today is our fight against CNN, which is finally being forced.
to really reply the Supreme Court. in just two days.
So this is gonna happen right now, and it only happens because of you. During these special months, donations are doubled. That means there's other ACLJ members ready to unlock their pledge of any number.
So, whether you get $5 or $500, it is doubled. Do it today. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. And look, these reports come out from our friends often at Just the News who do a very extensive.
Research. They actually provide usually all the documentation that they use for their research.
So We have no like formal connection with them. They just are really great at their jobs. And they provide you all the documents, so much so that I will summarize one of them from me because I thought it was just so much.
Sometimes John Solomon and the team provide just an extensive amount of content, and even the bullet points. Are hard for me to read, Will.
Okay, these are like bullet point paragraphs here. But this is, again, to reset just a bit, this all is in connection to the whistleblower complaints. There you go. That's the word I was looking for. Whistleblower complaints, again, came out yesterday from Tulsi Gabbert, and now we have a new review that is happening.
That's right.
So we have to start basically with what is the Inspector General.
Now, these are offices across government. Everyone, not Inspector Gadget. A better inspector. Obviously. He has much more interesting.
Robot Army. Right, exactly. These are just bureaucratic offices within the executive branch where they conduct oversight internally to ensure that things are done properly. They do audits of the whatever executive branch agency it is. There's an inspector general in just about every executive branch office, sometimes multiple for different things.
Now, this office is within the office of the director of national intelligence.
So. Mm-hmm. The intelligence community inspector general. specifically oversees not just one intelligence agency branch, whether it be NSA or CIA. This is within the ODNI to oversee all of it.
And they field whistleblower complaints often, whether depending on what branch it is. Say it's, oh, the Social Security Inspector General may say things are going improperly, the misuse of data. Here, they receive things about the intelligence community. One big way that this led to. The original impeachment of President Trump is this whistleblower process.
And what they did is, we found out yesterday, Tulsi Gabbard showed how they weaponized the process. The previous Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. Used this urgent concern process where a whistleblower comes forward and says, This is of grave national security importance. It needs to expedite the process of getting this to Congress so they can conduct oversight.
Now What everyone has come forward and shown is that they ignored guardrails. When they did go to places like the Department of Justice, they said, no, this isn't of urgent concern. The whistleblower himself did not have first-hand knowledge. It was hearsay. The two witnesses also did not have first-hand knowledge.
They had hearsay. One of them said, I didn't even think of it as a quid pro quo until afterwards.
Someone said, Did you think about it in these terms? Like, oh, well, yeah, maybe. And then also, one of the other witnesses was a co-author of the intelligence community assessment, which led to the Russiagate hoax.
So the whole thing was a mess, right? And we find out they're trying to correct this. Michael Atkinson was relieved of his duties as Inspector General during the end of the first presidency of President Trump. But now the new inspector general here is conducting a review. Because when you find out that the deep state did something one way, led to a sham impeachment.
You also think, hmm, were they using it in other ways? And here's why it's important as well, because we. Are going to be talking about the Dershwitz v. CNN petition we have at the Supreme Court. All of that came out of this impeachment.
The testimony that CNN lied about. And defamed Professor Dershowitz happened during the impeachment trial in the Florida Senate. That would have never happened. We wouldn't have that case pending before the Supreme Court. If it weren't for this abuse of the whistleblower process.
But also, I want to bring this up: we have protected whistleblowers here at the ACLJ. This isn't against whistleblowers, but remember what happened under President Biden. These whistleblowers They were using the precise process the way it should be done. They were going through the correct channels. They weren't demanding an urgent concern.
Punished, right? Exactly. Incredibly punished. And we had to fight for years to restore their reputation and their livelihood. Yeah, I'm going to say, and their financials, because a lot of times they were being held with no pay, but also with the inability to talk, with also the inability to get another job, to move their families.
It was complete chaos.
Now, one of the questions, Will, I have, and I see some people asking, is, well, how did this information come out? Was it that. Tulsi Gabbert was approached by the whistleblower and said, Yeah, I admit it. I did wrong. I've been lying the whole time.
What we see here is that what Tulsi Gabbard has been doing since she got into that office is not just the duties of director of national intelligence, but also a review of all the practices. That's when we saw that it's almost she's going linearly through all the abuses we saw. We saw the way that she handled the Russia Gate hoax, looked at the ICA, the intelligence community assessment that kind of launched the Russia Gate hoax that led to Bob Mueller being appointed special counsel. And we saw what she called a treasonous conspiracy. A years-long coup.
From people in the intelligence community, former people within the Biden, the Obama administration. That were utilizing the intelligence community to create this hoax and try to hamstring the entire administration. And their ultimate goal was to try and get him out of office with that. When it failed, you see some of the same players then went on to the impeachment issue.
So linearly, she's now at this, and they're reviewing how this process started. Because, once again, where did it start? In the intelligence community. Remember, Chuck Schumer said: if you go after the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you. That was his warning to Donald Trump when he was running for President in 2016.
And what happened? They are the ones that, yeah, he was. They are the ones who continually went after President Trump.
So it is a part of that review. Where did the impeachment begin? What was the genesis of it? It was this whistleblower that had no firsthand knowledge that went to the Inspector General and they concocted a way to get it before Congress. And the big lie was also that he said...
I'll bring back the big lie. It's a different big lie, not the one you're thinking. I know, but I just don't want to hear it. It's like I got triggered. Here is a lie that kind of perpetuated this is that he told the inspector general, I have not gone to Congress with this.
He or she? We know. The Director of National Intelligence has to still abide by the whistleblower protections that are there. It has been widely reported by the media who this individual was. And when you go and look at this, it shows you.
He told the Inspector General, no, I haven't gotten it to Congress, because if he had, then they couldn't use this urgent review process because Congress would have already had it.
So it would have completely ruined the plan that this whistleblower had. In reality, he was already coordinating with Adam Schiff on the intelligence committee in the House so that they could move this forward for impeachment. Look, this is then now we're kind of at today, which is what happens now. And there was part of us that thought, okay, we're going to know this information. It's great to know what happened.
But can there be a follow-up? Can there be anything? And what seems to happen right now is that there is a big review that's going on through watchdog services. That's right.
So they are now making sure the Inspector General, who is the watchdog over the intelligence community, is making sure. As he reviews other whistleblower complaints that went through this urgent concern process. See who else had. That's right.
So they've already looked at the one, the big one, that was the impeachment urgent concern.
Now you're saying it, Logan. But as they're going through that, This new inspector general, Christopher Fox, is saying we need to look at any time. This Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, used this process of urgent concern to get things before Congress. Because if he did it not by the book, when it came to the impeachment process, how many other ways was the intelligence community weaponized against the executive branch, the very branch that it is a part of? In order to go after Donald Trump or his policies or members of his cabinet.
And so that is what has just now launched. And that's important because we need to know. How many other times, how many other ways this process was weaponized? It also is putting sunlight on this so it doesn't happen again. We're going to pivot in the next segment.
We're going to have our our senior counsel for global affairs, former secretary of state. Mike Pompeo is going to be joining us. And look, it's always great to hear from Secretary Pompeo. I know a lot of you have thoughts, but he always has great insights. And specifically, we need to not forget.
We are still dealing with the situation in Iran. I mean, I'm not sure where things are in terms of the ceasefire. We know that the negotiations did not go well. Right. But where does that leave us?
We're going to talk about that with Secretary Pompeo coming up because. Much like the news cycle, it somehow is. I feel like it's kind of disappeared. It feels like it is not even on the front page anymore that this is happening. Here at Sekulow and at the ACLJ in general, we make sure we keep our finger on the pulse of really what's happening around the world.
It's not just by a news cycle. Again, there's no corporate overlord telling us what to do or what to say. And I really love that. But that is only because people like you support and are part of the team. You could say you dictate this show in many different ways, obviously, because we want to make sure we're covering the content not only we think you need, but you think or that you want to hear about.
And we know the war in Iran is something that is on. Really, the top of mind for a lot of people, whether that's from gas prices or whether that's from our men and women in the military. Or of course, the global implications of what could be a regime change. We're going to talk about all that when we get back with Secretary Pompeo, but I want to hear from you as well. Because next half hour, it's just me and Will and your calls, 1-800-684-3110.
A very special presentation we'll have a bit later in the broadcast as well. Be a part of it right now. Join the ACLJ, become a member, become a champion. Donate today and have your gift doubled at ACLJ.org during the Law and Justice Week during Double the Difference Month. Welcome back to Sekulow.
We are joined by Mike Pompeo, Senior Counsel for Global Affairs here at the ACLJ, and of course, a longtime member of the broadcast team. One of the things that we were just talking about, Secretary Pompeo, is that the war in Iran, I mean, I'm watching the news this morning and it's just simply not getting the coverage. And I think people are a little unsure of where we even are, Will, when it comes to the ceasefire, everything that happened. I feel like we had a lot of news all at once, and then it sort of fizzled. That's right.
Now, Mr. Secretary, we know that there is this blockade that the President has put in place, excuse me, after the talks. Yeah, I'll take over. Yeah, the United States put together, obviously, this blockade. And I'm just going to read for you: Pakistan is eagerly trying to broker a second round of peace talks.
What does it say about our allies who aren't as involved? And why is Pakistan actually so significant on this global stage? Again, when this becomes topics of hearing, Pakistan and Iran, it gets kind of blurry for the American people. Yeah, I get that. And your point's very well taken.
It has become quiet given the number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, the huge forces that we've now placed and are continuing to add to throughout the Middle East. And I get why people are like, what the heck's going on?
So I think a reset is useful. Over the course of the last weeks, the United States and Israel have destroyed massive pieces of the Iranian infrastructure, military infrastructure, taken down good pieces of their Navy, their nuclear capability, just a broad range of their capacity to do what they've said they were going to do for decades, to destroy the nation of Israel and death to America.
Now the President has made clear that no oil shall flow from an Iranian port or into an Iranian port shall any goods be transited. This will be devastatingly difficult for the Iranian economy. And so the reason I think you're seeing the Pakistanis show up on the stage is because I think the Iranians trust them. I'm not sure that the Americans ought to, but that's neither here nor there. But the Iranians are understanding that this is really they've got to make a big decision.
Are they going to try to challenge the American blockade or are they going to surrender on the terms that President Trump has laid out for them? No enrichment, no nuclear capability, no capacity to develop a, reindustrialize their missile force. That's the decision that sits in front of the Iranian regime right now, and I think it is a very difficult one. Even from Pakistan, is now to look at China. President Trump is saying that China has agreed to not send weapons to Iran.
Again. It's sort of posing the same question. Why is it important for our listeners to understand? uh that this strategy is good to sort of reorder the world's economy. in terms of their working with I mean, you kind of think of Iran and China and these countries as sometimes having similar not similar ways of communication, but certainly similar values, if you will.
Yes, very similar values. The Iranians killed 30,000 of their own people and Xi Jinping, when a virus escaped from his country, allowed 10 million people to pass away from the virus and didn't give a rip.
So, yes, they have the same value set. They don't value fundamental human life. And maybe that gets to why this is so important. Imagine that the Iranians prove that the United States and the West aren't prepared to actually defend the strait and keep traffic flowing. The Chinese will surely see this as a willingness to do the necessary to keep traffic flowing in Asia.
And that's Taiwan and Japan and the entire First Island chain. A real risk to the American people. If you think energy prices are high now and products are expensive now, wait till the Chinese Communist Party has control over massive pieces of international commerce and shipping. Second, make no mistake about it, the regime in Iran is not Ever going to change its desire, its will. It's a theocracy that wants to destroy us.
And so the necessary component is to take down their capability to do so. This will reshape the world if we're able to do that. China's foothold in the Middle East was Iran. And the Chinese Communist Party is a massive importer of energy, while the United States is a massive exporter of energy. And so our capacity to make sure that Iran doesn't have control of essentially a fifth of the global energy trade matters an awful lot.
It matters too to Kansas farmers who are trying to get fertilizer in their fields. These are really important economic matters to reshape the global order. And President Trump's effort here is the right thing to do at exactly the right time. One question I had for you, you brought up even this: the regime, they're never going to change their goals, what their aspirations are. But when you look at even the way some of the media that we typically even kind of trust are reporting from, like the Wall Street Journal that has this headline, it's been making a lot of waves.
Iran's regime has changed for the worse. Yeah. Until he died in a helicopter crash, the butcher of Tehran was the President of the regime. When we had the Ayatollah who had ruled with an iron grip, we know the mullahs there. How why is our media trying to cast this?
Group as being worse. I get they're the same. But I don't understand how you can quite say they're worse than the butcher of Tehran being the President just 18 months ago. No, you've captured it perfectly. I don't get it either.
You know, this is the theory that somehow there's this search for the Holy Grail, the so-called Iranian moderate. It's kind of like a unicorn. They're often spoken about, but almost never seen. These folks are no better or no worse than the folks that came before them. And if the next 50 leaders go away, the 50 behind them will be about the same.
This is deeply culturally, theologically driven. And so they are, I think, in many ways, not as bad. And not as bad because they don't believe the same things, but not as bad because their capabilities aren't as good. Make no mistake about it, the Iranian leadership is befuddled today. I know the media wants to tell you that it doesn't matter that the top 50 Iranian leaders are gone.
But imagine the top 50 leaders in the United Kingdom or the United States being gone. This would fundamentally reshape your capacity to do the necessary. And while it doesn't look like Iran is on the cusp of having a change in the regime, it won't surprise me at all. If whether, I don't know if it's two weeks or two months or two years. But the work that has been done has absolutely weakened the IRG's capacity to control Iran.
And if we keep the economic pressure on them, I think one day we will get an Iran that looks like a much more normal nation. And President Trump should get all of the credit for that. Secretary Papayo, thank you for joining us today. It's always great to have Pop in for you to just give us an update on everything that's happening, in your opinion. It's always great to hear from experts in this situation.
Thank you so much. With that being said, we do have a second half hour coming up, and I want you to be a part of the broadcast. There's many different ways you can get it.
Some of you listening still on terrestrial radio, and I understand that. Maybe you've been listening to us that way for 30 years. But you can see a full television-style broadcast of our show each and every day, noon to 1 p.m. Eastern live, and then archived forever on aclj.org, on YouTube, on Rumble. You can find us on the Salem News channel.
Really, wherever you get your podcasts, we're also available there.
So make sure you're part of the team. Make sure you're actually getting the full hour of the show, whether, again, that's later on or whether you are listening live right to me right now. And if you are, you can call in at 1-800-684-30110. But if you want to join us for the second half hour live, just go onto any of those platforms, aclj.org or YouTube. We are there right now.
You can be a part of the chat, be a part of the community, get your questions in that way. I also make sure people know that we do this, and it's different than just your half-hour terrestrial radio. As we know, there's a lot of changes always with terrestrial radio. You can be a part of our team directly, though, at aclj.org. With that, we have a second half hour coming up.
It is Law and Justice Week, and we are going to showcase some of the ACLJ's incredible legal work and what's happening right now with our battle with CNN. I want you to be a part of this today. Will you join with me? Become an ACLJ champion if you can. I'm just going to ask you to do that.
You know, I've done that a little bit here. Become an ACLJ champion. That's something that says I'm committed to doing this every month. Of course, you can cancel it anytime. But you can just opt in.
when you make your donation and your first donation will be doubled.
So even if you decide you become a champion. You can double the difference today. It's Law and Justice Week. It's a great time to support the work of the ACLJ. The legal side, the media side only happens because people like you, not from sponsors, not from major corporate investors, nothing.
It is from the individual donor like you who supports this work of the ACLJ, whether that's at $5 or $500, you can make a difference and you can double that difference. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Secula. Both lines are open for you, 1-800-684-30110.
As we now approach the second half hour of Sekulow, it is Law and Justice Week here at the ACLJ, and all donations that are made are effectively doubled because people like you who've been supporting the ACLJ have decided to pledge. Enough for any donation that comes in to be doubled throughout the month. It's really amazing, and I want you to be part of it today. We're also gonna be taking phone calls on 1-800-68-430-110. We're talking Iran, we're talking the update from the Inspector General, talking so much of everything that's happening around the world.
And I do want to take a call in this first segment because I want you to understand the importance of your voice. on this show as well.
So we're going to have Bobby in New York on line one. Bobby, go ahead. Hi, hi, this is your fellow rascal. I'm all excited because the Buffalo Sabres hockey team has made the playoffs for the first time. Congratulations.
Our national predators sadly did not.
So go ahead, though, Bobby. Rub it in. But now go ahead with your question.
Okay, listen, I'm worried about the people of Iran because I I'm not hearing anything about how because uh uh the President, who I'm a big fan of, said we've got your back.
So I think Mike Pompeo answered my question. It looks like there will be a regime change just because of the pressure putting it if Trump's putting on Iran, and then this will lead to a better outcome for the people of Iran. Do I have it right or? Bobby, it's been a concern I've had the whole time, and I've talked about this, is when we start. Changing what regime change means.
Yes, has there been a regime change? Are different people in power? If that's your definition, then yes, there are different people in power. Is there a reason, though, we went to a negotiation table and it fell apart in a few hours? I think that is because there are fundamental um differences.
between this current regime and the values that Americans have, values that the Western world has. And I don't know if we're ever going to get to that point for Iran without true regime change.
However, as Secretary Pompeo pointed out, it's not like we are dealing with the same kind of threat necessarily. That's right.
And Bobby, to your point as well, and as Logan said. We have a different maybe desire in Iran than the President does. If the President's only goal is to stop them from having a nuclear weapon, And he can strategically achieve that. Then that may be all he does. We were happy when he was saying at the beginning to the 30,000 that were slaughtered and the people in the streets that we have your back.
We were hoping this is a moment for the liberation of the people of Iran because regime change to us. Means it's no longer the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's a free society. It's what Iran was before this regime 40 plus years ago came into power. And that is what I would love to see for the Persian people, for the Iranian people that are in America now that fled.
They could actually go home. They could actually show their kids where they were from, everything that's happened. But unfortunately, right now, like Will said, that is what I thought one of the big goals was. And I feel like we've creeped away from that goal. And maybe it's an unrealistic goal.
And maybe President Trump feels that way, that now it's a goal that's not really obtainable.
So we need to start moving the goalpost a bit.
Well, as well as there is news that they are looking at potentially starting negotiations again, having more meetings, that some of the reports is that we had kind of moved from a forever you cannot have a nuclear program to zero enrichment, zero program for 20 years. Uh, and the Iranians were saying we would agree to five.
So, this is a negotiation, it is a back and forth.
Now, 20 years is a long time, a lot can happen if they give up kind of their projection of power. Then you're looking hopefully for a full regime change at that point, but at the same time. We cautioned we don't want to deal like the JCPOA. Because the Iranians lie.
So There's a lot there, and we're going to keep hearing from it as they say that. This is a headline: U.S. and Iran inch towards a framework deal to end the war. I'm skeptical. When we get back, we are going to dive a bit into the work of the ACLJs.
Our battle with CNN continues. I want you to be a part of it. Don't go anywhere. You're going to enjoy this incredible presentation our team put together. And we're going to take your calls and comments throughout the next segments.
So give me a call right now. We have five lines open, five out of six, if you believe it. 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110. Again, Law and Justice Week, be a part of the team.
We'll be back. Very short break, and then we'll get right back at it. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to take your calls in this segment and specifically, particularly in the next segment, which will be our final segment of the day. And it's always when I want to hear from you when you've had time to digest, ingest, do all the jesting.
And have a question or comment to give our audience. We're halfway through the week. It's a good time. 1-800-684-3110. Few lines are still open.
I'd love to hear from you. You know, the work of the ACLJ exists in many different fronts. Of course, here on this broadcast, we cover what's going on, whether it's the breaking news of the day or, of course, the work of the ACLJ. And usually, those two things tie together very closely. And that is precisely what has happened.
with a case that we have currently battling CNN. Who you may say, Logan, why are you someone who comes on here and broadcasts each and every day, battling other broadcasters?
Well, At the ACLJ, and really this broadcast specifically, I have always said that we are going to tell you the truth. And even if you don't want to hear it. Even if it goes against the political narrative that our audience may want to hear. We're just going to be honest with you. And sometimes I see the comments and it makes you mad.
It's not just time at my opinions. You know, I may not like the President Trump posting the meme or the Jesus meme personally. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about when there's actual. lies being told on the air.
repeatedly with no oversight. And the ACLJ finally said enough is enough. You can't go on and just repeat ad nauseum the same thing over and over again. And really, Will, none of this. This case would not exist without the breaking news item that we're talking about today.
That's right.
When you look at the way the entire impeachment process began, it was because of a lie. It was because a whistleblower lied to the Inspector General. and said, I have not already talked to Congress about this. Therefore, it could kickstart it, it could push it forward so that this could be something delivered to Congress. without a thorough investigation.
With just opinion, that's in this new report from the new Inspector General. It seems like a lot of these were done on opinion, not on any sort of fact. Based off hearsay. And it launched us forward at rocket speed through this process, the urgent concern process, because of a lie. Because I hadn't already talked to Congress about it.
That is what the alleged whistleblower said. Then you continue on, and you hear lies and lies and lies in the media. It's one thing if you have a different opinion. But when you are lying to the American people, that's different. And what we saw was that Professor Alan Dershowitz, who was a part of the impeachment defense team, so the the defense of President Trump in the trial portion, which happens before the U.
S. Senate, He was giving an argument on in the well of the Senate, And CNN took out of context what he said. And in fact, made him say something different than what he said. And they continued to push this lie. They called it the Dershowitz Doctrine.
where he was giving a constitutional argument against this impeachment. The lower courts, when he sued for defamation, saying, You are tarnishing my legacy. You are lying about what I said. And you can go back and review the tape, but you keep pushing this. Uh the lower courts agreed.
based off every single standard. Professor Dershowitz was defamed by CNN. But There's a Supreme Court precedent called New York Times v. Sullivan, which gives the media this almost superpower to defend themselves through Supreme Court precedent against defamation attacks. They get immunity, blanket immunity almost.
So That is what we are asking the Supreme Court to hear. Hear this appeal of this defamation claim, but correct New York Times v. Sullivan, especially in this day and age.
So we put together this video about this case, which is Dershowitz v. CNN. That we have filed the CERT petition. We are waiting to see if the Supreme Court will take this case. But it gives you some of the background, but just remember.
Even with the injustice of the impeachment, and the injustice against Professor Dershowitz. The ACLJ knows the hard work can be done to correct wrongs. and to have a real impact. Against a bad precedent at the Supreme Court. Our team put together a really excellent video presentation, so you have a really good, broad idea of the work that they're doing, and of course, kind of the lead up throughout this case.
And then when we get back, we'll give you an update of where we are and how you can get involved. Also, while you wait, if you want to call in, we got three lines open: 1-800-68-430-110. I'll take the calls and comments in the next segment. But here's our special video presentation on our fight. with CNN.
The ACLJ is at the center of one of the most historic defamation cases in modern American history, Dershowitz versus CNN, now before the United States Supreme Court. And the stakes couldn't be higher, not just for Professor Dershowitz, but for every American who deserves an honest press. Here's what happened. On January 29, 2020, Professor Dershowitz, a distinguished Harvard Law School professor emeritus and practicing attorney, appeared on the Senate floor to defend the Constitution and establish why the Constitution would not authorize a conviction of President Trump. Professor Dershowitz served as part of a distinguished legal team alongside White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Pam Bondi, my dad Jay Sekulow, and myself, among others.
He made a careful, nuanced legal argument about what constitutes an impeachable offense. Every public official that I know. believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest.
And if a President Does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest. That cannot be the kind of quid pro quo. That results in impeachment. He could not have been clear, yet within minutes, CNN went on air and told millions of viewers the exact opposite.
Some are calling the remarkable argument being floated by the President's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, some have also called it stunning, but one might reasonably call it bonkers. Dershowitz argues that if you do something to help get you elected, it can't be impeachable. It's good for America if I get elected, so I can do anything I want that helps. Their commentators claimed that under the so-called Dershowitz doctrine, a President could commit bribery, extortion, and virtually any crime imaginable without consequence. The problem?
Dershowitz never said that. I never said, never suggested, and it was a total distortion, not misunderstanding, distortion of my point that I want, I think the President can do anything if he thinks his election is national. I never said it, it's nonsense, and your network should never have said that I said it repeatedly. CNN had the full video, CNN had the full transcript, and CNN broadcasted a lie anyway. That's exactly why the ACLJ brought this case to the Supreme Court.
We're asking the court to hold CNN accountable for deliberately distorting a verifiable recorded public statement. When you go to aclj.org slash justice, your tax-deductible gift will be doubled dollar for dollar, doubling your impact to help us fight for a just world. See a lot of you calling for prayers and calling for people to support the work of the ACLJ. I really appreciate that right now. Look.
Historically, I've had a lot of friends and a lot of public figures who have come to me and say, you know, this news story came up and it's getting traction, it's getting legs, and it's all lies. And I believe them and they're telling the truth. And we've had it happen to ourselves. And typically I have to respond to them sadly saying, You know, there's not a whole lot you can do. Because of this previous ruling, where really there's almost blanket immunity if you're in the press.
and you're a public figure.
Now We are seeing that maybe, specifically in the world now that exists on social media as well, where you have, you know. And and really biased news media. They can spread this information to millions of people in a blink of an eye. can destroy your reputation, can do so much. that maybe, maybe, and look, it's still a maybe.
Things can change. That's right.
And here's where we need people to stand with us, stand with us in prayer, stand with us during this double your impact moment. But in this case, remember, CNN originally said, we're not even going to respond. They declined to respond to our CERT petition, where they would basically be telling the court why they shouldn't take it. They said, no, we're not even going to respond. The Supreme Court ordered them to.
said, You shall respond And then they said, Well, we need more time. Give us an extension. Their response. is due this Friday. April 17th, we will get to see the arguments of CNN.
And how they try to defend their statements and defend New York Times v. Sullivan because they want that to stay in place. And then we will have until May 1st to file our reply to their response. And then it goes to the justices. They will decide whether or not to hear this case of great national and historic importance.
not just to correct the wrong for Professor Dershowitz, But for every American. And to stop this blanket immunity that the news media gets. because of New York Times V. Sullivan. We'll be back with your calls and comments.
Phone lines are open. There's three lines still open. I want you to be on the show. 1-800-68-4-31-10. I just think about that.
How many times did I actually have had to. Almost break the hearts of people because of, you know, they think, you know, it's one of the few things where when they call on us for legal help and Weirdly in this country used to go, well, there's nothing we can do about it. while the ACLJ finally figured out why there's something to do. We've taken it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and we want you to be with us. Donations are all doubled right now.
If you give. You are doubling your impact, doubling your difference. Law and Justice Week, we're celebrating the cases of the ACLJ, whether the Supreme Court cases of the past over the last 35-plus years, or we're talking about. the current work that our incredible legal team Senior attorneys, young attorneys are all hard at work because of you. ACLJ.org.
Help us out. It's time to hear from you. Made it through this hour, and now your voices are going to be heard louder than ever here. And we have a couple minutes to get a couple more calls up. If you want to call in, 1-800-684-3110.
I did want to address a comment that came in on YouTube before we get to a caller. This was Brian on YouTube and said, Logan, President Trump and his team did not list regime change as one of the goals of Epic Fury. Please correct your statement. One, what Logan said was that President Trump. Back in January, in December, when the protests were going on, when it was millions of people in the streets of Iran calling for regime change.
After tens of thousands were murdered. That's right.
President Trump said to the Iranian people. The United States has your back. That is what Logan was referencing.
So, at the very beginning of Operation Epic Fury, as well. The President didn't necessarily do that, the speech that he gave later from the White House, where he did lay out here is what our objectives are. It was a little bit more vague.
So to that point, I understand that they didn't list it, but they also didn't really list Much at the beginning of what the goals were, other than kind of what the nuclear right, why are we there? And the left, honestly, was able to get a lot of legs out of that. Because they didn't give that speech early. All right. Time to hear from you.
I'll defend you, Logan. I know. You're a good lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. But you're good.
You would be a good lawyer.
Well, you could have been a lawyer. Whatever. Yeah, I'll always defend you. I'll just say that.
Well, that's very nice of you. To the very end. I don't really want to think about that. Is it too apocalyptic sounding, too eradicated? A little when you start saying till the end.
Who's decided? End of the show. Seven minutes left. Yeah, exactly. We have seven minutes, eight seconds left.
I'll defend you till the end. Carol, let's help move us on. Let's go. Carol in Texas, go ahead. Hi, I just want to bring another Lens into the whole gas discussion.
Because I think a lot of your listeners are too young to remember that in 1979, There was an oil embargo also because of Iran. And gas prices weren't high. We didn't have gas. There were cars lined up. Block.
before gas stations trying to get whatever gas was available. And I'm just grateful, even with gas prices as high as they are today, that thanks to President Trump, we are not dependent on foreign oil anymore. And Carol, to that point as well, when you're looking back at this, and remember that was one of the biggest legacies of Jimmy Carter: the Iranian regime becoming what it is, as well as people think back to that era and that malaise that he talked about. Um and to your point as well. The difference in 1979 was there was an oil supply issue because of the exports and all of the places that the United States began to was reliant on during that.
Because we are a net exporter, the prices going up aren't due to the lack of supply here. It is a constraint on supply around the world. And the global market is reflective of that. But it doesn't mean that we are running low on supply here. But the price does go up.
And that is why President Trump, when he says temporarily, He's not wrong on that, that it is an indirect result of what is going on, but it is not like at the end of this. There is so little supply. That the prices won't correct. Right. Yeah, and look, I'm not going to tell you that it doesn't hurt at the pump.
I did it yesterday, and whew. It was brutal.
So, you know what? Hopefully, there will see some change in there. Brian Will, he said, Will, thank you for giving context. Logan did not give context. Yeah, so I mean, I heard you say it.
I mean, historically, I've given context. It's okay, Brian. This is why you don't read the comments. Let's go ahead and go to Ronald, who is in South Carolina. Ronald, go ahead.
Yes, thanks for taking my call. Yes, the discussion about Obama and Biden weaponizing the DOG to go after political opponents and even how they would use the whistleblowers' things to target those whistleblowers and abuse them and such like that. It just reminds me of many of the detective shows that I used to see growing up in the eighties where what they would do is literally find a judge and literally wake them up in the middle of the night to sign a warrant or search warrant or a tap or something like that, just and with the slimmest of evidence. They would almost fumble their way through to try to say we have evidence, we have evidence, when they didn't have evidence at all. Ronald, one thing that we have seen, and when people even mock.
People on the right for saying the deep state. The bureaucratic state, that's the deep state. is so entrenched and so afraid of losing their budgets. In being able to freely dish out American taxpayer dollars wherever they want. And exert their power wherever they want, that they will stop at nothing.
And the law will mean nothing to them, and procedure means nothing as long as they can keep their importance as a bureaucrat. And they value that more than our constitutional framework of government. Yeah, before we wrap up today, thank you, Ronald. Thank you to all the longtime callers like Ronald who call in. Most days we appreciate it.
I thought. This would be an appropriate call to wrap up the show today. Let's go to Ann in Pennsylvania. Ann, thanks for holding. Go ahead.
Okay. Hi, guys. Oh my gosh. You guys are just incredible. Thank you.
Thank you for taking this case. I just want to say really quickly that even God says free speech is not absolute. You know, for one, thou shalt not lie, right? And then slander is actually mentioned 20 times in the Bible. You know what, guys?
There absolutely should be consequences for this behavior. For years, the media has historically lied, continuously takes Second. Seconds clip. and complete completely takes them out of context And this is not allowed because they disagree politically. They disagree with the opposition party.
What they're doing is they're committing blatant, blatant, bulls-based slander. And I thank God that you guys are in the midst of this. I hope the Supreme Court takes this case, and I hope they make the right decision with this case. And I do too. And I really appreciate you calling in and sharing your support for us and what we're doing here at the ACLJ.
I know it's nuanced when we start talking about restricting, I guess what you consider restricting free speech. It sounds like that when you're saying, hey, we don't think CNN should be able to continually lie on the air over and over again. The difference is we live in a very different world. And what freedom of speech means doesn't necessarily mean that you can just go and defame someone because you disagree with them. politically.
And never have to course correct. Or if you do, it's not an equal value of course correction. It's not a correction that anyone will ever see. Unfortunately, it's the society we live in right now. And we've been looking for the opportunity to take on one of these cases and do something like this.
And I think it's a very cool opportunity. And of course, it makes it a little bit more fun. that you were fighting against CNN.
Well, and once again, they are one of the news organizations that was first labeled fake news by President Trump. Why? Because of the way they spin, the way they cast the narrative, and try to carry water for all the enemies of Christians and conservatives. I mean, that is what we've seen for a very long time. And eventually it caught up with them, and that's what we are hoping the Supreme Court can correct.
And it's the CNN of old. Who knows what's coming for CNN? Who knows? There's a lot of consolidations happening, a lot of acquisitions happening. I believe that's a historic brand that actually needs to be protected and saved.
I think that they have gone off course, and maybe we could see something. Stay positive coming out of CNN.
Okay. We'll see. With that. We appreciate you listening today. Appreciate you watching.
Of course, we appreciate your prayers and support. It's the double the difference drive throughout the rest of the month. And of course, the rest of this week, we are celebrating Law and Justice Week, showing you the historical and current impact of the ACLJ at the Supreme Court. Want you to be a part of the team. Go to aclj.org, have your donation doubled today.
