We got breaking news. Tulsi Gabbard refers the impeachment whistleblower for criminal prosecution. 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 for your Thursday. It is April 16th, 2020. 26.
Welcome to the show today. We got a packed one. Jordan is here. Will's here. Rick Rennell's going to be joining us a little bit later.
So stay tuned. Again, packed show coming up. And look, I want to make sure you understand. Each day we have had something that is in the last three days, something related to this same main topic. But more keeps coming out and more news keeps developing.
And the big one today involves a criminal referral. That's right.
So, as we talked about earlier in the week, Tulsi Gabber, the director of national intelligence, had put out information, declassified information, that showed both the missteps by the inspector general at the intelligence community inspector general during this impeachment issue. As well as the whistleblower that put the information forward, that lied to the Inspector General to try and fast-track this complaint getting before Congress. He told Congress that, you know, I had nothing, no talks with them, nothing of that nature, when in reality even admitted later to the Inspector General that there was some coordination there with the Senate, the House Intelligence Committee, with Adam Schiff, who was the chair at the time.
So then the next day, we found out that the Inspector General, the new Inspector General, this is Christopher Fox, the ICIG, was looking into any other things that Michael Atkins had done. Potentially, Atkinson had used this procedure and gone around some of the rules. As we know, he did something like this with one of the most important referrals that would have come before him because he was against the President of the United States. Was there other misuse of process by this individual?
Now, We find out that Tulsi Gabbard has sent a criminal referral to the DOJ.
So, for those of you that have been asking, will there be accountability?
Now she is saying not just the inspector general, but the whistleblower as well. To understand, though, this is like a process.
So, it's not like she refers a criminal. She's referring. She does not have the ability to refer to it. Right, let's make sure we understand the word is referring. Let me explain it to people.
So, cabinet official levels who represent departments, and she represents multiple departments, when they come across information that they are gathering and believe that there are people who may have not just done something that was wrong or just something not nice, let's say. that they actually crossed the line into potential criminal conduct. And there's tons of US code about that, especially when you are inside the intelligence community.
So your information, how you share things has to be crystal clear. But. As crystal clear as that is, that's different than court of law. Court of law, you know, with a felony, you've got to really be able to prove your case. And so, listen, as the team who went through this impeachment, there were documents flying all over the place.
I mean, you know, Adam Schiff, the situation, Swallow Wilt, all those guys. I mean, it was a wild, wild West. What this has allowed, Tulsi taking that time. has allowed people to kind of you know other issues are going on She was able then to put it together. It's been long enough to.
Get in a new team there that would actually put together this information. And so the next step is: okay, what can you do with it? And that is what's being researched right now. And we are going to talk about that when we get back as well, including also, we're going to talk again a bit about Iran. We're going to make sure we get some coverage of that with Rick Rinnell a little bit later.
And it's the work of the ACLJ, it's Law and Justice Week. We want you to be a part of that as well.
So if you have an opportunity to donate and have your donation doubled right now. The ACLJ has had massive wins. over our thirty five plus years of existence. and the impact of the United States Supreme Court has been foundational.
So I'm gonna ask you. to support the work of the ACLJ today. We haven't just had big wins. We've had defining moments for religious liberty, for free speech. It's so much more.
Be a part of it today because when we do that of course we do it at no cost to the client. And that is only because you support the work. Scan the QR code or go to aclj.org and have your donation doubled right now. During our Double the Difference Drive, and specifically this Law and Justice Week. We'll be right back with your calls, comments, and more commentary.
We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lights are open, by the way. We will be taking them at 1-800-684-3110. I didn't really promote phone calls in the last segment.
I would love to hear from you on these topics. 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110. I think a lot of you have just joined us. I'm looking at our YouTube numbers, our Rumble numbers, our Facebook numbers, and I can see there was a spike during the commercial break.
So I want to make sure that you all are familiar with what's happening. Over the last few days, we've been talking about this Tulsi Gabbard issued report. And you've heard all about that. But now we have a big update, which is there has been a criminal referral. And again, Jordan broke down in the last segment of what that looks like, what it means.
We wanted to dive a little bit deeper. But do we want to hear from Tulsi herself? Yeah, and I think we should play this. This is actually the director of national intelligence on television last night talking about this specific situation that we've seen from the beginning of the week that they were releasing this information, that there was improperly done things. We didn't know to the level also that they were looking at it internally, how far they believed it went.
Now we know they believe it rises to the level of sending a criminal referral to the DOJ, which the DOJ will look at. They will take the evidence and decide whether or not to move forward with a prosecution of these individuals. The DNI sees criminality. Right. Uh and look when you read the report if the report is accurate let's assume the report is accurate Uh it's pretty hard to imagine that there isn't.
Right, especially within their own transcripts, the inspector general is saying that one, they went around guarding us and that the person bringing the whistleblower complaint admitted to lying. All of these things put together, yeah, it does appear there is criminal activity. But let's hear from the director of national intelligence, bite four. But the bottom line is this, number one, The whistleblower, so-called whistleblower who came forward, presented no evidence and no first-hand knowledge. This is a person who had heard about a conversation that President Trump had with Zelensky, then went straight to Adam Schiff on the House Intelligence Committee, and this is where they came up with this false narrative.
And this so-called whistleblower then went and filed a complaint with the intelligence community inspector general. The other witness, so-called witness to this, is somebody who also had zero first-hand knowledge and presented zero evidence.
Someone who was also a co-author of the 2017 Russia hoax intelligence community assessment that President Obama had ordered be created in conjunction with John Brennan and James Clapper at the time. Again, no first-hand knowledge or evidence. And someone who said that even after reading the transcript, he didn't really see the issue there until the whistleblower had explained it to him. Once again, there's the Director of National Intelligence laying out all the issues that they found with this. Also, we haven't seen the actual criminal referral itself.
Normally, those aren't made public. But what we do know is there's some quotes that Fox News was able to see from it and said, I want to refer information that may constitute possible criminal activity in violation of federal criminal law committed by one or more former employees of the intelligence community. And this was obviously the letter, while at the direction of the DNI, was sent by the general counsel of the Office of Director of National Intelligence. And furthermore, it says the possible criminal activity concerns the circumstances described in the following congressional briefings, discussion with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Committee, the briefing by the ICA Inspector General to the House Permanent Select Committee, and gives the dates.
Now, Jordan, one thing we do know. Who was the head of that at that time? Right. We know that it was Adam Schiff. Right.
And one other thing. that has been brought out by Tulsi Gabber during this is that The House Intelligence Committee Would not release these transcripts to the House Judiciary Committee, which pushed forward with the impeachment.
So they didn't even have the full set of data to go off of to know these things about the alleged whistleblower, the witnesses, and the inspector general, whose entire process was out of the ordinary. This is the research that's now in place right now, which is. When they said, No, we're not going to give you the data, did the data ever get to them eventually? Were they ever able to compromise behind closed doors? And it just was, it got so wild during that period of time that by that happened, you weren't even thinking about the second thing.
It wasn't hard to focus on. And we also know that, remember, the Russia stuff. Starts with Mueller. Then you get, then they switch and they pivot to Ukraine. I mean, it was any way we could try an impeachment because they thought it was going to assist their base.
There's arguments that it might have eventually, but what's interesting is that after the fact, it re-encouraged President Trump's base and in a full way. He survived four years of being outside the White House and then came back even big, stronger in his second. There have been some questions. Yeah, there are some questions, and we talked a little about it yesterday of the sort of blanket immunity that was put out with his pardons by Biden at the end, and if there would be any sort of. Issue with that, with who he's talking about and who these whistleblowers are, to where the criminality side of it could be.
a little a little a little taken care of. uh what pardon they received, what what was the extent of that pardon? Um some were so You know, vague. It was like any at all. You can sometimes challenge that.
It's like so overly vague for the level of person this likely was. Because, you know, the reports that John Solomon said, and we have to corro corroborate that ourselves as attorneys, is that this person was not on the call. You know, and that we know Widman was on the call, wrote his version of it. Then we know that Adam Schiff wrote his version of it based off that. And then now we have this third person who wasn't on the call at all, but was actually the first person It looks like who went to the DOJ.
It wasn't exactly Vidmin, probably because of his NSC role. Though I'm trying to figure out who else would have overheard it if they weren't in that intelligence world.
Well, the intelligence world under law, guys, is held to a higher standard than any normal kind of branch of the federal government. And Jordan, I think what makes this so remarkable, finding it out now, even in light of you and your dad fighting out that first impeachment in the well of the Senate, is that what seemed to start this was the whistleblower. Coordinating with Adam Schiff. And then going to the Director of National Intelligence's Inspector General's office, which is supposed to be outside the scope of the normal chain of command. They are the independent auditor internally, so to speak.
And went and tried to get this urgent review. Process through to get it to Congress, and by doing that. Because they knew they were on a timeline, we knew that they were trying to obstruct the election through this, it was late 2019. And what they did is they get this urgent review process so that they can get it to Congress quicker. And to get that, he had to lie and say, I haven't already talked with people, members of Congress.
So it's abusing the process to try to get it out there, make it seem like a bigger deal. The witnesses they brought in, one, the whistleblower under this allegedly. Did not Hear the phone call firsthand. One of the witnesses told the Inspector General. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
Until someone said, hey, Maybe there's something wrong with that. I went back and listened to like.
Well, yeah, I could maybe see that.
So, one of the witnesses wasn't even thinking it was a big deal until they were told to say it's a big deal. And the other one helped write the ICA intelligence community assessment, which launched the Mueller probe, which made up the Russia collusion hoax and used the Steel dossier and all of that nonsense to perpetrate that hoax on the American people.
So, what you're seeing in reality, when they call this a conspiracy, and that's the words that were coming out of the director of National Intelligence Office. It it does appear that way, that it wasn't like the Russia hoax ever ended. It's the same conspiracy. The conspiracy wasn't Russia hoax. The conspiracy is take down the sitting President of the United States.
And they continued that over his entire presidency. All right, yeah, we only have two minutes. I was about to take a call, but I think we'll take those coming up, and Rick Riddell's gonna be joining us. And I think this: the House Democrats, if they are successful in the midterm elections, Are going to be under tremendous pressure to bring some kind of impeachment type of action against President Trump. And we've all expected that was going to come.
Right. Even if the Senate lost a few votes and the Senate did switch them, you have to have a 60 vote majority there.
So I'm not worried about an actual conviction at this point. Because at this point, I'm trying to think what would even be on. But they're pretty good at making up. I think they're going to say he launched an illegal war and therefore we must name him. I think that's probably one of the most important things.
The courts go to the War Powers Act and they go to political questions, say, Congress, you had the power of the purse, and you kept the purse kept spending money.
So. Uh Bad on you. I mean, so you know, it's not here's what I think: it's more complicated than what you're hearing in the news. as everything is that involves parliamentary rules, congressional rules. The Constitution of the United States and laws and whistleblowers and people leaking, like, again.
Adam Schiff wouldn't have heard about this, Logan. Unless a whistleblower who was on a call showed up at his office. And there's a reason why we're on day three of what feels like the same topic, but the more information is coming out because it takes time also to even say it takes time to even just digest what is coming out and the new moments that Tulsi Gabber keeps releasing, or maybe it's a criminal referral, and it's going to keep happening. We're going to have other topics that we're going to discuss in the next segment, and we're actually pivoting completely.
So, if you're watching for this, know we're going to get back to it: 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk about it. But in the next segment, we'll talk a little bit about our work currently. And the war in Iran and its connection to China, and what the update is. You're hearing a lot of rumbling coming out of that area of the world. We're going to break it all down with Rick Rinnell in the next segment.
So stay tuned for that. Again, the ACLJ is the middle of our Double the Difference Drive, wrapping up our Law and Justice Week. Tomorrow, be a part of it right now. Welcome back. To Sekulow.
Like I said, we're going to have a packed show today. Rick Renell's now joining us. Rick, there's a lot going on in the world. We're going to talk to you about a little bit about Iran, a little bit about China. But of course, we have to talk about what's happening in California as well as the race for governor kind of upended.
At this point, when you have the exit of Eric Swawell, now who knows how he's doing, but enough to where clearly it's going to change the trajectory a bit more. And you're starting to see some of the other candidates show up on the more nationwide stage. I'd say they're already starting to appear. George, Rick, we both cut our teeth in the political campaign world before we moved on to other things. And so when I got to ask you this question, which is in California, you've got the jungle primary.
Some people listening to this understand what that means. Others don't.
So we could start there. You've got a couple Republicans who are doing very well in that. One endorsed by President Trump, one a sheriff. And then you had this kind of fight between Eric Fawwell, I believe, Katie Rose, Rick, that is the other Katie Porter. And they're.
In a sense, it was like, as you're hearing from people, everybody on the left knew about this. And when he was starting causing them a political problem because of the jungle primary, I want you to explain. I mean, literally, and Rick will corroborate this. Because of a jungle primary, you could literally only have for choice for governor two people from the same party, and in this case, potentially two Republicans.
Well, so here's the jungle primary. The top two vote-getters are the ones that move on and you vote in the general election for the top two. Doesn't matter which party they come from. But remember, you know, we have a big challenge in California. If you look at the math, you don't look at the polling or you look at the spin, the math of voter registration tells the whole story.
We are woefully behind as Republicans on voter registration. We don't even get to start from a position where we have a shot at winning the governor's seat because there are so many more Democrats or non-party preference. Voters registered. Remember, only 50% of societies register to vote. And out of the 50 that are registered, only 40% show up.
So the Republican numbers are very small. There's no possible way we're going to have two Republicans in the field. There could have been maybe like a 1% chance, which is why the Democrats really went after Eric Swalwell. The top three candidates for the Democrats are Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, and Katie Porter. They have been slugging it out, and with two Republicans that were so close, we split our small vote, and that meant we didn't even have a shot of getting into the top two.
Donald Trump comes in, he endorses Steve Hilton. That means Steve Hilton now is the one with the shot of hopefully trying to get in to the top two. I'm still pessimistic that we're going to be able to do that because, especially now with Eric Squaw dropping out, you really only have two top candidates. There's an emerging guy who's the mayor of San Jose, who, but his last name is Mahan, and he is coming up strong and he's trying to be like, oh, I'm this new common sense, moderate Democrat. I've always thought that the common sense moderate Democrat could come in and sweep.
People are hungry for common sense reformers. I think that that. Person has a great shot, except I don't think Mahan is the guy. I think he's demonstrated that he's a lefty. A radical lefty, and he's not a moderate, although he's trying to appear to be one.
Let's see what happens. I still think there could be a lot of people voting for Eric Swalwell because they just don't know about the negatives. There's a lot of people who are just gonna see his name and vote for him. Katie Porter still has a strong sense of trying to be a common sense. Democrat.
So it's all up in the air. We'll see what happens, but I think the math is not on the Republican side. Do you think, Rick, what happened and why they decided this is the time to go for Swalwell is. All right, it looks like the Republican base is moving one way. And I like Steve Hilde.
He's featured ACLJ a lot when he was at Fox News.
So again, it's not an attack on him at all. I think he'd be great if he became governor. But at the same time, I think the Democrats saw that move as a chance to say, you know what? We can move one of ours out too. And do you believe that, you know, Katie, taking on Eric Spawwell is now what we found out.
Was was was Katie the stronger candidate than than Eric? Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see. I think you're on to something. Look, my hunch is that we're going to have two Democrats in the top. And then the most common sense conservative Democrat, if there is one out of those two, would be the one that would win because Republican votes and kind of independent votes would go for that person.
Katie Porter, that's what she's planning. She's fighting hard to be viewed as a lefty enough to get into the top two. If she makes it into the top two against someone like Tom Steyer or even Eric Swalwell, I think that she wins. I think that she would get enough independent, non- Party preference and enough. Of the kind of moderate rhino Republicans that would say, well, between Tom Sire or Eric Swawell and Katie Porter, I'd much rather have Katie Porter.
Katie Porter is interesting in that she's demonstrated that she knows how to vote as a common sense Democrat.
However, she keeps abandoning that and voting with the radical Democrats just because she had statewide ambitions.
So we don't really know who she is. She's willing to kind of go with the wind. Another interesting moderate is Antonio Villa Rogosa. I always thought that he, if he played that moderate card early on, he would be able to win. You know, the unions, for instance, hate him because he tried to do some things against them on reform.
He's now talking like a common sense Democrat again.
So it's very interesting to see what's going to happen. I think President Trump endorsing Steve Hilton is helpful. It should coalesce all of the Republicans around Steve, and we can hopefully get Steve into the top two. Steve's chance would be getting into the top two against someone like Dyer, who is a total communist radical. We'd have to spend a lot of money to really define him.
And then, you know, maybe it's a crapshoot. Rick, really quickly here, I did want to ask you about this because we know the President next month has a summit with Xi Jinping. We have seen China, for the most part, be out of this conflict with Iran, even though we know that it hurts their interests when Iran is not able to ship their oil. What's kind of your take on U.S. relations with China as we look forward to this summit?
Also, knowing with the blockade in force that President Trump has put, which hurts the energy of China? Look, President Trump is a great negotiator. He's got this perfect timing thing yet again as we're trying to leverage with Iran. He's got an upcoming trip to China. China really wants to work with them.
He's going to use that moment to get China on our side. They're already squeezing Iran, at least saying we don't want to have this conflict. I think Iran is in a terrible position right now in terms of negotiation. Their economy is tanking. This blockade is really beginning to work.
And the upcoming meeting with China, I think, spells disaster for Iran. Rick, thanks for joining us today. Look, it was a packed first half hour, and it's going to be just as crazy the next half hour, but it's also because I want to hear from you. Give me a call. 1-800-684-30-110.
If you don't get us on your local station or in your market, you can find us always. You know, television-style broadcasts or audio podcasts, video podcasts, wherever you get your podcast, we're there live, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern Time, each and every day. But of course you can get its archived later on immediately following the broadcast. But if you are watching or listening to this live and you want a different experience, aclj.org.
And support the work of the ACLJ right now during Law and Justice Week. All donations are doubled. You want to be a part of this right now, and we'd love you to be a part of it. Scan the QR code aclj.org. We'll be right back.
Really short break, less than a minute. Coming right up. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Secular.
Welcome back to Sekulow, second half hour of the broadcast. Pat Jordan's in the studio. Will's here, and we are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110. We just had Rick Rinnell on.
We were discussing a little bit about California politics and a little bit about what's going on with the war in Iran and sort of the situation unfolding in China. We're going to break that down, but as well, as the main topic of the day being the criminal referral that Tulsi Gabbard has placed for those whistleblowers. That According to these documents, Like I said, it's a referral for criminal activity because the documents that they have and they've put out, and also just the news has put out, it shows a pretty clear path. To criminality. Yes.
And instead of doing their job, which is okay, we have this report that came in, which, by the way, they get thousands of those probably a week, maybe a month. I don't overstate that, but hundreds of them, right? And most go nowhere because you can look at them really closely and say, This is an angered party versus another angered party, and it's a political issue, or it's an issue we don't deal with at the Department of Justice or Intel or law enforcement agencies.
So you've got that aspect. But that's why this one should have probably been treated a little bit more that, but it did involve the President of the United States and what was going on before he was President of the United States.
So I get the fact that they may have said, okay, let's move this up and we should do some research into it. Because one, it would be good to debunk it if this ever gets out to the media because it makes America weaker if they did and we didn't have a good response back. But instead. Of saying, you know, let's find some people who are actually on that call. There was, you know, we never have any idea, but what I've heard from that Intel world, not naming any names, is that you might think there's 35 and it could be 300.
I mean, so. I again though, of the 300. As this report indicates, That person who got them to start this was not one of those 300 people.
Well, and you know, what makes me think, all of this makes me think about is when Chuck Schumer said to President Trump when he was candidate Trump, hey, if you go against the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you. And then you see what Tulsi Gabbard is doing here. Constitutional Republic. Right. We have a secret intelligence agency.
By the way, most of them there, thank God we do, because they do the Lord's work. They put themselves in harm's way and they don't get the glory. They don't get the notification. It's different than the military. But.
With all those kinds of agencies, you've always got to make sure that they stay within their lane. I mean, he wasn't wrong when he said that.
Well, and that's my point: is that when you see Tulsi Gabbard is now doing two jobs effectively as the DNI, cleaning house as well as the normal job of the director of national intelligence. Why do you think you see so many hit pieces coming out against her? She's about to be fired, all of this. Because that's what they want to happen, because she's referring them all for prosecution because the deep state lingers there and she's cleaning house. And I just want to remind: if you're new to us, especially to the organization ACLJ.
Tulsi, when she was out of Congress and was not running for President anymore, is someone we've had a relationship with going back to her father and our father. I think that was the last time we may have been in Hawaii. I went back once. And I believe I actually remember meeting Tulsi with her dad. She's exactly my age.
Just briefly and all, you know, teenagers probably was very awkward. Hello. And your dads are all these strong political leaders. But we decided, you know, because we've known her and we had been watching her move and how upset she was with the party she thought was the Big Tip party, her unbelievable military service, which then they call her a Russian spy. And she has been in the military her entire life.
And so we said, you know what? Let's bring her on as a contributor to this broadcast and and It was, I think it was one of our people's favorite contributors. Yeah, she was on for a number of years and only left because she got this position. We learned a lot from her about the inside of the Democrat Party, about the military, the intel world. And in this house many times.
And I think this just proves: if you didn't trust her, That she was with us. She was with the ACLJ for goodness sake. And now look at this report. Look, we only got 15 seconds left in this segment. I want you right now actually to give me a call.
We're gonna have plenty of time over the next two segments to hear your point of view on this as well. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Be a part of the show today. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Sekulow. We do have some phone lines open for you, and I want to hear from you today. 1-800-684-648-8486-84 3110. There's also a lot of you watching online. And when I know that happens, that means obviously we're hitting on a topic that's very important that you consider important or some reason that intrigued you to watch.
You may be brand new. We know when we do these live streams, somewhere between 40 and 60% of the people who watch live have never seen us before, ever. I know that's hard to believe. But it the you know the analytics say that.
So, if you're brand new and you may be hearing me do fundraising pitches, but that's because this organization and this show specifically and our legal work, all of that is funded through people like you who support the work. But if you're brand new and you've never seen us before, this is the first time you're engaging with us, all I ask you to do is subscribe, be a part of it, to take the free step to be a part of the team right now. If you're watching on YouTube, if you're on aclj.org or somewhere else, you can obviously figure out a way to subscribe, be a part of the email list, something like that. But take the free opportunity to just make sure you get the notifications because we do this show each and every day, and we have, in some form or fashion, whether it was on terrestrial radio or as it's moved into digital over the last 30 years.
So, we want you to be a part of that broadcast as well and the podcast and all the next steps, the evolution.
So, I always want to say when we see the numbers keep growing, I want to make sure that you know that we are always here, again, Monday through Friday, doing a live show for you from 12 to 1 p.m. And we'd like to hear from you.
So, give us a comment or give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. Logan, I kind of want to play this for the audience. This is another bite from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, talking about even the Inspector General himself. We've talked a good amount about the whistleblower that was trying to weaponize this process to get it before Congress, to get it to Adam Schiff as quickly as possible ahead of a 2020 election, and try to get this quickly before the Democrats in Congress. But also, the Inspector General himself, who has also been referred for criminal prosecution by the Office of Director of National Intelligence, here's what she had to say talking specifically about the Inspector General and his.
His role in this, and go ahead, we'll play bite one. And lastly, the Inspector General himself, and this is really such a violation of public trust and the responsibility that we expect all of our inspectors' generals to have in that he didn't conduct a full investigation. He didn't even ask to see the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky. And he admitted to Congress. That he didn't have any first.
He did not have any evidence that he was relying on. He had made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice based on this so-called whistleblower's complaint. Department of Justice came back and said there's nothing here. This inspector general then went to Congress anyway and presented to them. All of this coming down to the bottom line, of which this was a partisan political attempt, once again, to undermine the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States.
I don't think that it's shocking. That This report exists. It's more shocking how flippant they seem to have been about the how sort of honest sometimes they were.
Somebody told us this: let's start a criminal investigation and let's all DOJ and let's start the impeachment inquiry now.
So they're saying there's nothing here, and they go, keep going.
Well, what's even crazier is when you read some of the other stuff in the report that came out earlier this week, that inspector general. You can tell then have this agenda. And found a way and was pushing it alongside the alleged whistleblower and was even reaching out to other inspectors general. Talking to the State Department, talking to the DOJ's Inspector General, talking to the Pentagon, trying to get them on board saying, hey, if they block me. Because clearly he didn't have really the evidence that he needed.
If I get blocked, can you pick it up and run with it? They had a goal in mind. It wasn't just this is a whistleblower report, which we know very well. Because we've had to represent real whistleblowers that went through the legal process, the chain of command, the reporting process, all things that are statutorily set out. They tried to completely implode that process to get an impeachment, a political impeachment.
Meanwhile, the real whistleblowers that we have had to represent. Their livelihoods are taken away, caught in this legal purgatory where they can't go get more work because they're just suspended without pay for years. And finally, With this new administration, we got justice for them. But that's what the Biden administration did to real whistleblowers.
Meanwhile, the deep state whistleblowers under that first administration were weaponizing this entire system for a political means to try and get rid of a sitting U.S. President when their first attempt at it, the Russia collusion hoax, failed. Failed. I mean, a hoax is even now like a nice word to say about it. I mean, it was just made-up lies.
Fraud, conspiracy, coup, you know, I mean, honestly, it looked like the Intel Committee had been, a fast one was pulled on them, likely by the Russian Federation. And I'm sure they were shocked how quick they bought it and that they went so far as to almost shut down our country. And guess who that helps? The Russian Federation and their allies.
So I also, you know, think when we talk about all this impeachment, we're hearing it a lot too. Uh you know by Democrats who are running in the House. Many of them are using that in the bluer districts. Or in some of the purple ones, it's saying, listen, we come, you elect me, we'll hold them accountable again. You go back to that time, not because they'll, even if the Senate flipped, which I don't necessarily believe it will, but even if it did, they'll never hit the threshold.
Right, the 60 threshold off of so far what's happened is 18 months.
So it's just politics. But what did that politics do as someone who was there? It didn't stop the President from being able to do their job, but it distracted the American people. It did a lot of work. And it shut down our ability for our Congress to take action during that entire process.
Right. Even if you knew what the outcome was, it still is a painful experience. Painful for not just the President of the United States, the executive branch, but the senators who had to sit there for days knowing that at the end of the day, there is no way, regardless of what side you were on, that the President was going anywhere. And yet they did it even. They were so committed to it that they did it even after he was no longer President.
So that's why I think all these issues are important to get out now because. Political, you know, we don't know what the midterm outcomes will be. And I just feel like whoever comes out as if the Democrats come out in whatever leadership battle they have, it's going to make Jeffries and people of the past look like. Modern.
Well, and you think about this as well. When Jordan says they shut down the country from being able to operate. That was the very beginning, the impeachment trial. Very beginning of 2020. What happened right after the acquittal?
Yeah, within the city. The entire country shut down. And so that entire year that was an election year was shut down as far as the ability of the, especially at that time, of the government to function properly. And it all was started. It all was kicked off by an impeachment trial.
But I think Jordan is.
So the frailness that people saw almost immediately after he became President. It was much easier to cover up when you were allowed to set up a home studio. And I did a lot of that too. I actually took a broadcast job like that because we were at home. You had the time to do it.
And I will tell you. Doing that versus coming into a studio, putting on makeup, and maybe getting bumped for 20 minutes here and having five minutes to talk and three minutes to talk. You know, being able to run a campaign from your basement is basically the only way you could out coverage someone like President Trump, whose model is, of course, is get out to the people 30,000 people shown up in a town of 10,000. I think we have time for some calls, and I want to hear from you at 1-800-68-430-110. Let's quickly take Christopher in North Carolina, who's watching on YouTube.
Thanks for holding, Christopher. I know you've been a hold a while, but again, hopefully, this encourages you to give us a call as well. Go ahead, Christopher. Yeah, yeah, I'm here. And by the way, I've actually been listening since I listened to your dad back when I lived in La Marada back in the 90s.
Awesome, thank you. You guys are great. Um so And yes, I am subscribed. Actually, there's three questions, so I'm going to ask the first question first, because if it's a no, then the other two don't matter. And is back when I was a kid, I used to read a lot of laws.
I was just interested in all the laws that were on the books. And one of the laws that I read, I just loved, having been falsely accused of things as a kid. The law was that if somebody testifies under oath of something they know is not true. If they're caught, they would actually have to serve the sentence that they were trying to get imposed on the person they were testifying against. Is that still a law?
And if not, if it is, then why aren't we using it?
Well, on a federal level, that is not a law.
So, once again, when you look at things like this, like lying before Congress or to an inspector general, perjury, those type of things, also the punishment here that we got to was impeachment. You can't impeach the whistleblower who probably is not employed by the intelligence community. But I mean, it does. It goes back to the Bible, to Deuteronomy and Exodus, the eye for an eye, and that entire concept of that's that is where that came out of. And many old antiquated laws, in some cases, that are no longer on the books, did come from biblical standards and biblical law.
But you can still, Christopher, hold people accountable. And that's what Tulsi Gabbard is doing. That's what's happening right now. Even when it feels like time has moved on and it's impossible to do it, we're actually seeing those kinds of changes happening.
So, a lot of what you've been pushing for, whether it's Christopher, a lot of our supporters. Who says nothing ever feels like it happens?
Well, it's happening. You just got to put your eyes on it, pay attention to it. It may not be your number one story on the news, but there are things happening right now. Again, when you go, where is the justice in this?
Well, here you go. We'll continue that conversation when we get back. Phone lines are open for you. This would be the last chance to call in. Do it right now.
Honestly, if you want to call in right now, it's a great time to do it. 1-800-684-30-110. All right, last segment of the day. We are going to be taking your calls. We have a couple calls coming in.
They're being screened right now. We have a couple lines still open at 1-800-68-430-110. And we'll get to those. Look, it has been a packed week. It is only, we're not there yet.
It's not over yet. We still got one more day of live shows. But look, there's a lot of work at the ACLJ front. There's a lot of work during our Law and Justice Week as we have been discussing some of the legal work the ACLJ has been doing, whether historically in the past or currently. Of course, we did open up the discussion about what was going on in California with Rick Rinnell.
Obviously, there is a big race happening for who will be not only the new governor of California, who's also mayor of Los Angeles. There's a lot of things that can happen right now, but it does also come on the heels as we are currently battling the state of California here at the ACLJ. And we have a phone call about that I want to take. Let's go to Kevin, Washington, D.C. Go ahead.
Hey guys, what I was interested in, can that church counter sue the state of California? Uh because um It's well known that the governor didn't go by the rules himself.
So, can they use that evidence as selective prosecution? Yeah, but I just want to give a little background for those people who don't maybe know what we're talking about here. We are currently in a battle with the state of California on behalf of a Calvary Chapel branch in California that they are still trying to collect on fines during the COVID, original COVID periods. You're talking about over a million dollars in fines the state is still trying to collect on. Of course, we can talk about the truth that came out.
Of course, you can talk about that Gavin Newsom was violating his own rules. We know this. This is all a verifiable fact here.
Now, when it comes to counter-suing or those kind of things, we're beyond that at some point, right? Right, because this actually now listen, there's always different ways you can.
So I never, as a lawyer, you never say, no, there's nothing else you can do until you 100% know that's the truth. But this case was unique because it worked through the California courts. Just a little constitutional history for people. When you work through the California system. And you go from their trial court to their appellate court to their Supreme Court and you lose, you can then appeal directly from a state Supreme Court.
to the US Supreme Court. And so that is what's happening here. Of course, the California judiciary, not real friendly to a conservative church like Calvary Chapel, but they did have one last option, one last resort in this case, and that was if you lose at the Supreme Court of California, you can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's in our Constitution.
That is what they have done. And we know on April 24th, not far away from now, maybe I look down at my watch and you start realizing this is eight days away. That's when they are going to have their meeting. to decide so you know usually If they will take the case for all argument. And to be clear for Kevin as well, this is the lawsuit actually originated from Calvary Chapel.
To not pay the fines that were still being forced upon them by the state, by the county.
So the countersuit, this is their lawsuit, and it's made its way all the way up. To the Supreme Court through the appeals process. But I think it's also important to point out, Jordan, as you mentioned, one, that case stems from the COVID era pandemic. It's the fifth year, or fifth or sixth year, since they actually initiated this when. Uh when this all began.
You also think of the other pending cert petition we have at the Supreme Court. Dershowitz versus CNN. That Jordan also stems from the same time period, but because of what we're talking about today. We are fighting at the Supreme Court of Over a defamation case, trying to get precedent changed with New York Times v. Sullivan, which put up this almost superpower, this immunity for the media when it comes to defamation, even when the lower court said, yeah, by all measure.
CNN defamed. Professor Dershowitz here, but for... New York Times v. Sullivan, we can't do anything about it. But that wouldn't even exist.
That entire petition and what we're fighting for wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the lies and misconduct and what is now put for a criminal referral before the Department of Justice. From this whistleblower and inspector general, because it was related to what he said on the floor of the Senate in the impeachment trial. Yes, I mean and and What CNN did was cut it up into him trying to say that a President can never be charged, is always above the law. As one of the probably number one constitutional, living constitutional scholars in the United States of America, he absolutely does not believe that. And that is not what he said I was there on the floor.
What he was saying the opposite. And it was, again, the fact that CNN thought they would get away with it, this is the problem, Will. They can economically, because while it hurts their credibility for a time period, Their people loved it, right? And if you love it and you try to ever look for their attraction, you're never going to really see it. Very deep.
So the only way to get them to stop. Is that they actually get punished like others would for defamation. And we live in an age now where. Almost anybody who's got any kind of big following on social media could be defamed. And have no access to defend themselves and to recoup losses.
Of their like, even just their legal fees. Yeah, I mean, we've talked so many times with different people, whether that's celebrities or political figures, whoever it may be, who have called and said, you know, this person is happening. My integrity is under attack. This person is lying and they're lying and lying. And for so many years, a lot of times we had to have these real conversations saying, There's very little you can do.
This is going to be an uphill battle that you don't want to incur. Let the news cycle move on to try to get your career back on track or try to get your life back on track because this sort of broad immunity. that the press has had. That's right.
They could basically say whatever they wanted as long as you were a public official. And if it was truly wrong, they might have to say some kind of moment where we, hey, we got this a little wrong. They buried it. In the old days, the damage paper, it would be buried in the back, the smallest print in the back. On TV, it's probably, you know, it's not dissimilar.
With social media for a while, when they'd flag our content as saying this is, you know, fake news or whatever, maybe, they'd tell everyone who shared it with the media notification, the push notification. And then when we would go back and fight it, and they were like, okay, you guys, the ACLJ, you're right. This was some automated bot or something happened where this got flagged or someone with an agenda. We're sorry about that. We'll retract that.
Guess what, though? Another push notification didn't go out that said, oh, we were wrong. You know, we're living in a very different world right now. And if we have the opportunity to take, and I think that's when it happens, when opportunities come up where you actually can make some change in what's going on in the world and it helps everyone out, because all of us are essentially more public than we've ever been before. If you are operating any kind of social media account, whether that's one that's personal, or as long as it's public.
You know, you are essentially putting yourself As that as well. And we want to make sure that we can protect people. And when they do call us, we don't have to have those sad conversations that go, you know, we wish you the best. But unfortunately that has been the case for far too long. With that, I want you to support the work of the ACLJ.
We only got a minute left, Jordan. And we are wrapping up this Law and Justice Week here. Today is Thursday, so we've got one more day on it. But the Devil the Difference Drive, where your donations are doubled and unlocked, it's going to continue through the rest of the month. The reason why a group like the ACLJ, nonprofit legal organization, can take on multi-billion dollar CNN conglomerate.
Is because of you and your financial support. And I will tell you, when we got involved, their entire response changed. Their entire feel changed. They thought this would just get tossed. They did not think.
It is on April 24th. The nine Supreme Court justices. and it only takes four, would be deciding. Whether or not to hear a case that would take that immunity away from them so they can't just say whatever they want about public officials and then maybe run some two-sentence retraction weeks later that no one sees. All right, 10 seconds left.
And with that, I want you to scan this QR code or go to aclj.org right now. Have your donation doubled. We'll be back tomorrow.
