We got breaking news. Jim Jordan releases new evidence in the Jack Smith 2024 election scandal. 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 Secula. Welcome to Secula. We made it here, folks, September 24th. Will Haynes in the studio shows me and Will today?
That means also you. Give me a call at 1-800-684-31-10. It may sound like something that's a flashback from 2024 or 2022 or 2020 or 2018. This feels like sometimes these are on repeat here, folks, and I understand this, but Jim Jordan has been hard at it trying to figure out all the details surrounding the interference that went on with Jack Smith, all of that deal that went down. Of course, you remember the cell phone records being requested.
Well, it's gotten even more egregious again. It's both horrifying and not shocking at the same time. I think when I was texting Will last night, I was like, I can't say I'm surprised, but it's not every time, even though I'm not surprised that it happened. Every time I read it. It's depressing because you realize that these things continued to happen for years and years and years, direct targeting people who are not even just people who would you think were in like the President's inner circle.
Anyone he may have or interacted with, including at the time, the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, days after. Just days after he is put into office, all of a sudden there are records being requested. And the FBI, sadly, wasn't even really told. The agents weren't told even what they were doing. This is from a pretty bombshell report, 57-page report that comes out of Jim Jordan.
That's right. This is the House Judiciary Committee's interim staff report.
So staffers, as well as attorneys, compiled this on how Jack Smith and the Biden-Harris Department of Justice disregarded the separation of powers to spy on their political opposition. And it goes on to say, even in the executive summary, that the special counsel's prosecutors tried to silence President Trump with unlawful gag orders, threatened defense attorneys, mishandled key documents, and broke protocols to release a massive trove of alleged evidence just weeks before the Presidential election to sway public opinion.
So specifically, their actions weren't just to get to the bottom of what they were alleging could be crimes. It was for the purpose of influencing an election. It goes on to say that they have new information that was obtained that shows the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to use the DOJ as a weapon against the political opponents did not stop with President Trump. The Biden-Harris administration, including Special Counsel Smith, ran roughshod over key constitutional protections to spy on Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
We know we've heard a lot about the toll records and the content of text messages that the Senate has released, but this is now the department, I'm sorry, the Judiciary Committee's report on the DOJ and on the special counsel. And they are showing as they're pushing for reforms to the law to make sure this never happens again, but also exposing some of the egregious things that happened that we hadn't heard of yet. And this one is what gets me. And I want to hear people their opinion on this. 1-800-684-3110.
All right, that's right. 1-800-684-3110. There are people requesting we start over, Will, because apparently there were some sound issues and visual issues. We will reset. We only got one minute until we get back from break.
We get back from that break. I will completely reset this for those of you who may have had tech problems. And just in general, we need to break this all down. What happened with Jack Smith? All you probably saw was me being very animated.
I was pumped. The phone lines are open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Again, 1-800-684-31-10. The ACLJ is also hard at work. We have always been fighting this, whether we want to call it the quote-unquote deep state or whatever you may want to call it.
Our FOIA litigation has always taken really a big precedent over what we do here. And there is so much coming from the world of the ACLJ. I can't wait to share some of the new cases and the things that we have happening right now. It's a very active time. Always seems like surrounding some kind of September, October, back to school.
Stuff starts to go wild. Of course, heading into the end of the year, and we could use your support right now. That is at 1-800-684-31-10 to call. But if you want to support financially, maybe even sign a petition. When you hear something about this, there's ways you can be involved.
Sign our petition right now at aclj.org/slash sign. That's aclj.org/slash sign. Again, if you're having issues, we're going to come back in the next segment in just a minute here. We're going to reset all of this. Be right back.
Welcome back to Sec Yellow. I just want to jump back in and reset the conversation. I know we had some technical difficulties here in the first segment if you're watching online.
So let's kind of reframe. Let's pretend we're starting over here. Of course, we are talking about the continual. Let me again, I said this earlier. It feels sometimes like this is a repeat because of how often we've had to go back and readdress what went on with Jack Smith in terms of the spying, in terms of all the things that happened in his term And Even how FBI agents, who were probably good people, who were doing great work, were almost being weaponized for political gain without their knowledge.
This is really what was happening. And there is a new 57-page report from Jim Jordan. He had a committee that released this that went through, and they, I mean, their quotes say they ran roughshot over key constitutional protections. And if you really look at it, it was all having to do with people who were in the, I mean, the very broad sphere of President Trump. I brought it up earlier, but including the Speaker of the House at the time and Will, when they were asked, well, why were people talking, why was this happening?
Why was it, who is to blame for all of this? The blame. It's I mean, the answer is absurd. This is one of the most shocking portions of this because we know a lot of this. We know that they were spying on members of Congress.
We know that they were, they first said, no, we just got toll records, which were meaning we saw who called who. And then we later find out, eh, we didn't tell you the full truth. We omitted the part that said we also saw the contents. And then we ignored using the protections like a filter team to make sure that we didn't see the contents. Yeah, we just threw those out as well.
But when asked by this committee, Who was to blame? For the unconstitutional seizures of phone records from members of Congress. Special Counsel Jack Smith bizarrely testified that it was President Trump's fault because, quote, He chose to Yeah. these members of Congress.
So the fact that the President of the United States How dare he talked to members of Congress, a coequal branch of government, It's his fault. That the special counsel's team then went after those members of Congress's records, asked the court not to tell those members of Congress that their records were being sought so that they never had to find out, and ignored all the constitutional protections like the speech and debate clause, due process rights, a litany of other things that these members of Congress should have been afforded, but weren't by this special counsel's office. Who's to blame? Not us, who went roughshod over the Constitution. Not us who weaponized the Department of Justice to try and sway an election.
No, no, no, no. It's President Trump's fault. That is, I feel like the key definition of Trump derangement syndrome when you think that every single thing that happens is his fault. Look, I understand. I see comments going, well, what's going to happen now?
Well, let's at least take this one part as a win here and say, look, you have a 57-page report coming from Jim Jordan. They were able to actually get in there and get the job done to do these requests. What comes after this? I think we have to see. And And how that plays out.
What would you like to see happen? Give me a call. Let me know. I'd love to hear from you because right now it's just me and Will today. 1-800-684-3110.
And the easy way for you to get involved, by the way, is we have a petition available right now. And again, we know the deep state language can get a little tired. It can get a little exhausting when you think, well, we've had President Trump back in office for two and a half years. You've had Republicans in control. How is this still happening?
Well, one, we're looking back historically, but also we know that this are some, some of them are institutional issues. Yeah. That have to be taken care of.
Now I think a lot of what's going on at the FBI has been very positive under Cash and under a lot of people who are they are running that team. I think we've seen a huge improvement in a lot of these areas. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in some way And it doesn't mean it can't quickly return to that when you don't have a President in office that you may agree with. I think we can always get stuck, as I brought up here so many times, on the very short-term impact on a lot of these things and forget that we are just two years away from a new President of the United States. Being selected.
Two years, 24 months, 20, let's say 26 months, 26 months. Until you have a new President of the United States selected, a new President elect. Because it won't be President Trump. Obviously, he's not up for reelection.
So there will be a new President. And that will determine what the future looks like for the really for the justice system, for the FBI, for all of the different divisions that are under an administration. And you can't just let some of this slide, even if it happened three or four years ago, even if it happened when this President wasn't in office. That's right. And once again, there is also a part of this report is showcasing what has happened so it doesn't will not happen again.
But once again, the legislature has this oversight role to see, one, where funding goes, where what legislation can be crafted. Currently, and this was from this year, June 2nd. Congressman Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania introduced H.R. 9098, which is a bill. Titled Congressional Records Protection Act to protect the separation of powers enshrined in the United States Constitution and to end the weaponized surveillance of members of Congress.
So there are things that can be done. Once again, they violated the constitutional protections, and a lot of that, I feel like, if it ever did go to trial or get to an issue, would have been not evidence that could have been admitted, that could have been fruit of the poisonous tree because of how these things were. Obtained by the special counsel's office, but then you start to look, okay. There needs to be maybe stronger protections. Maybe there needs to be enumerated consequences if a Department of Justice runs roughshod over the Constitution and decides to go after the individuals that are elected members of Congress.
Jack Smith wasn't elected, he wasn't confirmed by the Senate. He was a special counsel. We have issues with the special counsels as they are. I mean, even Justice Thomas in one of his dissents brought up the fact that, hey, special counsels may not even be constitutional.
So this entire thing... The existence of the role. Right. Like having that as a thing. Delegating powers to someone of this magnitude that is not confirmed by the Senate is even constitutionally skeptical.
There's a very good argument from conservative jurists that say it's not.
So when you start to look at all this, yes, real change can happen. And I think some of the biggest, I would say, accountability that was had was there was an election and President Trump was able to shut all of this down. Essentially, we're all removed from office if you say that. But again, it doesn't mean that in two years something can't shift again. I want to take this call because I understand the feeling.
I understand the emotion. It's an ACLJ champion. By the way, champions get always jumped up to the front. But also, I want you to tell you, if you want to become a champion, you can do it today. Donation of any kind, just make it recurring and you become an ACLJ champion.
That's what we like to call you here, people that dedicate a certain amount of money each month to the organization. And that can be $5, that can be $500, whatever it can be. We don't say one's a champion. If you are saying you're putting any of your hard-earned income monthly to this organization, you are an ACLJ champion and know how much we appreciate that. Do that today at ACLJ.org.
Ken is calling on line one. Ken, go ahead. Yeah, I'm just once you guys said that there's another report that came out that just said.
Something else illegal happened, I just got really upset. and just thought I got a call today because This is just so it just goes on and on and on and no one gets no one gets Any kind of um Consequences. No consequences.
Well, I would say, Ken, one, there is a consequence. The entire Biden administration is no longer in power. There's no longer that authority. There's no longer the Department of Justice is not helmed by Merrick Garland anymore as the Attorney General of the United States. Those are consequences.
That is their entire desire to cling to power has been taken away from them. And another thing, too, I think people get caught up on trying to go after the one person, like Jack Smith. When I think the Judiciary Committee has a broader goal here. Obviously. There have been criminal referrals against members of the previous administration's Department of Justice.
There have been issues that, and as you know, if you are a follower of this broadcast, the legal system takes a very long time sometimes to get to that point. But it's always also not a guarantee. You are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law in the United States. And that's a good thing. We want to uphold that.
But you also have to think there's a broader mission here for the Judiciary Committee and for Chairman Jim Jordan. It's not just to go after the one person that was violating the law, it's to go after the system that made it so easy for these laws to get run over and violated. And that's what you see here in this report. This showcases it and also says: here's some things we got to do to fix this. I see a lot going on in the chat right now because I kind of presented the.
Conversation of being two years, less than two years from, obviously, less than two years from picking a Republican and Democrat candidate.
Well, less than that. But you're talking about two years, 26 months. From picking the next President of the United States, it seems early. I remember President Trump announced years ahead. that he was rerunning it in the uh Election 2024.
Who's your frontrunner right now that you think can defend something like this? They can keep some of these institutions in check. Because we know we've had Republicans and Democrat Presidents who have failed at that. Who have let Those run into shambles, whether they meant to or not.
So, who do you think is going to be the strongest in keeping all of this in check and keeping us in the right direction? Of those current People that you see right now, and maybe you got one that's random that we're not thinking about. I want to hear from you: 1-800-684-3110, because the ramifications of that are being shown right here in paper. It's shown here right here with this Jim Jordan investigation. Give me a call: 1-800-684-3110.
Welcome back to Sekulow. I do want to hear from you. We had a bunch of calls and then they went away.
So call me now, 1-800-684-3110 to have your voice heard on the air. There's a lot of you who are commenting really aggressively online. Let's get you on the air today. I want to hear from you.
Well, and I actually want to take a comment. This is from YouTube from Bruce. It says, it's not okay to. You threw me off there. I don't know if I'll be able to recover from that.
Go ahead. Says it's not okay to violate the law, even if the harmed parties overcome the damages. I understand the sentiment here because this is going back to what I said: that to some degree, that there was accountability in the fact that the President overcame what they were throwing at them and trying to sway the election. There's also, when you start to look at, okay, violating the law, violating someone's constitutional rights, sometimes it's not always a criminal offense. I mean, many of the times, I would say almost every time that we take a case on here at the ACLJ where we're alleging that our client's First Amendment rights were violated, so violating the Constitution, it's to restore that right.
It's not to get someone thrown in jail. These aren't criminal cases, these are civil cases.
So. That's partially what I was talking about with the work of the Judiciary Committee, right? Is that they're pointing to the fact that Congressman Mike Kelly from Pennsylvania. Introduced H.R. 9098 in the Congressional Records Protection Act.
Sometimes a violation of the Constitution by a party, by a government officer, there may not be criminal consequences for that. It's to restore the right, is what you go to court to do.
So sometimes that is the role of Congress if a violation has been done or what they tried to do here. That it may be you cannot do that, but there is no criminal penalty.
So, you also have to take that in mind. Saying someone violated the law doesn't always mean that there is a statute that lists you go to jail for this.
Now, I think that there are plenty of things that could be pointed to here that could be potential criminal violations, that there are things on the books, but that's also for the current Department of Justice to look at and decide. It's not for us that want to see accountability to always go forward and say, I want them in jail no matter what because they violated the Constitution. It's infuriating, but you also have to keep that in mind. In the next segment, by the way, a lot of you I see in the chat are talking about. Has there been a reinstatement of some of these press outlets?
Are they showing up? Is CNN allowed on the White House campus? What's going on with that? In the next segment, we're going to address the current status of all of that. There's a lot of mixed reporting here.
And again, as you probably will see, that this seems to be another, what was a strategic political move in terms of. You know, to get things in certain, let's just say. It moved the political landscape. It moved the... what everyone was talking about because Of course.
you're going to still have options like CNN and MSNBC, or MSNOW somehow involved in what's going on in the White House. And President Trump can spin that as they can't stay away from me. They can boycott it, but they can't. And look, somewhat, that's absolutely true. Phone lines are open for you, though, about that as well.
If you do want to call in, the next segment, we're going to address that a little bit harder. 1-800-684-3110. We do have a petition involving this Jack Smith situation. It's a pretty broad petition. I want you to go to aclj.org slash sign right now.
If you're brand new to the broadcast, you don't support us financially, that's okay. There's a lot of ways you can help. You can right now, if you're brand new and you're watching on YouTube, hit the subscribe button. If you've been here a while, but maybe you don't give financially, that's okay too. Or maybe you do.
I want you to sign the petition. There's a lot of different ways you can get involved with the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. And as I say, because of supporters like you, nothing ever is behind a paywall. It is all available to you for absolutely free. With that, I want to take some phone calls.
Let's go. Let's go to Diane. Again, I posed that question, which is, look, we're two years out from a Presidential. Pick, really, who you're going to pick to be the President of the United States. 26 months from now, we will know.
That is not very long.
So who is that going to be that you think can actually uphold? what's happening or move us forward. And not end up in a situation where we are getting someone like Jack Smith who's going to interfere in what's happening. Let's go to Diane. Go ahead.
Good morning. Yes, I'm really hoping for Governor Ron DeSantis.
Okay. Why give me a little bit more? Why why why why, uh, Governor DeSantis?
Well, he's done a marvelous job with Florida. And he's going to be available. Yeah, of course. I think it would be perfect. Yeah, he ran last time.
Of course, that went a little sideways, I think, for everyone who was running against President Trump. I like Governor DeSantis. I've talked about that before. That I was excited about his run before everything kind of went haywire for every other person running. I mean, you can go back on it and say there was a lot of good people, but Governor DeSantis, he's about to be.
Wrap it up, right? Right. Right. There's currently a race for his replacement. Right.
Byron Donalds is running as a Republican. I forget who won the nomination. I don't hear his name coming up very much anymore, though. That's right. He does seem to have faded a little.
I do think that he will make that attempt. I think he is probably doing that work right now to get donors lined up to see if it's there testing the waters, if you will. But once again, to Diane's point, that sometimes is the way things go for a nominee is that, yeah, the conversation about the vice President is very up there. The people that you see nationally that are dominating the headlines, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But many times when it gets into that primary process, you have someone that comes out and says, look, I agree with the way that President Trump did things.
And I was governing. These people were the deputies to the President. I was actually governing. I was an executive of the state. And look at everything that Florida has done.
That could be, it wouldn't be super surprising if he rose to the top of a primary field. After also being through the process before, you know, you think both Marco Rubio as well as DeSantis have been through that nomination process for President before. They both run for President. That they, to some degree, them and their staff, their longtime loyalists, have been through that process and understand what it takes to get it done.
Someone like the senator from former senator from Ohio, now vice President, J.D. Vance, hasn't been through that style of campaign process other than being on the ticket for President. There's still the climb, though, whenever you're going against even the vice President, the current vice President. Just based on airtime that you already are going to have, name recognition, the push likely from the President of the United States. There's a lot.
I mean, I can't really even, in my head, quickly jump back to the vice President that ran that didn't get the nomination. I'm sure there is one in recent history, but in my head, I can't, nothing jumps to mind very quickly. Right. Well, I mean, you think the most recent, obviously vice President. That got the nomination would have been Al Gore.
Yeah. Directly. Directly. Joe Biden was the second time around. Right, exactly.
It wasn't immediately after being an extension of that presidency. And what? We were, that's 26 years ago now, more than a quarter of a century. H.W. Bush, you know, these are people who were.
The name that everyone recognized.
So it's a tough, tough, like it's almost like beating an incumbent who it's never. easy to go in there and and upset it.
However, and that's not to say they'll win the Gen Roll. That's for the nomination. For the nomination. Yeah, I'm saying for the nomination. But again, do I hope Governor DeSantis jumps in there?
Sure. I hope we have a lot of great names. I always love to see a packed field of qualified candidates that we can all decide on. And I think you do have people who have been leading very well. Governor DeSantis is one of them who obviously has made Florida into a really, it always has been a thriving state, but even more so than ever before.
Hey, we're going to have a break here. Less than a minute. If you're watching online.
So don't go anywhere. We're going to chat a little bit more about the press. And what's going on where they're going to give you a full update of the press and the boycott and the situation with President Trump and the White House and CNN and Fox and MS Now and all of them kind of coming together. As of course, that was a big stink over the last week, also. We do know that there's still updates coming in from the UN with Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking today.
A lot happening in that world in relation to Israel. We'll get back to you very soon. Less than a minute. Don't go anywhere. And if you are listening on terrestrial radio, you can find us on aclj.org right now.
That's at aclj.org. YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, or broadcasting live or archived immediately following the show. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow.
Welcome to the second half hour of Succulo Will Haynes in the studio with me. This is Logan Sekulow. We got a few phone lines still open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Of course, we are talking about that really bombshell Jack Smith investigation done by Jim Jordan. We'll get back to that, but I do also know that there's a lot of conversation surrounding that press boycott.
Of the White House and all the press events that were going on in the White House, whether that was the banning originally of CNN and MS Now and some of the more liberal-leaning outlets, to where Fox News even decided we're going to link arms with our friends across the aisle because we don't believe that they should have been kicked out. That conversation kept happening. It felt like within days, it sort of fell apart. You saw all the press that was surrounding President Trump, even at the event with the mayor of New York City and other places. And he seemed to not really care that much that they were there in some ways.
It became a talking point, an almost comedic talking point of, look, you can't get away from me. Though that's not necessarily how it was running. And now it feels like, as of today, there was some. Interference from the courts.
Well, I think to some degree, we can also look back on this move and see that it was kind of a little bit of get your attention for that Trump TV White House announcement that it kind of fizzled. It didn't really do much. 24-hour news from the White House.
Now, I have my own issues with.
Well, it wasn't, though. It was just a 24-hour feed of the best of President Trump. Right. Which there's a little bit of irony here that when it is the best. That's put out by the White House 24-7, and then people are like, CNN's only propaganda.
It's like, well, then we are, that is by definition, only saying the good things on a 24-hour loop, a propaganda-type move. But here's what we have here: the White House was told by the court because these journalistic outlets, and people are going to get mad at me for calling them that, these news outlets, the legacy media, legacy media, went and sought a temporary restraining order.
So basically, a 14-day pause on his ban, saying reinstate our passes while we continue to go into this entire litigation because it's going to continue on.
So sought a temporary restraining order against the President, against the White House for their credentials. The judge, who is a Trump appointee, so before people say, you know, oh, you know, rogue radical judge, going to be a conservative jurist here. We know how President Trump even feels about his own Supreme Court. Justices that he's elected.
Well, because once again, to the despair of the Democrats, we do have an independent judiciary. They don't always vote the way the President is. I think that's the exception that proves the rule here: that we don't need to completely reform our judicial system. Anyhow, he grants the TRO, and then the White House. Defied it, defied the court order, and didn't allow MS Now, CNN, or Politico back on campus.
There was a lot of mix-up. It also seems like it could be a little bit of an administrative issue because then the judge ordered them to respond to non-compliance allegations by. about three minutes ago our time.
So I haven't seen if that has been filed in court or not specifically. But that could put them in an issue where they're held in contempt of court. It could bring, you know, where people are temporarily jailed for ignoring the order. It wouldn't be the President himself. It'd be someone on staff probably, but that ignored the order of the judge.
Now we're seeing. that CNN is back on campus at the White House. This is a report on X from another member of the press from the Daily Wire that's the White House correspondent was able to report they're back here.
So it is a back and forth. I do think the noncompliance initially doesn't make that judge happy. That's probably not going to help you down the line. But I think at the end of the day, I don't think this was meant to be a forever story by the White House. I think a lot of this, as we say, is changing the narrative.
Yeah, CNN back on campus, my favorite Rodney Dangerfield film. Yes, it was only directed to DVD. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Phone lines are open for you. 1800-684-3110.
In the next segment, we're also going to talk a little about the New York Times. We're going to take some calls. Got phone lines open. And a ton of you watching right now. A lot of you watching, and a lot of phone lines open.
Do something about that. Fix that for us. 1-800-684-30-110. I do see quite a few names popped up of who you think is going to be that next President of the United States. And again, you may feel like that's far away.
But when it comes to big moments like this, we got to look into how things were being run at previous administrations. We have to remember that that is not very far away. We'll be right back. Hey, welcome back. Sekulow here.
Logan Zeculo, Will Haynes. Good to see you, Logan. Going to take some calls. A lot of you called in. Still a few few lines open.
1-800-684-3110. I'm going to go ahead and take some of these.
Some of you guys have been holding for quite a little while. Let's go to Gene first, though, in Wisconsin, who's watching on the Salem News Channel, which, by the way, is another way you can watch this show live. We do it again live, 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. You can work your way back from there, where we are live on the Salem News channel.
That's available on a lot of, what do they call it? It's. Oh, fast. It's a fast channel. It's a fast channel.
It's a free Pluto, Roku. It's on a lot of those options, the Sale News channel. A lot of great lineup, but we're on there. Gene, go ahead. Hi.
I just I I think DeSantis, as far as him being in the running, I don't know if Se DeSantis is strong. enough. I would think JD Vance or Robiol. Yeah. Um We need somebody with a backbone like Trump has.
and not care about what people think. Because they need to do what they need to do. It's just got to be. They go with what no what they know is right. Um and I also I'm really struggling with this idea of democrat socialist.
They're two totally separate words. How can you have a socialist democrat? Yeah, and and How is it possible for them to put their hand on the Bible and swear that they're gonna uphold the Constitution. When everything they believe in is the opposite. Sure, I could break down, Gene, the difference between what they would say is a Democrat socialist and someone who is just a socialist or part of socialism.
To do that, though, would be exhausting a lot of energy. They're really kind of unnecessary in the sense of they believe a lot more social programs, things that get done, of course, more elected.
Well, as well, it's not Democrat socialist. It's democratic socialist. And really what they mean is that majority rules. They mean that we get enough people to think like us and we take over everything. And that is why our constitutional republic safeguards people in demographics that are in the minority party, politically speaking.
That the mob rule, those that win the election, that's part of the reason also why we don't have popular vote for President. It is to protect the minority ideologies and belief systems and every other sense of that term that you are not then just completely steamrolled by those in power. Remember, there's also nuances they will claim within Democratic socialists.
So you have someone like AOC being like, well, I'm a member of the New York Democratic Socialists, but not the main party Democratic Socialists. That's way too far. Of course, that's what you'd say when you're running for President. There's all of these layers. And I think what you have to remember is what it's really doing.
in some ways is appealing to a younger base that wants free everything. Not to say, by the way, that they won't win. We saw what happened in New York City. And by the way. We saw President Trump meeting with that mayor of New York City in a very cordial, friendly way, in a way that felt very positive.
Why? Because he's a very engaging speaker. Let's not kid ourselves. The mayor of New York City and AOC are very talented. They are very smart people.
You may disagree with everything they stand for. And likely you do. But don't put it past them that they're not going to win elections. That the Democratic Socialists are not going to do it. They are a very charismatic group and they offer a utopian state for a lot of people that feel disenfranchised by the way the economy is going, by the way that they have been raised.
A lot of it is appealing to Not our generation, not even the millennial, but to the next generation of that. It's before you get to your gen alphas, before you get to your, it's more like the gen z group. That group. Yeah. You know, people that are right now.
aged, let's say 18 to 25. That is who you're going to rile up with this. Because you're going to have a generation coming in. I would even actually say it's a little older than that, 25 to 35. The generation below that, by the way?
I think it's going to be radical. You're going to have a really strong group of people right now who are currently in college or a little bit younger, but you're living through a moment where the top tier candidates are going to be appealing to a younger group that's 25, 35, and they hear that because they have seen the consequences of their own actions often and would love to blame that on the government. And now we have a rise in Democrat socialism.
Well, and once again, they are looking at this. And I know a lot of people are concerned by seeing the rise in it and to see not just the ability for these individuals to win House seats in places like New York or in California or even in Colorado as we see this happening, but really to see it, it become such that the ideology is becoming mainstream within the Democrat Party. We talked earlier this week about those statistics from that poll of where the party is today, where Democrats and liberals are today. And we talked about a lot of the shocking things that they'd be okay with a military coup if they woke up and there was a headline that President Trump had been taken out by the military and that there was a military leadership installed. They would feel it was a majority either felt strongly positive feelings or somewhat positive feelings about that.
But that wasn't the only thing in that. It was all of the other issues that the DNC has now co-opted from the DSA, like abolishing the Senate. About completely changing the structure of our separation of powers, about packing the Supreme Court, making it a less independent judiciary, by the way, when you do that. All of those things. Are not coming from the traditional old guard Democrats.
It's coming from the philosophy that the DSA is instilling in these candidates. And also in the voter base.
So yeah, they may get into office and and say, I swear on this Bible or whatever they choose to swear on, the oath to uphold the Constitution. But what are they probably most focused on? The ability to amend that constitution.
So, yeah, it is a little not, and we know that our hope and our faith and our trust is in God and that he's in control of all things. But it is unsettling that that is where the mainstream party on the left of America is co-opting a lot of those ideas. I think there are ways to see social programs that are happening. And there are social programs, by the way, that we all do agree on for the most part. There are things that are being done that you want your government to go in and work on the roads.
You want them to do all of these kind of things, even help people who are in need. There are levels to that. Mm-hmm. It's when it becomes about everyone, and that everyone becomes this sort of victim of the system, is where it gets out of line. We are not talking about not being compassionate.
We are not talking about looking at things from a rational point of view or having programs that do help communities. Of course, I 100% agree with those, probably more so than a lot of people. But what I don't agree with, again, is this massive victim mentality from what feels like an entire generation that is going to be activated and have already seemed to be activated. In the political process, I want to take a call, though, about a different group. Let's go to Nick in Washington, D.C.
Nick, go ahead, you're on the air. Right now. Yeah. Either. Um, yeah, I like Marco Rubio.
And the reason why is that The Latinos, a lot of Latinos voted for Trump. And now because of all the deportation that's been going down, a lot of them feel betrayed.
So I I feel that if Marco Ruby From President And he could do something for Latinos like Latinos that have been here for 10 years plus. That have never gotten in trouble with the law, somehow work hard, take care of their family, make them citizens, I think a lot of Latinos will come back to the Yeah, hey, Nick, you just lost your connection there. I do think, like, I hate when people start like putting voter blocks around race or gender or whatever it may be or religion, because I think often that becomes very oversimplified. I feel like the Democrats do it much more than even the Republicans, because then that's always the shocking number. How many people?
How many Hispanic people voted for a Republican? Can you believe it? How many black people voted for a Republican? Can you believe it? It's never the other way.
I don't like that.
However, I do think it's going to be an interesting stat to pay attention to in the midterms: what did. What did The situation with ICE, and look, I think we can all agree that even those who are on the full-blown, they love everything ICE has been doing, that there have been some blunders over the last years. There has been some mishandling of some of it. People have been killed. All of those things happen.
There have been people who are not trained. We know we've gone through this, and there's been replacements to those people, by the way, who were doing that. Very least it was a PR blunder because you saw a replacement at the Department of Homeland Security. I'm not saying that I'm not defending one way or the other, but what I'm saying is we know that there were changes that had to be made because we saw it wasn't being worked on the way it was. supposed to be.
Does that affect that voter block, if you will, coming in the midterms? I think that's going to be very interesting to watch. And maybe that will see a rise with somebody like a Marco Rubio. I'm not sure. I don't know how that plays out.
Florida is also where Marco is from, very different. It has been a purple state for a long time and then became a very red state over the last decade, including, by the way, that block, because that block of voters, if you will, a lot of them are from Cuban descent, refugees that came in and were, trust me. If you want to talk to somebody that is against democratic socialism, you talk to our Cuban American base because they have something to say. Phone lines are open for you, though, at 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110.
Last segment of the day. If you want a great way to get involved, of course, I ask you to financially support. But another way is to just go to our website, sign a petition, aclj.org slash sign. Maybe you just want to subscribe to this YouTube channel. Maybe you haven't done that yet.
Do those. Small, quick little processes. That helps get the message out there to more and more people, not just in this country, but around the world. And there's new options that are going to be coming very soon to where we're going to be able to reach the entire world.
So be a part of that team right now at aclj.org. All right, last segment of the day. Still a couple lines open. If you want to call in, 1-800-684-3110, talking about a whole. A litany of Topics to dig with.
It's been a lot of fun. Thanks for joining us. I slowed it down for this segment. You know, a lot of times you come in hot. Yeah.
For the final? We got eight and a half minutes to kill.
So you said you had a couple comments. You want to take some comments? You want to take some callers? Start with a caller because I misplaced that piece of paper.
Well, you know what? See, this is what when we do the slow version of the show. Call them a debt. We're headed towards the end of the week, guys. We ought to take some deep breaths in.
Okay, you're as your daughter said, sometimes the show can't just be... Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We can't keep doing this. Right. And this has been.
Top tier, we can't keep doing this show. Right. Yeah. I mean, that was kind of the whole premise. That kind of was, I mean, that was almost the tease.
Let's take some calls, though. This is about the press issues. Let's go to Phil online too. Phil, go ahead. Tongue-in-cheek thing.
In 1977, my program director at the radio station I started at told me when you got to kill time, work it to death. But hey, in regards to this press thing, and maybe I've got my history wrong, but my attitude on this is. The press to be in the White House in that pressroom is a privilege. It is not in the Constitution any place. When our forefathers put the Constitution together, they did not mention CNN being in the press room.
Well, yeah. In 1933. For President Roosevelt, a swimming pool was built in the basement of the White House. He had polio and it helped relieve his discomforts. The next couple of Presidents enjoyed it.
By the time the Nixon administration rolled around, they were being the press was underfoot. And somebody said, Hey, these guys are all over and they're in the way. Let's take that swimming pool and we'll make it into a press pool. Or today's standards, a cesspool.
So they redid that whole room. It now became the press room. And it is a privilege, as far as I'm considered, as far as I'm concerned, for them to be in that press room. They're not telling them what they can or cannot print. They are saying, hey, if you want to play nice and be a credible reporter, which credibility in journalism has gone out the window about the 1990s.
They're still welcome to go into the White House and they still have to be approved, but if you want to be in this pressroom, that's a privilege.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, I don't know all the facts about the creation of the press room. I will be honest with you. And as we know, the relationship between the press and the Nixon administration ended swimmingly. It went very nice. You like that there?
You like that? But, Phil, I do think that you bring up some interesting points. Of course, it's not in the Constitution that CNN is allowed. Of course, CNN not founded until the early 80s, late 70s, early 80s.
So that couldn't have happened.
However, is there precedent for this?
Well, a judge is getting involved. And of course, we know what they love to do with the Trump administration is you get a judge involved, even if it seems like it's ridiculous.
Now, again, I think it's not a good idea. I've been very honest and very clear about that because I think you will set a precedent. Moving forward, where you could have a very easy way for the next, because as you said, they Presidents love the spoils of the previous President, even if they disagreed with him at first.
So, what they could easily say is, okay, I'm Democrat President X. No longer will I allow Fox in, or even moderate, let's say a news nation, you know, someone that's a little bit more bending left, but isn't quite just pure propaganda. That could be a big issue moving forward.
So, I always like to look at the ramifications going forward. I understand your thoughts, though, right now in this, and a judge is getting involved.
Well, and Phil, to your point, yes, it's not as if he made a law banning CNN from speaking, so violating the First Amendment in that way. But so, what they're arguing in this is that their First Amendment rights were violated as well as their Fifth Amendment rights. In the Fifth Amendment, they're saying they were banned without due process, that he just decided and targeted three specific people for banning without any sort of appeal. Any sort of procedure that could go. He just said, y'all, no more.
Then the First Amendment is that they are being blocked specifically in retaliation for their reporting and discriminating against their viewpoint.
Now, obviously, this is going to play out for a long time. There's probably a thousand different ways that this could end up. What the judge gave was a temporary restraining order, a TRO, for 14 days, two weeks. Before they can get to another phase of this. And that is probably a cautious move by the judge here based off of the complaints of First Amendment and Fifth Amendment restrictions, especially when you have the White House saying things like, we don't like what they're saying.
When you have the President say, fake news, I don't like them, I'm banning them.
So sometimes the context here doesn't necessarily go in favor of the White House with the statements of the President, as well as some of the other reporting that they listed were some statements like they reported this. And it were things that the White House Press office had directly given the outlets.
So they were discriminating against them for reporting things that were given to them by the White House.
So, yeah, it's a complicated thing, and I don't know how it's going to end up long term, but the judge obviously at this stage thought granting a TRO was a problem. The broke was worth it. Let's go ahead and switch topics a little bit. Carol in California, watching on Sale News channel. Carol, go ahead.
Mm. Uh yes, hi. Yeah, what I wanted to tell people is that, and I guess a lot of people know this, but too many don't. Um, this thing with this communism and socialism and all of that, This is just another ripoff. That they did in Russia, that they did in other different countries to shut them down and take them over and loot them.
Communism is nothing but an orchestra orchestrated looting. and a takeover of a country by these elites by these oligarchs Cool. Right now, the situation with them is that they are trying to save their system, and there's really no saving it. The creep is very real, Carol. I think that's absolutely true.
You have to pay attention to when things start creeping in and going from. fringe and all of a sudden they're Sort of like a little less fringe and then a little less, and all of a sudden they're moderate, and then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they are the main line of the party.
Well, and once again, I think back to something you said earlier, that when you're talking about socialism here, this isn't like social programs. That is what we talk about the scourge of socialism for so many years. And a lot of times it was just talking about adding social programs and things. Those are genuine policy debates. What the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, and what a lot of these candidates under the DNC are now pushing for is a Marxist-style socialism that you would have seen in places like Russia, in places like Central America, that are pure Marxism.
It is not the constitutional republic framework that we have. They're working within that to try and bring about their change, but it is a very revolutionary ideology. Yeah, I think we need to make sure that's clear. Hey, Kurt, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get to you today. You can call back tomorrow.
We'll try to get you earlier in the broadcast. Thankfully, you held the least of everybody, but I appreciate your call either way. But unfortunately, I'll be able to get to you. That being said, one minute left. If you want to support the work of the ACLJ, do it right now.
We are in not one of our big special months, but what I can tell you is that you guys are reacting. And we have some really interesting cases we're going to be talking about very soon. One of which, by the way, Came because someone, one of our viewers, one of our listeners, one of our supporters. tagged me on social media and said, Look at this story. You think the ACLJ could get involved in this?
And guess what? It did get to me. I took it direct to our team. And now, it's happening. That is the impact when you get involved in the work here.
You're going to be changing people's lives. Simple actions. Can really move things forward.
So, right now, I'm going to encourage you to go to aclj.org, be a part of the team today, whether it's signing a petition, whether it's sharing our content, of course, donating. If you can, we'll talk to you tomorrow.
