Today on Sekulow, just when you thought the fake polling scandal couldn't get any stranger, another firm adds chaos to the midterms. 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 one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero.
And now your host. Welcome to Sekulow. It's Friday, folks. We made it. I am live today.
This is not a re-air of earlier in the week, even though the the content you may think it would be. This is now the third firm. That has been called out for, let's say, less than reliable information when it comes to polling. We talked earlier in this week about Median Strategies. It was back in August that got caught and admitted that they were putting out fake polls as an experiment.
Then earlier this week, we talked about Wedgwood Polls, which was featured by the New York Times. It was featured by Nate Silver, MS.
Now they got caught and they put out a. Large statement about their experiment, and now we find out that a third firm, SoCal Strategies, which has been around longer than the previous two, is having some interesting things happen with them. Fifty plus one, the outlet that is an aggregator, they do election forecasting, aggregation of polls, and political analysis. As a part of the post Wedgwood scandal, started looking into SoCal strategies about some of their polls that they had questions about, and they were told by someone at the company that they were talking to. Give me until Friday, and I'll give you all the underlying data.
I'll get it. We're really busy. It's midterm season, but yeah, these questions you have, I'll get you all the cross tabs. I'll get all the data you need to show the legitimacy of the poll in question. That was Wednesday night.
Yesterday, SoCal Strategies took down their website, their X account, their Substack. They disappeared from the internet after being questioned by Fifty Plus One about a couple of polls. Not all the polls. Even it says that Fifty Plus One says a lot of their surveys. We actually are kind of leaving in our model because we still have confidence that the poll was real.
Something strange is going on right now with this midterm election and this polling. We're going to get to the heart of it in the next segment.
So I want you to give me a call. Though, is this surprising to you that it's this blatant and brazen, this close to an election that we're seeing multiple firms that are are admitting they were fraudulent, that they were fake polls, and they their their motives they say were were pure at heart, trying to show that there's a problem in the polling industry and the media vetting of that.
Now the those companies that say they vet them are pushing back on that narrative. We'll talk about that as well. But this now takes a what seems to be almost a more bizarre, sinister turn. When it wasn't that they were caught by fifty plus one, and then they tried to put out a statement very similar to Wedgewood of saying, "Look, we're trying to test the controls here. We're trying to test to see." What can get through and what can't, and how you know how how scrutinizing the media is over the polls that are getting out there.
No, they just ghosted the world. They said we're done here. Take down our website. Take down our Twitter account, our X account. Take down our Substack.
So something is going on. And and I know that things get interesting and weird around elections. That there are people that try to use election time for their own financial benefit, for their own notoriety. But this seems very, very strange, and we're going to get to it more in the next segment as I go over what 50 plus one found about SoCal strategies and how that relates to Wedgewood polling that we talked about earlier in the week, as well as all of this just 11 days from election day. Give me a call one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero to talk to me on air about this and so much more.
Jordan Sekulow joining me in a few segments from Washington D.C. as well as Mike Pompeo joining me later in the broadcast. It's a packed show for a Friday, and I want to hear from you. One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. We'll be right back on Sekulow.
Welcome back to Sekulow as we dig deeper into this polling scandal that is really running rampant through the national media, the election cycle, the campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans right now. I mean we we talked about how some of these polls. They they encouraged the national parties and candidates and things of that nature to spend money places they wouldn't have spent because of of the polling data that started coming out of this, and you're also starting to see a mioculpa from a lot of the pollsters and news organizations. You're starting to see. That they're saying no, no, no.
We do actually scrutinize these polls, like Nate Silver, who. Has made his entire business model on polling data and statistical analysis. He he put out a long multi-post thread on X about how you know what's going on with Wedgewood that the they are lying when they say there isn't vetting going on.
Well, certainly there's vetting. Like I don't think they said there's zero vetting, but clearly the scrutiny that are being given to these companies are in some. Cases not enough to get over what's happening here, and his whole point is that you know the New York Times extensively vets new pollsters.
Well, the New York Times included fifteen different polls from Wedgwood and said that you know fifty plus one caught them, so therefore they they were caught and exposed, right? But after a lot of damage was done, depending on who you are talking about, but. The other situation here is that he says, and I want to get to this is that how a lot of I think direct quote was that a lot of attention or or there is a tendency to overstate the influence of Wedgwood.
Now these are people trying to get on the defensive instead of you know what I think a lot of these people should be like let's do a full audit of what we're looking at here. Even the legacy pollsters that we have a relationship with, let's do a full audit of what's going on here. If you really want polling to be reliable and to continue in this, and and not have, unfortunately, like the government try to step in and regulate it, which I think could be a big mistake, then you know what? Maybe you shouldn't say. I think there is a tendency to overstate the influence of Wedgwood.
He said they're pretty obscure and though fairly prolific. It's almost always best not to give any individual pollster undue attention, especially if they have no track record. That's fine if he had rated their influence in his own methodology very low, but in some cases it was the most influential poll in his model.
So I think there should be a reckoning for the media and for those in the in the in the political prognosticating business to start to really do some soul searching, instead of saying no, I do it right. And I get it right, and even though I may be off sometimes, that's the natural variance of statistical analysis. And I have done everything right. Instead, say, "Yeah, this got its way into my model, and I weighted it heavily in some places.
Some places it was the most influential poll. I don't see how." This industry is going to regain credibility by not admitting what happened here is a big disaster, because at this point we know of three sketchy situations. We know that median strategies during the primaries. Admitted that they were not an actual polling firm, and those were polls that were touted by candidates on the campaign trail to raise money to prove that they were rising in the polls, and and it worked to some degree. On the flip side, you have then Wedgewood polling, which this week admitted that they were not real and that they were doing this as an experiment.
And what happens? What you saw that it caused the national party to spend in Mississippi. You saw different strategies based off this data, and and and really also start to shift other pollsters. Once this poll came out, there are patterns people are pointing out of. Of more quote unquote reliable pollsters starting to coalesce around those polls, so there is a lot to be unfolding here.
But you look at this also. This is from fifty plus one that is bringing out this now. Third firm, SoCal Strategies, that when they were suspicious, they started doing an investigation on suspected data fabrications by individuals claiming to work for Wedgwood Polls, and so they started a parallel investigation with an associated pollster, they say, known as SoCal Strategies. The reason for this is because a lot of names were popping up that were in parallel with. Who Wedgwood claimed to be, and who SoCal Strategies claimed to be.
So, on Tuesday of this week, they contacted and did an interview with a person affiliated with SoCal Strategies, and then they were waiting for additional information that underlying data that was promised to them, that was going to be given to them by Friday. Then yesterday morning, they. Took dark their website, their previously active Twitter slash X account, which was at SoCal Strategies, and as well their Substack page where they posted poll results and underlying data. All of them taken offline. And and they're even saying fifty plus one is that they don't believe that their polls were fake per se, that there were some three specifically that they had questions about, and as soon as they started questioning it, the response from the firm was to disappear.
Disinformation, misinformation was something that you know the Democrats tried to push so much upon us about being careful what you read online, and then we were supposed to trust the Washington Post and New York Times. You know, democracy dies in the darkness. Where is the outrage about misinformation and disinformation? In reality, though. You don't need a disinformation czar, like the Biden administration tried to put in place to police conservative speech, because that's what it would end up doing.
It would police your political opponents' speech, their First Amendment right. What we need in this country is a press that we can trust to use their freedom and their influence that they have under the Constitution to to at least try and get it right. And I think most of us know that we haven't been able to fully trust the press for a long time. Many of you are probably laughing at me and saying, "When could we ever?" That's a that is a crisis, a constitutional crisis in this country. We don't need the government to fix it, but we need this is why we need outlets like this, where we will tell you the truth, even if it's inconvenient or or is something that you may not want to hear.
That is not what we've been seeing out of the media in this country for a very long time, especially when it comes to the polling data. I think this is like the most easily digestible example of this. Why? Because what we're starting to see is that they are doing what we said they've been doing all along. They're publishing what they want to hear.
There have that's why these polls are able to get out there. It's the confirmation bias for these journalists and these reporters. And these data analysts is saying, "Oh yeah, that that that rings true." To quote a former Biden and Obama official, it just rings true.
So let's run with it. And no matter how much they sit here and say, "No, we vet them, we vet them, we vet them," the fact of the matter is, you said you vet them, and fifteen polls from Wedgewood were then taken as as gospel. As solid, as good work product. I think there is something here as well that we're going to find out, and I hope that that true journalists, true investigations, will be done here at what actually went on. Because what we're starting to see also in this report from Fifty Plus One is these strange connections between individuals and whether they're it's their real names or not between Wedgewood and SoCal Strategies.
So when we talked about it on. I believe it was Wednesday of this week. We said we we liked to see this experiment at face value. We liked what they at least said they were doing at Wedgewood, but I don't know if we can trust that statement at this point either. Because of these strange connections, there's also some interesting lines in this about how some of the polls were released after only three hours after certain positions were taken on some of the the betting markets on politics, some of the prediction markets.
So, is there other things going on that are at the detriment of our Our confidence in our elections, our confidence in our media, that are continued to drag this down, that are a little bit more nefarious than they appear. I mean, I think we can always agree that there are forces at work behind the scenes that are trying to destroy your confidence in our elections system. We talk about that all the time. That's why we fight for election integrity. I think this is part of it too, and we're going to continue to look at ways that we can get to the bottom of this and try to figure out what's going on.
Whether be through different tools at our at our disposal here at the ACLJ, because I think this is a key part of election integrity as well. When you have something like this, and then you also have the media that are saying "my bad," but no, we actually did our job. You clearly didn't. You clearly didn't. And and if you say you can verify this data.
Maybe your tools are outdated as well. We'll be back with Jordan from Washington D.C. to give us an update there. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow.
Will Haynes here in studio at our media center, and joining us now from our Washington D.C. office, Jordan Sekulow is there, meeting with our attorneys and our our Capitol Hill team. And I think this is an important segment. We'll talk about some of the other things as well in the news, but to show how the work of the ACLJ never stops. When we are now eleven days from the mid.
Term election, where especially with the chaos of these fake polls and no one really knowing what which way is up at this point, what do we do? We go and we work and we plan and we strategize. We've heard this week sitting senators say that they want to come after potential White House staffers, so that people are afraid to work for the administration. This is the time when. These important meetings happen.
Jordan's in D.C. with our attorney and attorneys on Capitol Hill and our our Capitol Hill team to talk about the very potential strategies that could be coming just eleven days from now. Yeah, well, it's we do this every couple of years, so every election cycle, whether it be a midterm or general election. But what we do is we sit down with our attorneys and our government affairs team. We say, okay, what changes?
What what could change based off this election for us here in Washington?
So we start with Washington, right? We start with federal elections.
So with the House, with the Senate, we know the White House is going to be the same, so we can we can keep that one there. But what would If we see these election results that have been predicted in some of these, where you know the House and the Senate flip, and and what do we need to then do to counter today? Start doing, and some of this we've already been doing, but what would be new strategies? What would be things we should be focusing on more, and maybe pulling back on some less during these a couple of years?
So where can we have the most effect with our attorneys? All over the country. Where in what states can we have the most effect? We look at those as well. What's happening not just at the federal level, but at the state level?
And you go through those scenarios. You go through the scenarios of okay, you lose the house, you have a slim majority in the Senate, you've got the White House. What happens? What do we do? You look at the scenario of barely holding on to the House in the Senate, which is not so different than what we're in right now, but could be even tighter.
Okay, what does that Change. What can we do? Is there anything that can be done in a lame duck session? Who is going to need our help the most, and how do we make sure they know that they can come to us for that help?
So we're working through that today in Washington with our team. They've had a couple weeks to think about it. They already put their notes together. And this again, it's not something brand new for us. It's a it's a process we go through.
So there are things we do every time. But with this election being so uncertain. Certain, it's like you've got to have really all three. You got three different plans ready to go.
Well, because as you said, it's we saw polls that are now either getting a lot tighter or they're just bogus polls, and so we might not really know where the American people are in a lot of these elections, which are going to determine the outcome of the House, who controls the House of Representatives, and who controls the Senate, and even Congress, if it's one part. Until you know the votes actually start being counted, which is usually the case, but but usually in midterm elections where a lot less people vote, you can kind of get a feel. And the problem is, we've now been told that the the feel that we've been getting has been manipulated by fake information. That's kind of one other angle I wanted to talk about because obviously, at the ACLJ, a big part of the practice of our incredible attorneys is fighting back against what is called lawfare. It is when people weaponize the legal system to achieve their political gains, advance.
I mean, the most obvious example is the the legal persecution of President Trump post his first term. But it's something we've been fighting even. On smaller levels and in different ways, for vast majority of the organization's existence, as the law has been weaponized by those that want to exploit it in order to use their and get the outcomes that they desire. We heard the senator from Michigan, Alyssa Slotkin, who obviously is a former CIA agent or analyst, that said this week. That she wants to make it so she wants to have key cases.
So she did reference the legal system as well as their ability to subpoena people if they are to take back the House and Senate to make it so that people coming out of college don't want to go work for the administration. We also read that the Wall Street Journal said that people that are staffers, not just cabinet members, but staffers, are lawyering up. They are calling law firms trying to get Representation because of threats like that from Alyssa Slotkin, the senator. We know we're already fighting this battle. Because what did they do after the first Trump term?
They went after John Eastman. They got him disbarred in California, and we're fighting that at the Supreme Court. And we have a deadline now. The Supreme Court just granted the State Bar of California an extension because they at first said we're not even going to respond to your merit your cert petition.
Now they have until December sixteenth to respond, and then we will reply later in December.
So we know our attorneys are going to be working hard, fighting lawfare. During the Christmas holidays. Yeah, that's right.
So, lawfare is is very real. I think now what we've seen though is is the lawfare being coming not just at the politicians or the elected officials, but it's coming to their staff and their assistants. And whether it's John Eastman or you're talking about, she's talking about, you know, twenty three year olds coming out of college, twenty two year olds coming out of college, saying, "I've got this opportunity to work for the U.S. government," and it might be the Trump administration. I need to think twice about that because it could financially ruin me, because of what Elise Schlocken and other Democrats would like to do to anyone.
Who decides to work for this administration, and that they won't even be able to find attorneys because those attorneys will have already been hired by other people? That that will that kind of threat in the United States of America right before an election, but a threat to our young people as well. That because of your political ideology and the position that may be available to you, which you would usually be celebrated for, even if it was an interest. Level position out of college, being hired at the highest levels of government, that you need to think twice if it's a political appointment because the the Democrats are coming. That another political party wants to make your life a nightmare, and in this case, it happens to be the Democrat Party.
It's not trying to make your your the senator's life a nightmare. It's not trying to make the President's life a nightmare. It's or the cabinet official. They're trying to come for those who have the least amount of defenses, the least amount of resources to defend themselves, and the least amount of experience.
So, just engaging in and working for your government now becomes something you have to. In the United States of America, you know, we're not talking about a developing world country here. We're talking about the United States of America. It has to be something you weigh seriously, depending on who's got the political power. In your country, about whether or not it's financially.
Mentally and worth it, or could it actually financially ruin you before you've even started your career? And so, those threats alone, I think, it's a threat to our freedoms, a threat to the First Amendment, it's a threat to your ability to be able to take a job in a country like the United States, America. It's the worst of the worst, and we have to fight back on it. Will well, and I think Jordan even to that point as well. Even the chilling effect on those law firms that these staffers may even call.
A lot of these law firms don't want to take the cases. Why? Because they don't want to be like John Eastman, that's facing disbarment for representing someone. In the Constitution, you have a right to an attorney. If you've watched Law and Order, you've heard the Miranda rights a thousand times—that you have the right to an attorney.
They're trying to work around the Constitution too, Jordan. That's absolutely right.
So they don't want you to have an attorney. They don't want you to take the job, and then the administration has no one there working for them. Folks, now is the time to support the work of the ACLJ. As you see everything Jordan has going on, and all these cases we're fighting for, go to aclj. dot org.
We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Will Haynes in studio.
Coming up shortly, we'll have Secretary Mike Pompeo joining us to talk about a few foreign affairs items that are going on that you may have missed this week with all the other news of fake polls and and Ilan Omar, all the things that have captivated the headlines. There's been some very interesting movements both in Ukraine and in Israel.
So stick around; you won't want to miss that. But here is something also that you may not have seen. And because this just happened right before air, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that two former senior FBI officials, Nikki Cole Flores and Bradley Benavides, were taken into custody today on charges of allegedly lying to Congress about their involvement in the FBI's investigation into Hunter Biden. File this under the category of something is happening to hold people accountable. I know a lot of times we see that the wheels of justice do turn slowly.
If there is a case to be made, it sometimes takes time. And I want to point out something really interesting here because it relates to something I said yesterday on the broadcast. But it says he goes on to say the charges stem from an ongoing investigation into the since dissolved FBI foreign influence task force. Flores led the FITF as deputy assistant director from mid 2019. Through mid 2022, Benavides was the FITF section chief from mid 2019 through the 2020 election.
Both testified that the FITF was not involved in the Hunter Biden investigations. Documentary evidence, contemporaneous communications, and witness accounts contradict their testimony. Flores is also on record privately claiming to be "quote running a shadow government" in quote during the 2020 election in her role on the FITF.
So don't let anyone tell you that the deep state isn't real, because some people were bragging about it in their private communications. Then it goes on to say, "lying to Congress by senior FBI officials strikes at the heart of our system. No one is above the law. The FBI has already dismantled the corrupt CR15 squad that." Engaged in political weaponization, targeting their opponents, including President Trump.
So we see this. We see charges that they've been taken into custody. These are former FBI officials that were doing these corrupt things. That were running shadow governments, in their own words. And I want to point out exactly what I said yesterday.
Because remember, sometimes when they are violating the Constitution, they may not be violating a criminal statute that you can prosecute that could get them criminal liability.
Sometimes that it gives you recourse to go back and and fight to have your rights restored that were violated under constitutional violations. But what were these two individuals? What are they being charged with? Lying to Congress.
So sometimes that's why those oversight hearings are so important as well, and those depositions that Congress take, because when these individuals don't want to be forthcoming about how awful they were, what they were doing that was violating the rights of Americans, they end up lying to Congress, and then that's what they get charged with.
So sometimes, if there was no enriching of themselves, a corruption that is, you can get to that criminal statute. That's why a lot of these people end up getting charged with perjury, or lying to Congress, or lying to investigators, or obstruction of justice. Not because the conduct that they did while illegal under the sense of it violated someone's constitutional rights, it may not be a direct violation of a criminal statute that has criminal penalties attached to it.
So I think that's always important to keep in mind going forward as well. As well as why the Congress. Has oversight hearings to see if they need to create new legislation to attach criminal penalties to things that individuals do while they are in government service that violate the rights of American citizens.
So keep that in mind as well. But we will be right back with the Secretary of State, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to discuss some big movement out of Ukraine. Once again, just 11 days now before the midterm elections, and you hear something from Vladimir Zelensky that sounds very interesting when it comes to their war with Russia and why it may be coming to an end soon. We'll get into that with the secretary, as well as some interesting comments out of the Prime Minister of Israel, who's up for re-election as well. Folks, we'll be right back with more on Sekulow.
But support the work of the ACLJ at aclj.org with a tax-deductible financial contribution. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We're joined now by Senior Counsel for Global Affairs here at the ACLJ and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And I want to get right into this, and I want to play this bite for the audience so that they can hear exactly what's being said.
Because if you don't hear it, you may not believe it at this point. But this is between Brian Kilmeade on Fox News talking to President Zelensky of Ukraine, bite five. Would you accept a peace deal that freezes everything the way it is right now, where you still keep seventy-five percent or more of your country, regardless of how it started? Would you be? Would you accept where it is right now?
Yes, we right now we have to freeze, and I think this is real way to end this war. We call it ceasefire or stop killing, like President Trump called it. Freeze and stop. And of course, this is minimum what we need from Russia today. Then, of course, we will go to President and to Europeans and will ask security guarantees.
The most important is peace. And also security piece. This is the most important. Mr. Secretary, one like I said, you almost don't believe hearing that until you hear it.
That that's the President of Ukraine making those statements, and not President Trump, as he's been saying something very similar and saying that he could end the war on day one since he was running for office this term. But I just want to get your your immediate thoughts when you hear this this week. I know it got lost in the shuffle this week with a lot of people, maybe not seeing these statements, but. What are your thoughts on this?
So, Will, it's great to be with you today. Look, I'm actually unsurprised. I think everyone has known for a long time that this is the likely way that this ends—that you get the peace and you get the ceasefire. The challenges are twofold. I think President Zelensky is fully prepared to do that.
You saw his second point, which is, yeah, but I can't do that unless I have sufficient security guarantees—that is, a set of guarantees that will. Give him confidence that Vladimir Putin won't move the cheese six months from now, or a year and a half from now, when President Trump leaves office in two years.
So he needs certainty around duration for the ceasefire and for the lines being drawn there. And then the second piece of this—it's interesting to note—you didn't hear Vladimir Putin say, "Okay, that's something we can even work with." Vladimir Putin basically has been unwilling to give up this conflict until he gets all of the Donbas. And that's his mission set. I'll be very surprised to see Putin engage along these lines. I hope I'm wrong.
I hope he says, "Yep, you got a deal. Let's stand down, and then let's sort this out." But I'm confident President Zelensky would take precisely what he acknowledged he would accept. He would do it in a way that delivered really good outcomes for the United States and for Europe, and frankly for the 40,000 Russians that are casualties every month as well.
Well, and to that point as well, you you bring up those security guarantees that he mentions in this statement. The Vladimir Putin would say the entire reason this started was because they were trying to seek NATO security guarantees by becoming a member of NATO. What could that look like absent of a fast track to NATO membership for Ukraine? What would a security guarantee in a reality if this were to come to fruition? What do you think it could look like?
Okay. Yeah, that's the right question. Part of this is real security, and part of this is diplomacy. Vladimir Putin needs to be seen to have been victorious in keeping NATO out of Ukraine, if you will. Right.
So you you can imagine that it would look like everything that NATO would have brought, but you just don't have the the patches on the soldiers saying NATO.
So European forces on the front lines, or frankly, third party countries from outside of Europe and non-Russian coming to the borders, well. Essentially, providing a tripwire and providing security there. You could imagine the diplomatic, the kind of threading that needle.
Well, and I think President Zelensky would accept that. Do you think obviously what's front of mind for everyone is that we're 11 days away from the midterms, where the political temperature could shift dramatically? I think I was a little surprised of Zelensky coming out and saying this prior to our midterms. Do you think there's any calculus in that with him as well of when when the President could have much more contentious road ahead in 11 days if things go differently? You know, well, I actually I'm not sure this had much to do about American elections.
More to do with the extreme conditions that are existing inside of Ukraine today. The attacks on civilians, killing kids, taking down energy. Those are very real, and I think President Zelensky is truly trying to end this as quickly as he can, regardless, on terms that he can accept, regardless of the American election. Speaking of elections, there's another election in the world, and that's in Israel next week. But we saw that Prime Minister Netanyahu this week said that it's time to overthrow the regime of Iran.
He also said there's no way for Israel to ever truly be secure while the Iranian regime stays in place. That's that's not a new line. That's a for sure what we all agree with. That that ultimate security for the state of Israel cannot exist while the Iranians are still in power. What do you make of the timing of this?
That as things have been relatively quiet, we did see that the Israeli Air Force flew some missions up to the border of Iran as a show of strength, saying, "Warning them, don't attack us while we're in the middle of our election process." As well, while that has been relatively quiet for some time, what do you make of him bringing it back to the national and world stage at this point? Right.
Yeah, I think this this actually does have to do with elections, both Israeli elections and American elections. I think he was reminding the Israeli people that, frankly, whether he's victorious or not in his campaign, that this challenge remains, and that we need to make sure that there are leaders in each of the two countries that understand that the job's not done. There's still more work to do, and then I think also, while it has been quiet on the Israeli front, it has not been quiet. On many other fronts, the Houthis have been lobbing attacks into commercial airports inside of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There are still ships being attacked in the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States is moving yet a third carrier. That's a that's a for those of you listening and watching. That's a whole lot of American military power being moved into the region. I think I think there's now a developing consensus that the status quo has really weakened the Iranian regime, and now the task of tipping it over. Is at hand.
And and I feel like that's what the world needs. I mean, that's something obviously you've said on this broadcast many times that, and we've agreed with that. That the Iranian regime should no longer exist in in the current form. But we do look at obviously the political reality here on the ground in the United States. There's legislatively, if things go the way that all the polls, and including a lot of the now discovered fake pollsters, have been telling us, that that it's going to be a legislative stalemate.
For two years, but obviously the commander in chief will be having antagonists in Congress, but still controls the the military, still is the commander in chief, and still directs the foreign policy of the country. What do you think a a post midterm Iran strategy could look like for the United States? Do you think we finally could finish the job? Will I do? And and I think of all the things that President Trump has worked on, one of the things he's been most consistent about is his understanding that that's necessary, right?
He talks about it in terms of keeping them away from a nuclear weapon, but I think the I think he understands that so long as that regime is in place, that threat doesn't go away. And I think he will both want to do this for his legacy, but importantly, I think President Trump will want to do this because it's necessary for the American people. I think he understands this risk deeply, and I think. The Gulf states now understand it in a way perhaps they they weren't prepared to acknowledge a year ago, and so I think you will see a collection, whether it's the Gulf states, Israelis, and us, and I hope the Europeans as well, do what's necessary to maintain freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and take down the risk that's been sitting on top of us from the world's largest state sponsor of terror for forty years. Mr.
Secretary, thank you as always for joining us today on Sekulow. This analysis is extremely important at a time where there is a risk that people aren't paying attention to these type of stories that do affect global security, national security, as well as the world economy and prices right here at home. It's all tied together, no matter what some maybe influencers want you to think. This is important stuff, especially heading up to. A midterm election.
So, thank you for joining us today, and we'll talk to you soon, folks. As we wrap up this segment, I want to hear from you in the final segment of the broadcast. One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. You can talk about this statement from President Zelensky of Ukraine. You can talk about Prime Minister Netanyahu saying he wants to overthrow the regime of Iran now.
You can talk about Ilan Omar that we've talked about a lot about this week. If that's what you want to talk about, I know a couple of you called in didn't make it to air yesterday. I encourage you to call back today, as well as what we led with the fake polls, the the media crisis. They're trying to say it's not a crisis when there there seems to be a fire in their own house that they are ignoring as it grows. We're up to three firms that are no longer trustworthy.
Two out. Right said we were fake. Is that going to grow? Do you think next week there is another page turned and we see something else? I want to hear from you one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero.
You also heard about the important work that Jordan's doing today, meeting with our team, strategizing, getting ahead of what's to come, knowing what we need to do to protect the Constitution, protect your rights, protect the right to vote. Protect your constitutional and First Amendment rights at your school, at your church, wherever you live. This is what we do here at the ACLU, and we don't wait for it to happen. We're not reactionary. We are proactive.
We are planning. We are strategizing. We are working hard every single day. And you can join us by contributing to the ACLU, keeping that work going. Filling up our financial resources as we know the lawfare is coming and the fights are ahead.
Go to aclj.org today. Welcome back to Sekulow. Final segment of the week. We made it, folks, and I'm going to go straight to your phone calls. Bobby from New York calling online too.
ACLJ champion jumps to the front of the line. Bobby, you're on Sekulow. From Niagara Falls on the American side. Before I say my thing about Nate Silver, I want to make the comment that these elections and polls can be a funny business. If you go back to 1948, when the polls thought Harry Truman was going to lose, and then he won.
If you ever get a chance, check out his interview. Because on election night, the papers and the radio called his called his loss, and then the next day he went on the radio for in for an interview. It was the funniest thing, and he made fun of the NBC radio commentator H. B. Kelton Board.
If you've never heard that interview, you you should hear it. And he said, "I I it's I won. It's too bad, but I won." And then he made fun of the the NBC radio reporter H. B. Kelton Board.
But what I want to ask you about it's a great interview. But what I want to ask about Nate Silver? Do we have to believe he's gospel because? It's always been my belief that he leans left, and that's my commentary. Sure, today, will yeah.
So, Bobby, one, yes, I mean, who doesn't have very able the ability to recall the Harry Truman holding the Chicago Tribune with it says Dewey defeats Truman. It's one of the most iconic political images in American history, but. Yeah, I mean, obviously, polls are statistical analysis. Back then, their their issue would have been getting the information reliably quickly, right? To be able to conduct a poll.
Now, it's getting reliable information from one anyone wanting to actually be a part of a survey or telling you the truth.
So, I mean, there's methodologies. It's a science. I mean, statistical analysis is in everything that we do. And there's a reason. There's a margin of error.
It's how big the sample size is, and how that correlates to the population and the demographics. And that, yeah, we know it's not. No poll is saying they're 100 right. They list how far off they think they could be wrong.
So. That that's one thing. No, Nate Silver. Yes, I think politically, ideologically, he does lean left, but he also is a firm believer in the science, right? In in statistical analysis and and being able to then use his own, you know, put his own spin on it by reading the polls, seeing how they did it, and him being the one that's like, I think this poll is more credible than the other because of the way they did the data analysis, because of their sample going to.
All the crosstabs, so I weight it more. He's just aggregating polls and assigning weights to come up with his own political forecast.
So no, it's not gospel truth. Obviously, it's not. It gets it wrong quite often, and not even like margin of error wrong. It gets it wrong. Here's the biggest problem with not just Nate Silver, but but all of these media organizations, these legacy media and new media, is hubris.
They think they're the smartest people in the room. They think they're infallible. They think that when they're checking these things and the way that they're verifying this data, that they are able to see through lies so easily. They don't. They need humility.
This should be humble pie. Instead, it's them saying, "No, this is the exception that proves the rule of how good we are." Look, they did get caught. Right, not after it didn't do the damage, and also put a toxicity within some of these poll and some of this data and some of these aggregators, but also to the public trust. And your hubris—is it making people trust you more? It's making people write you off.
There's a founder of a of a podcast festival called Resonate that I read an article about that was talking about the crisis in the press, and one of his complaints was saying that you know there was a theft of the press by big tech. That's the hubris. It's thinking that it was they're the victims. It was just taken from them.
Now they couldn't adapt, and so people stopped trusting them, and instead started trusting. Algorithms, you're part of the problem if you don't see that. If you don't see that people didn't trust you anymore, so they trusted an algorithm more, then it wasn't theft. It was a gift that you gave Big Tech, and I think the press needs to recognize that and get back. And they're never going to have an unbiased press.
I would never call for that because that's silly. The human nature itself is biased. I want a truly antagonistic press, not a picking and choosing sides, and I want a humble press that realizes they can get to the bottom of it, but not that they're the smartest people in the room. Let's go to Bill calling from Wyoming online one. Bill, you're on Sekulow.
Hi, thanks for taking my call. I kind of laugh at myself along with these other guys because I tend to be a little bit cynical about what goes on, but. I feel like I'm just about as naive as these professionals or experts that go out saying this this type of stuff because to me it makes me think about problems of like runs on banks or runs on stocks or even extreme example of the Great Depression that we had that somebody says something. And next thing I know, they they're taking us as an expert. They know everything, know all about it, and their word is taken.
And even in crowds, for example, that can actually get a peaceful demonstration into a riot. Do you have anything more to add to that?
Well, and I think that's you know the I see the analogy there, and what you've even seen is some of these candidates saying their fundraising dried up after some of these fake polls.
So, even if it didn't have a direct impact on the ballot box of people staying home in in one of the primaries or something, they stopped their money dried up. It affected these races.
So, I think t here is a lot more to uncover here, and I think we're going to keep digging into it. And I think we're going to see some some more twists before this is all over. Because at the end of the day, we got to know who's behind all this. Right now, it's still just anonymous fake firms.
So yeah, I want to know more, and I hope some humble journalist will go after it, and not just ones trying to prove that they were actually right all along and that they made the right calls and just a couple small mistakes. No, get to the bottom of it, uncover it. If it's something nefarious and not what it seems, I want to know. All right, let's go to Mike calling from Minnesota on line three. Mike, you're the final call of the day.
Bring us home. Good morning, sir. I'm calling about the Ilhan Omar situation. Yeah, I spoke with the Secretary of State from Minnesota this morning, and just out of curiosity, was wondering if they were doing any sort of investigation into the citizenship, since that's part of the Constitution, Article One, Section Two. You have to be a citizen to run for that office.
They do not. They take the candidate's word for it. They do not provide any sort of investigation into it past that. Sure. I asked a couple questions and kind of was advised that our the options are sue the FEC for Minnesota, or I guess the Secretary of State of Minnesota, or I guess it would be Ilhan Omar.
I don't see that the Secretary of State and That is their. Rules is they don't do investigations; they just take the candidate's word. I don't see that they did anything wrong, so I guess the suit would have to be against Ilhan.
So, Mike, I'm only cutting you off because I got 40 seconds. I want to.
So, one, I don't think that I don't even think there'd be an avenue, especially before the election in Minnesota, which you're talking about, to to bring a suit against Ilhan Omar. I also don't know that that actually would accomplish anything. The end of the day, she is a U.S. citizen currently. She.
Does have U.S. citizenship? What the DOJ is investigating and Homeland Security is investigating whether she got that fraudulently. That would cause other ramifications that would follow from that.
So, yeah, she may have allegedly or whatever gotten that citizenship fraudulently, but she did actually get naturalized as a citizen. That's where it is as it stands. But we'll see what comes up next week. I feel like that story is not over either. Support the work of the ACLJ, and I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
We'll talk to you next week.
