Special Guest Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham Talks SCOTUS Confirmation

This is Jay Sekulow, today's guest, Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Nancy Pelosi making a move to remove the President. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey everyone, welcome to the broadcast. We're going to have a very interesting broadcast today and that's because our friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is going to be joining us from South Carolina. So that will be fascinating as we get ready for the hearings on Monday for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be appointed as a Justice, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. So that will be a lot to talk about. Other things we want to talk about with Senator Graham as well.

But then you've got this move also at the same time. So are they going to try to derail Amy Coney Barrett? Are they going to try to use the religion angle that they did last time? I don't think so.

I think they've got so much flack for that, they're not going to do it. But then the question is, and this to me is a big question, and that is what is Nancy Pelosi up to talking about a bill, legislation, regarding the implementation of the 25th Amendment, which is used, can be used, to remove, not through impeachment, could remove the President of the United States. What is she up to?

Jordan, what do you think? I think she's playing politics right now. So there's no way this is going to be moving forward with a Republican Senate currently and a Republican President. So even if the Senate would go through it, then it would be vetoed by the President. So this is politics to try and undermine the President's credibility as the Commander-in-Chief and Leader going into an election, and it's disgusting. The 25th Amendment and the laws that have emanated from it say that it's up to the Cabinet to make that decision, but that Congress does decide that if they wanted to make additions. So Congress has the ability to do this, but to do it right before an election, when you know it's not going anywhere, just to try and damage your political opponent, that's the truth. Is there legal, legally, could you get legislation through where Congress has the ability to take this kind of action?

Yes. It's not the law of the land currently, and it's not going to get through, but they want to set up a commission to start analyzing the President's capabilities for serving in office. I think that's very dangerous. The Cabinet should have that role. They take an oath to serve the country and the people too, the Vice President and other Cabinet members. And if they feel like the President's impaired medically and they need to step in, they're the ones to step in because they're also his allies, but they work for the American people.

You know, Thanh, I thought about this. I'm almost wanting to call this Impeachment 3.0 or 2.0 because that's what it sure sounds like. Yeah, I think that's what it is. It's also political desperation. Certainly agree with Jordan on that front. Look, Jordan's right that it adds another layer to the Vice President and the Cabinet.

There's already a mechanism for this, but they want it to go to people who are not elected. Here's the other thing interesting about this, Jay. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi insists that this is not about Donald Trump.

Of course, I don't believe her, but you know, just for a moment, for the sake of exercise, let's take it at her word. If it's not about Donald Trump, then what is it about, Jay? I mean, is it about the fact that if Vice President Biden is elected that they want to put Kamala Harris into the White House?

Is that what it's about? I would like her to try to explain that one to the Democrat voters who chose Vice President Biden. But you know, Jay, I don't think it's that far-fetched. I do think she would probably prefer Kamala Harris to Joe Biden.

So maybe that's what it's about. Hopefully we have some of the sound in the next segment when we're done with Senator Graham. We could talk to him about this too, obviously.

This is important. But I'd like to get some sound from Nancy Pelosi on this because I think this is another attempt to... Look, they've tried to take down this President since the day he was elected, and Jordan and I would know firsthand because we've represented him and continue to do so. I think the way you said it, a third impeachment. We'll talk about with Senator Graham the hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett. They begin on Monday. You heard from Senator Marsha Blackburn on the committee earlier this week. Now you're hearing from the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He will begin those hearings on Monday. So we're going to talk to him today, right before these begin. And you know there's a lot of controversy surrounding those as well, Democrats trying to derail it.

We're taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. This move to try and take another way to remove and impeach the President without the voters. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Gordon Sekulow, my dad, is joining us. Dan Bennett, our director of government affairs. And we are joined now by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, great friend of ours, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who will be chairing on Monday when the hearings begin for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, those hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, dad, it is great to be joined by the chairman before he heads into those hearings. Well, let me tell you something before we talk to the senator directly.

Let me just say a couple of things. Number one, Senator Lindsey Graham has been a friend of ours and our family for a decade, over a decade. And I cannot tell you how pleased I am that he is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that he's a leader in the Senate. He certainly was during the impeachment proceedings.

And I got to just say one other thing. I know the senator is currently running for office. The people of South Carolina have had a great ally in Senator Lindsey Graham for their interests, for what they're trying to accomplish, and the entire nation has benefited from Lindsey Graham's service.

So I just wanted to say that because there's no full disclosure. We're close friends. We worked together for a long time and we're very proud of our friend Lindsey Graham, Senator Graham. So, Senator, thanks for coming on the broadcast and tell me what does Monday look like?

Well, after that introduction, I should just hang up. I'm way ahead. One, I hope people realize how effective you were in defending the President against the most bogus impeachment in history. And now the same people who tried to impeach him on a phone call are trying to impanel a group of folks under the 25th Amendment to kick him out of office 20-something days before the election.

I find a pattern here, Jay. They're afraid of Trump being on the ballot. The only way they can beat him is to, you know, kick him out of office because I think the voters are going to keep him in. So Monday. Monday is the introduction day. Every senator gets 10 minutes to talk about their feelings about the judge and the nomination. That will take a while. We'll have a panel that will introduce Judge Barrett.

I think you'll be very impressed with the people who do the introduction. And then she will get to speak. So Monday should be a relatively short day compared to the other days. Tuesday, she submits herself to 30-minute questioning by each senator. And there'll be a 20-minute second round. So that's Tuesday and Wednesday. Thursday, we begin the markup process.

We'll hold it over a week consistent with the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee and we'll report her out on October the 22nd. I've talked to Tillis. I've talked to Lee.

They're in good shape. We're pressing on with the hearing. And as the intro said, Jay, I am excited about the country seeing this incredible woman, Judge Amy Barrett, and her knowledge of the law and her disposition.

No, I think it's a tremendous pick. She's a tremendous jurist. She's a well-known law professor.

And I just think, overall, just a great move. Senator, I know Jordan has a question. I want to go before we get off of this particular line of questioning that you're going to have.

This hearing is going to take a week. I don't think they're going to attack her faith. They tried that.

It did not work successfully. It kind of blew up in their face. You've been a very strong defender of religious freedom, of course. Where do you think the attack is going to come in? I think it's going to be basically an effort to make it about Trump, not her. They know she's highly qualified.

They know she's one of the best choices any Republican could have made, that her credentials are beyond question. So I think they're going to talk about scaring people about repealing the Affordable Care Act, the Obamacare decision before the court. They'll talk about Roe v. Wade, I think. But generally speaking, the judge is going to say, I will apply the law to the facts. I will give great regard for Supreme Court precedent. She's a mainstream judicial superstar, I think. And any indication about her Catholic faith being used unfairly against her will blow up as it did with Kavanaugh.

And I don't think they'll go down that road, so I think it'll be basically a proxy fight to go after Trump using her as the way to do it. All right, Jordan, I know you've got a question for the senator. Well, first, Senator, I wanted to let you know, and thank you for joining us on this Friday before the hearings begin on Monday.

So critical to our audience. They really want to see Judge Barrett on the U.S. Supreme Court. She became quite a star because of what your colleague, Senator Feinstein, that line of questioning about the dogma living loudly within her. And she became a star for conservatives, really, I think, since Senator Feinstein put her on the map. But we just actually delivered at the ACLJ, Senator Graham. I just wanted you to know this for those members of the committee and for you and for the whole Senate. And it went to the ranking member as well, Dianne Feinstein, that a petition of 150,000 of our members at the ACLJ who expressed their belief that Judge Barrett is extremely well qualified and should be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

We just transmitted this morning to your offices and all the offices of the U.S. Senate. And she should be confirmed before election day, so we have a full nine-judge justice court. How critical do you believe it is to have that nine-justice court considering all the talk about potential legal challenges in this election? Well, Hillary Clinton told Joe Biden don't concede no matter what. So, yeah, I think we need nine justices on the court to handle election litigation that is surely going to come.

So the bottom line is the process is consistent with what we've done in the past. I think 20 people have been nominated in an election year. 17 and 19 have been confirmed in an election year when the party of the President and the Senate is the same. The average time between nomination and hearing has been less than 16 days. This will be 16 days. Justice Burger was confirmed I think in 17 days from start to finish. John Paul Stevens, 19 days.

Ginsburg, 33 days. So the process is within the mainstream. So the 150,000 signatures means a lot to me. I think it means a lot to our conservative colleagues who are going to be there for the judge. I mean, prayer means a lot. I mean, you know, my opponent's going to raise $100 million. He's raised over $50 million, I believe, in three months.

Every liberal in the country wants to take me out because of Kavanaugh and Trump. So if you've got any five or ten bucks, it goes a long way. LindseyGram.com, help me find that.

LindseyGram.com. Hey, listen, let me tell you, I want to echo that and underscore that because, let me tell you, Senator Graham, as I said, we've been friends a very, very long time. And the work that he's done for the people of South Carolina, but also the work that he's done for all of us that share conservative values. And you talk about one of the interesting aspects of this, Senator, is in the race that you're in, the outside money coming in is, I mean, you're talking about over $100 million. Now, folks, why do you think that is? Do you think maybe it's because they know that Senator Graham is so effective?

That's what it is. They have targeted this seat in South Carolina, this Senate seat, and I know you're pushing back hard and you're standing up for the values that matter and the issues that matter. Senator, what do you think, if you were going to list the top three issues right now the country is dealing with and that you think your position as so senior within the United States Senate now will help advance, what would those three issues be? Obviously, the Supreme Court, that's a given. Well, number one, will our judges be liberal or will they be conservative? If we maintain the Senate and President Trump gets reelected, we're going to have already 250 conservative judges in the first term. God knows what we'll have in the second.

So that's huge. Will the budget chairman of the Senate and the Senate, will it be me or Bernie Sanders? If Democrats win, it's Bernie.

If we win, it's me. That's a pretty big difference. Will the country fundamentally change? If the Democrats get the House, the Senate, and the White House, they're going to expand the Supreme Court from nine to pack it with liberal judges. They're going to do away with electoral college, which deals out South Carolina and allows New York and California to pick the President. They're going to do away with a filibuster. They're going to make D.C. a state.

They're going to create probably a Puerto Rico state. They're going to create the way we govern ourself will be fundamentally changed so that liberals will be in charge of the country as far as the eye can see. Now, if we can win, keep the Senate, President Trump gets reelected. We'll have the economy in the hands of a business person. We'll have the military stronger than ever.

The terrorists will be on the run, and Israel's best friend, Donald Trump, will still be in office. Other than those few differences, there's not much at stake here. Yeah, that's like the entire country for my grandchildren is at stake.

Yeah, your grandchildren and grandchildren. You're right. Let me ask you this with just that we only have about 45 seconds here, Senator. The folks of South Carolina obviously are probably early voting.

I think if it hasn't already started, it's starting soon. Your opposition, the number of dollars coming in and the distortions that they're trying to make, you should wear that as a badge of honor. You know, it was Winston Churchill who said if they're not saying bad things about you, that means you're not standing up for anything, and clearly you're standing up for things. But I just want to say that Senator Graham has been a friend of ours for a long time. Supporting him supports the country.

I'll be that bold. Supporting him supports the country. So Senator, thank you for taking time out of your schedule.

If there's anything I can do, I told you I'm happy to help. We need you in the United States Senate. We certainly need you chairing the Judiciary Committee and get that judge through. We know you'll do it. Thanks, Senator. We're going to do it. LindseyGraham.com.

Help me if you can. But Jay, you've been a true friend. We're going to get it done for the conservative cause. God bless you. Thank you, Senator. When we come back, we're taking your calls.

1-800-684-3110. More into this move by Nancy Pelosi to play politics. She wants to get rid of the two-thirds requirement under the 25th Amendment for Congress to be able to remove because there's no way they do that. Set up a commission by law that could just remove Presidents at will.

Sound like something that would be good? It's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's not going anywhere in this Congress? But what about the future Congresses, depending on the outcome of the election? We're taking your calls.

We'll be right back on Jay Sekio Live. We're personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases. How we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later. A play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry. And what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

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

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

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

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Alright, so we've got the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, 27 days out from the election, 26, putting forward a commission to study creating the Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office. This would be unelected officials, chosen by Congress, that have the power to remove at will the President of the United States. Now, under the Constitution, Congress can set up these mechanisms.

I'll read it for you. It's in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. It says that Congress may by law provide such other bodies. So you've got it set up that the Vice President and the Cabinet can make that decision on a temporary basis. The House and Senate can do it, but it takes a two-thirds vote. And so that is not going to happen.

That's very unlikely at all, ever. And unless the President was in serious medical trouble. And then in that situation, and I'm talking about hypothetical presence, the Cabinet would handle that, and the Vice President and the Cabinet. But because they have this ability to set up such other bodies as Congress may by law, what they want to set up, Dad, is to get around the two-thirds requirement that they know that would be hard to hit, even if they had both houses of Congress, this House and Senate, that they want to create a new commission of people that aren't elected that they choose who can remove the President. Let me tell you what they're doing.

Jordan, this is, and this is when we've got to buckle up and be ready. This is, if the President wins, which I believe he will, and for some reason the United States Senate switched to Democratic hands, which could happen, I hope it does not, they are going to have, they're not going to try another impeachment, because that is going to be a zero. They can't do that again, especially right after an election. But you know what they can do? They can tinker with the 25th Amendment through the process, and then seek to remove the President through that. So we better become, I'm telling you right now, if my legal team is listening, our legal team is listening, that represent the President, be prepared for the next impeachment 3.0, which will not be an impeachment proceeding, but will be a removal proceeding pursuant to the 25th Amendment.

That is what they're already planning to do. I have no question about it, because if you listen to the full bite from Nancy Pelosi when she says it's not about the President, she then says at the end of it, and I hope we have all of it, she says, but the President is under serious medications. Do we have that entire one, Will?

We have one similar. All right, let's take a listen. Does it have the, well, I want to make sure it has the part where he talks about the medications that the President's taking.

Does it have that in there? Yep, let's play it. Okay, go ahead and play it. The President is, shall we say, in an altered state right now, so I don't know how to answer for his behavior. There are those who say that when you're on steroids, and or if you have COVID-19, or both, that there may be some impairment of judgment. At the majority, it's obvious what they're doing. Van, it is obvious what they're doing, both of you. It is obvious what they're doing here. This is going to be Removal 3.0.

Get ready. He will win reelection, and then the next day we'll be fighting on this. I promise you that's what's coming. What they're thinking is that if there was a potential where he won reelection, but somehow the House remained Democrat and the Senate switched to Democrat, that they could pull this and have the President removed without the two-thirds requirement of the 25th Amendment. So, I mean, you're talking about, again, a hypothetical at this point that could become a reality. I don't think President Trump gets reelected and the U.S. Senate falls to Democrats, but there are a couple of special elections going on, a little funkiness. You know, you've got in Georgia, you've got the jungle election where you've got two Republicans and a Democrat.

So that's interesting. Also, Arizona has gotten tighter as well, and that's one that gets seeded very quickly. But other than those two, it seems difficult to put a path that if President Trump is still President in January, twice he's taking the oath again for another four years, it's hard to see how the Senate went into Democrat hands. But if it did, they want to be prepared, impeachment didn't work, to take him out. So Mueller didn't work, impeachment did not work, so this becomes a new vehicle. I know our team at the ACLJ in Washington is listening to this.

I've got to tell you something. Because this issue transcends our representation of the President. This would be a fundamental change into the operation of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. And we need to let our people know, our members throughout this country, what is at stake here. I'm going to ask Matt Clark and our team to start working on an email going out so people understand what is about to take place here. This is what they're looking at. And, Fan, look, she didn't bring this up by accident yesterday.

This is all timed very particularly. No question about it. And look, there's a mechanism in place, if she was actually being genuine about this, that could be used. But she knows that she cannot clear that hurdle, so she's making up another process. Again, Jay, changing the rules because she can't accomplish what she wants to accomplish under the rules. And, you know, I would just tie this to some other work that we're doing, Jay, because really the end result of this would be giving more power, dramatic power, sobering power, power to strip the choice of the American people.

To who, Jay? To more unelected bureaucrats. I mean, that's been what we've seen over the last four years. We've seen a deep well of bureaucracy and bureaucrats trying to undermine the choice of the American people.

This is just another play out of the same playbook. So, you know, look, at this particular moment, it happens to be trying to strip President Trump of power and of authority. And I think that's why Speaker Pelosi is doing it. But, Jay, ultimately it's a move to take the decision-making power away from the American people as well. So they've really got to be locked into this and we're going to communicate to them about it because it really is fundamental to the way our republic works.

And I want to be clear to the Democratic members of the House of Representatives also as to what they would be doing in changing a history in our country that has served us since the Constitution was ratified and the amendment was ratified. So we've got to be very careful here. And I take this threat seriously. I think we have to take it seriously. I don't think there's any other way to look at this. And we just better be prepared to move forward and get everybody educated on this.

People need to know what's at stake. Is this your call? I want to take this with Bob in California on Line 3. Bob, welcome to JCQ Live.

Yeah, thanks for taking my call. Listen, I think that this is about Joe. You talk about, she said it clearly, it wasn't about President Trump. I think she's trying to set this up so if Joe wins, they can take him out almost immediately. You know, we always worry about President Trump, but let's say they win the Senate and they lose the House. They get this put in place, then all they have to do is move this to the Senate. Then they can go get rid of Joe and then Kamala is there and they're progressive persons in place and everything goes the way they want it to go. Listen, what you're saying is not implausible.

I will tell you that. I'm going to play bite number 12 here because I think it kind of sets that up if this is the way they want to go. I think it puts both candidates, the upper President, in danger of what these parties might do to them. This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future Presidents. So they're going to use this, Jordan, as we close this half hour out, either as a removal tool for the President, President Trump, or if Joe Biden becomes President, President Biden.

I think the caller made a really good point. I think this is a huge separation of powers problem because, again, whether or not it's because they really want to install a Kamala Harris who's more liberal and younger, and they want the ability to do this on their own if they, by chance, take both houses and can do this, because they know the two-thirds number that's in the Constitution already gives them that power, is very difficult to ever get to, if ever. So they want a new unelected commission that they get to appoint to get to remove Presidents for whatever reason they want, make it up.

This is very dangerous. And by the way, our special advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy, Rick Grenell, also a former cabinet member, he got locked out of Twitter yesterday, and as of this morning I was texting with Rick, he is still locked out for doing something like this. We'll explain why we come back on Jay Sekio Live, showing these ballots that are out all over the country. If they're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. It was great to be joined live by a U.S. senator and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as he prepares on Monday to begin the hearings for Judge Amy Cote Barrett. Those are the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

They will go about three, four days, and then they get held over usually a week in the committee votes, and then it goes to the full U.S. Senate. So Chairman Graham plays this integral role, and you were able to hear directly from him right before he heads into the hearing. So today's Friday on Monday, and he has to, you know, he's in charge. And this is very important at a unique time in history where it is close to the election. You've got the COVID issues going on and two members on the Judiciary Committee that came down with COVID. And so they, of course, can participate.

And how does voting work, all of those issues that will have to be, that Chairman Graham will be in charge of facing. So, again, so critical we're able to bring people like that to you on the broadcast and keep them on for an extended period of time so they can really talk to you. But this is what is, I think, just dangerous coming from Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. And I think we have a call that actually sets it up perfectly. It's Diane in Indiana, because I think she's right.

It's a lot of politics with this. Diane, welcome to JCECO Live. You're on the air. Hi.

Thanks for having me on. Thanks, Diane. And I had a thought besides all of the new reasons that you all laid out, and that is that this is a good time to bring a distraction away from President Trump, who's just signed up something to authorize the release of all of the papers to do with the fake Russia hoax.

Right. And if you go to ACLJ.org right now, Diane, you will see that because of those authorizations of the President, that the declassification of any and all documents it said pertaining to the political crime in America, the Russia hoax, likewise the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Well, we've got active FOIA litigation. We sent a letter. It's already up at ACLJ.org.

You can see immediately to the Department of Justice saying we want all the records that you withheld or redacted based on exemptions that you produced and classifications and saying they were classified because the President just ordered you to do so. You don't have any more excuses to deny our request based off that, based off other reasons. Get us the documents. So we took that directive, that order from the President of the United States, and we were able to utilize it at the American Center for Law and Justice, Dad. I want to say something here to our ACLJ members around the country, and that's this.

You're seeing the scope and nature of the work. Now, in addition to Jordan issuing a letter and Than working on the very important nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States, obviously that's gigantic. At the same time, Jordan mentioned to you the FOIA litigation, the Freedom of Information Act litigation to get to the bottom of the Russia hoax that we've lived with for three and a half years.

And Jordan and I are serving as counsel to the President in our individual capacity. But we're going to get to the bottom of that because from the ACLJ's perspective, the American people need to know what was going on there. Now it's been redacted, unredacted.

So there's no more redaction copies. We're demanding those documents. Ben Sisney in our office in Washington is already working on that. At the very same time, we're looking at briefs, possibly to the Supreme Court of the United States, on a school choice issue. There's election litigation going on. I mean, it is a very busy time for the American Center for Law and Justice. You had Rick Grenell on in the last several days on our broadcast, former acting director of DNI, ambassador to Germany, a G7 country, giving you information. He is a senior consultant to the ACLJ. Let me tell you this. Your support of the work of the American Center for Law and Justice is having a huge impact in the United States. I haven't even touched on what we're doing around the globe. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org.

And thank you to those of you that continue to do so. Folks, when we get back, we're going to continue to take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. These questions you may have about the 25th Amendment. You may wonder, could Congress really do this? Could they set up an unelected condition that they choose that could just remove the President?

I mean, how would that work? We'll take your phone calls on that, 1-800-684-3110. And why did Twitter block? And as of right now, he is still blocked. I was texting with him, the former acting director of national intelligence, Rick Grenell, he cannot tweet right now.

He cannot access his account. We will tell you why, what his indiscretion was. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

We have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.

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

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

We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-31. We want to get into one issue. If you're not watching the broadcast but you're listening, our Special Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy, again, this is Rick Grenell.

He's a former cabinet member, former ambassador to Germany. Sent out a tweet. The tweet was similar to all these ballots going around. In fact, we can put up on the screen the screenshot he posted. And what it was was that his friends let him know, hey, my parents who have been passed away for 10 years, they both got live ballots.

And here they are. So he sent the picture to Rick and said you can use it to show people these ballots are going around the country. So Rick sent out the tweet. And he has permission to use it so that, you know, showing the address, whatever, it wasn't an issue. Twitter has blocked him out from his account, said he has to delete the tweet.

Of course, he can't even delete the tweet because he blocked out the account. But, folks, we've all been trying to show this. This is absurd, one, he's a former cabinet official. Two, he's shown that he has proof that he had the right to send this. But I'm doing it right now.

Right now, these are mine and my wife. We don't live in Washington, D.C. anymore. No redactions here. We don't live there anymore. And these are live ballots we received.

Have not voted there in eight years. I've showed them before. Showing them again. No, no, these aren't requested.

They actually say it's funny. Official absentee balloting material, your official ballot, that's how they've gotten around the laws, dad. They're calling them absentee ballots, not mail-in ballots, but we never request them.

In fact, we can't request them. We're registered to vote in a different state now. And we've been registered to vote in two other places since we lived there.

So how many ballots with my name and my wife's name that are live are floating around the United States right now in people's mailboxes? But let me say this, and we probably need to talk to Rick about this, but, you know, Craig Parshall, who's of counsel to the ACLJ, is the leading expert on dealing with, as you know, Jordan, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. And we probably need to get Craig, who, like I said, has done phenomenal jobs for a lot of our clients who have needed help, and these are some high-profile clients that have needed help, and Rick certainly is that, to get these matters resolved.

So we need to probably get Rick in touch with Craig and get on the situation, because, look, this is silencing a voice, because he's, what, bringing up the fact that happens to be true, or what you just said about you and Anna, that you could not, that you got mail-out ballots being sent to your residents from, how many years ago was that, six years ago? Eight years. More? Eight. Eight years. I've been seeing, you know, we've got next door offices. There's a townhouse in Washington.

I don't know if I've got a ballot there or not. Probably. Who knows?

This is what's absurd, too. It's the selective targeting of conservatives. Rick Rinnell is a powerful voice on Twitter. He has 659,000, so over 650,000 followers on Twitter. When he tweets something, it's important. He has a direct line to the President of the United States.

He was the head of all 17 intelligence agencies of the United States. He's got Michael Hayden, the former CIA director, attacking him on Twitter, calling him curse words. But, you know, Michael Hayden is not banned or locked out.

It's Rick Rinnell. And it's absurd, and it's a targeting of the most powerful and influential conservative voices weeks out from an election. Big corporate America, the tech world, tried to selectively silence conservatives.

That is what's happening here. I know Rick has been working, you know, because in one of his other jobs he's done, just leaving the administration as a consultant, some for the RNC. They've been looking into it for him, but I think you're probably right that, you know, we could come together and assist, because we need Rick Rinnell back on Twitter.

It's good for conservatives. Yeah, and Craig Parshall is just super at it. I mean, he's a great lawyer. He knows all the rules and regulations. I'm sure he could get this resolved.

I wanted to go to Fan, though. You know, there's been talk about all this oversight of these big media platforms, and we've got good relationships with them, and look, a lot of you are watching us right now on Facebook or on Periscope, which is affiliated, I guess, with Twitter. So what is the sense of this kind of silencing voices of disagreement?

What's the Washington kind of perspective on that, at least within the Congress? Yeah, I mean, I think there's two things to point out with this. One, that it only seems to happen in one direction, and both Twitter and Facebook have been asked about that in front of multiple committees. They don't really have a good answer for it, Jay. But I think the other thing that they're going to be increasingly asked about is a point that Rick made in response to this situation.

It was that, you know, it's great that you want to have this community action focus. Well, when a situation like this comes up, why are you focused on me pointing it out rather than, oh, I don't know, how about focus on L.A. County's abuse of the process? That's where the fraud is happening here. And by the way, your platform could have a big impact on making sure that it's cracked down.

But there's really only one explanation for it, and Jordan kind of alluded to this. Many of these platforms, they want this to happen. They're actually trying to enable it. That's why they're silencing Rick.

So it's not just the silencing of a voice, which is bad enough. It is not following up on the fraud that is very clearly taking place. All right, folks, we're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. You know, court packing. This is interesting because Joe Biden has now said he will tell everybody if he supports or not after the election. What does that tell you? That tells me he supports. If he wins and there's the votes, he supports court packing. He doesn't want to support something that he can't do if he wins.

So he's not being transparent. But let me tell you, the Senate switches, and the House remains Democrat. For some reason, Joe Biden became President. I think all these non-answers and this, yeah, I'll tell you after the election, is because it's exactly that. It's like this commission they want to set up.

It all flows together. It's like, well, one way, hey, if we lose this, but we've still got the House and the Senate maybe, potentially we can set up this body that can remove the President. That's an unelected body chosen by us. And then if we do win, let's pack the court so that even if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett, we can outnumber the conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

So it's preparing for either option to try and undermine what President Trump has accomplished, whether or not he gets re-elected or not. And take a listen. Here is Joe Biden saying it. Bite 15. You'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.

Now, look, I know it's a great question, and I don't blame you for asking it, but you know the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that, other than focusing on what's happening now. Well, that tells you everything you need to know. I mean, that tells you everything you need to know. And what does court packing do?

It tips the balance. Look, there's not a magic number. There's not a set number in the United States Constitution. We've had seven, we've had nine. We have nine now.

We've had nine for a very, very, very long time. But, you know, then if you move that number, like just think about this, a court packing plan, an effort to remove a sitting President by a panel of citizens. I mean, this is really serious. They are talking about doing serious damage to our constitutional republic. It undermines the credibility of the Article III branch, specifically the Supreme Court of the United States. And, look, I just think we have to speak cleanly about the duplicity here that Joe Biden is speaking with, because, look, on the one hand, his position is that they should not be filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court because it's the American people that should decide and have to weigh in. Of course, he's completely omitting that the American people did weigh in two years ago at the ballot box, did choose a Republican Senate, did choose Donald Trump to be the President. They have had a chance to weigh in. But even if you omit that argument, now he wants to say the American people should have a voice in this, but he doesn't want to tell them what his position is on the issue.

So what are they supposed to do? Go to the polls and just have this faith that he's going to do the right thing? You can't have both arguments at the same time. If you want to make the point that you think there should be an intervening election on this issue, you've got to tell the people where you stand on the issue. Otherwise, it doesn't really have any benefit, the American people going to the ballot box.

It's duplicitous. And, Jay, I think the bigger point is the one that you made. It would undermine the credibility of the highest court in the land if you're going to have an arbitrary number that switches depending on who wins elections.

We have an opportunity already under Article II, Section 2, for the American people to weigh in every two years. That has happened. The number ought to stick at nine. And, by the way, the ninth justice ought to be Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah, well, she's going to be the ninth justice. I don't think there's any question about that. But we have to realize, Jordan, what is going on here.

They are looking at... They tried the special counsel. So we had an Article II investigation. Then we had an Article I investigation when they did impeachment.

Then we had an Article III matter when we had a series of cases to the Supreme Court of the United States. So now we're going to have a 25th Amendment issue and a court-packing plan. That's what's ahead.

Serious stuff. We're going to have to be, of course, ready as we represent the President or outside legal capacities for the election challenge by law and, of course, the RNC doing that as well and the Trump campaign doing it because the Democrats are doing it and the Biden campaign is doing it. So you've got election day issues. You've got post-election day of these ballot issues.

Those cases are ongoing. Then you've got scenarios where if the President wins but somehow the Senate fell to Democrats that they would try to put forward this commission that could remove the President from office without having to meet the two-third vote requirement in the House and Senate for these reasons that's in the 25th Amendment because they'll never get there. And then, by the way, another way they're playing it is well, if Joe Biden does win and they take back the Senate, well, they could just pack the Supreme Court of the United States.

So they've got all their options lined up for the American people. They're telling the American people what they're going to do, folks, and it's dangerous and it's scary and it's wrong, but it's hypotheticals that could unfortunately become realities. So a lot of different ways we're going to have to fight. We're going to need your help.

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

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

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

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

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

ACLJ.org. All this is ongoing, and he's actually going to be in our offices tomorrow. We're going to film some special stuff with the former Acting Director of National Intelligence.

Some of it will probably air next week, maybe as early as Monday on the broadcast. And also some special web videos that you'll be able to share as well with our special advisor, this former cabinet official from President Trump. He's very outspoken on Twitter, very tough. And he gets into a debt, interestingly, with former CIA directors, people like Mike Hayden, these top-level folks. And I think that's great for conservatives to have someone that came from the cabinet like that, who knows all the intel, who saw everything, get into it like that, but they know he's trouble for them because he pulls out the words to them. I mean, Hayden, this is a kind of boring-looking CIA director guy, ends up calling him a derogatory word, a curse word.

Well, I think that's because they're so intimidated by it. Because Rick knows how to draw it out. Yeah, so look, we'll get it reinstated. I'm sure the RNC lawyers are working on it. We'll have Craig Parshall from our team work on it. That's what we do, and we're going to continue to do it. Look, Rick is an important voice. That would be like if they were doing it to any of us. We don't tolerate it. Let me say one thing before we take the call, though, Jordan. Our production team in the Bald Beagle Project launched the first piece yesterday on George Washington.

I've got to tell you something. Parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, for your kids to understand the history of the country, it's in a fun way. It was the quality of Sesame Street, and it's on George Washington. That's the first one. I think Logan mentioned to me that the next one was going to be an interesting topic, if they're going to try to get it. I think it's the Electoral College.

Yeah, the Electoral College. These are just great. Go to baldbeagle.com and share this with your kids. It's three minutes and a few seconds, and it is really well done. They're going to love it.

All right. It is fun. I watched it last night as they posted it for the first time. I have a four-year-old daughter. I'm going to show it to her today. So that age group, it's fun for them, young kids, and some older kids, too, because they'll learn a lot. It's quick. They love watching stuff on YouTube.

You can even put YouTube on your TV now easily. I won't give it all away, but there's even kind of a song and dance part. So it really gets their attention, and there's going to be a number of these, and I think it's great for you to utilize it. You know it's coming from us at the ACLJ, so what they're hearing, the content is going to be content you agree with. Again, they're young kids.

It's fun also, but it's starting out with a good base point instead of all this garbage we're hearing now in the education world. Let's go to the calls, 1-800-684-3110. Nick in Nevada has been holding on for nearly an hour. Let's get Nick a copy. Yes, we got it, okay, of the next red wave. Hey, Nick, you're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. My question is since we know the Democrats are probably going to pack the Supreme Court, should President Trump pack it himself before he leaves office? He does have the votes, but let me tell you something, Jordan.

I'm just going to answer this really quickly. As a constitutionalist, no, I would not. I just don't think that's what I think the balance is appropriate, and I don't think court backing is a way to... I think FDR tried it, was not successful, and caused a revolt within his own party. Donald Trump has never mentioned that, and he controls the United States Senate. The party controls the United States Senate, so they could have proposed these same kind of things.

They did, and I'm glad they didn't, but go ahead, Jordan. Yes, I think, again, the votes would be there because you've got a divided Congress, but I agree with my dad. That's not what the President wants to do. He doesn't want to pack the courts. He just wants to fill a vacancy on the court and to follow the laws that were put in place in the 1800s, the last time the court was changed from six, which didn't really work out great because of the even number, to nine, where you get an odd number. Again, you always will get a five or four at a minimum, which means you get a decision and an opinion. When you get these moments where the court is down to eight, they still operate, and you can have ties, and then lower courts end up setting up precedent for the country, and that's not how we really want things to work in our country, especially if it's about who is the leader of the free world or commander-in-chief when it comes to election issues.

Let me tell you something, folks. People keep saying, oh, this could be like Bush versus Gore. This is not going to be like Bush versus Gore if it ends up in the Supreme Court. That was one state. Dad, we're looking at dozens of states potentially that have got all this nine-day after they get, you know, if they're postmarked or you can't read the postmark. This is not one state's counting ballots. We're talking about multiple states. This would make Bush versus Gore look like a very uncomplicated case. No, you're 100% correct. I think we're going to have, the way this is going, I think there's going to be a lot of litigation at the Supreme Court on the issue of the election.

Hopefully not, but it does look that way. Let's go ahead and take another question. Yeah, let's go right back to the phones. Let's go to Kelly in Wyoming on Line 6. Kelly, welcome to JCECO Live. Hi, thanks for taking my call. When I was listening, when I was listening about... You there, Kelly? Yes, can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you. Go ahead. Okay, thanks for taking my call. I was listening closely with when Lindsey Graham was talking about the timeline for the hearing preceding the justice, and I never hear him say he'll do it before the election. And so I'm wondering about the timing of that.

About? He's laid out a complete plan of dates that he just laid out on our broadcast, which goes directly to that. I mean, directly to the issue of timing, and he said it will be done before the Presidential election.

Yeah, so the timing is this. The hearing starts Monday. They conclude on the 15th. The Democrats can then request, it's usually given one week holdover until the vote. That would be the 22nd. If the vote then occurs on the 22nd or 23rd, then that goes out of the Judiciary Committee. Then it's in Mitch McConnell's hands. So that's when Chairman Graham has moved everything out to Mitch McConnell.

Then the vote would be somewhere probably the 26th to the 30th, somewhere in there. And so that's the timeline. We've been laying that out for you. I maybe just haven't caught it because we're talking about a lot of issues, but we've been laying that timeline out then. I do want to take the final call today, but we've been clear about it.

Yeah, and he laid it out clearly. I think probably the reason he didn't give a floor vote is because of what you just said, Jordan. That will be up to Leader McConnell to say, but he committed to that October 22nd reporting date, which, as you said, puts her on the floor on the week of the 26th. Or, Jordan, if Leader McConnell decided, I don't think he's going to. But remember, there is Monday the 2nd.

That's before the election as well, so that would be an option if he chose to take it. All right, final call of the day. Michelle in Wisconsin. Michelle, we've got about a minute and 20 seconds left.

You're on the air. Okay, should Biden get elected, and if Pelosi is successful with this committee to be able to remove a President and remove Biden and Kamala Harris becomes President, does Pelosi become vice President? Okay, so the removal process, the way it works then, it would still be the vice President at that point, correct? Right.

Yeah, that's right. I think the thing here would be that Kamala Harris could work with this commission and then bypass the Congress. I think that's where maybe there's some shenanigans going on there, but Pelosi would not be the vice President at that point, but Kamala Harris would be the President. And they're looking at ways still to undermine, if they got control of the House and Senate, but it's President Trump, they can hold that over him if they try to pass this. Now, again, I think it's mostly play politics, danger politics.

I tweeted on Twitter, danger, danger, danger. You know, this is when they're... Our famous danger, danger, danger from the impeachment. Yes, exactly, exactly.

Same theme, it's exactly right. And so you just don't go willy-nilly changing the Constitution like that because you don't like someone who gets elected by the American people. We will talk to you on Monday. Hearings begin for Judge Barrett. And of course, we're getting closer and closer to Election Day. We didn't even get into the debate issues that are arising.

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