Today on Jay Sekio Live, Rick Renell joins us in studio to talk about campaign 2020 and the Presidential election. And of course, the hearings have started for the confirmation of Judge Amy Cote Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. Opening statements today will analyze those and more today on Jay Sekio Live. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekio Live. When politicians try to get judicial nominees to give their views on cases or to give their views on policies, to try to get them to pre-commit to certain outcomes in future court cases, we are politicizing the courts, and that is wrong. That is a violation of our oath to the Constitution. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.
Call 1-800-684-3110. Anytime anyone tries to attribute to you a policy position and hold you to that, you're not a policymaker, you're a judge. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow.
Welcome to Jay Sekio Live. Well, as you see, if you have watched any of the hearings there, in a break right now, the 22 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, most it appears who have elected to attend, some will be doing it virtual, some might be doing it virtual today because it's really just opening statements today. That doesn't mean it's not important. Judge Barrett already released her opening statement where she again reaffirmed that she shares the judicial philosophy of Justice Scalia. We could go through that opening statement, but really what we're starting to see is kind of how the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee there, the minority, are staying as far away as they can as of now from Judge Barrett's faith because that didn't go so well last time.
And that's why she's, and to a point, I mean she's brilliant, well qualified, extremely well qualified, the ABA said that too, but she became that kind of household conservative name because of the attacks on her religion. So now it's about the Affordable Care Act case that's after the election, not even about cases involving potentially the election. So it's about playing politics to what they hope is the American people watching. Now to me, this is usually about the quietest day. The hearings begin, it's good that we've got them started, going, it's good to see Senator Mike Lee there in person, and then of course you start to see some of the attacks come, but those really come in the next two days where she is questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee and by those senators as well.
I want to play this. Senator Graham, he joined us on Friday, remember, live on the broadcast. This is part of his opening statement as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
Take a listen. We're confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. What will happen is that my Democratic colleagues will say this has never been done and they're right in this regard. Nobody, I think, has ever been confirmed in an election year past July. The bottom line is Justice Ginsburg, when asked about this several years ago, said that a President serves four years, not three. There's nothing unconstitutional about this process.
This is a vacancy that's occurred through a tragic loss of a great woman, and we're going to fill that vacancy with another great woman. The bottom line here is that the Senate is doing its duty constitutionally. Let me just explain to people very quickly. I want to go through these stats again.
When we come back, we'll get more into some of the attacks that have already been lobbed. Not everyone has spoken yet on the committee, so you've got the opening remarks by about eight senators so far, or not even, so about a third of the committee or a little bit more. That in Presidential election years, when the President, and there was a Supreme Court vacancy, the President and the Senate were the same party, 17 out of 19 were confirmed. When they were of different parties, only two of 10 were confirmed.
That's just history. The President's job, they all nominate, and it's when you've got a Senate that's in your party that you get them confirmed. Don't believe the lies from the Democrats.
We'll be right back on Jay Sekio Live. 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 have a very 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 community. 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 JCAC Live. Listen, we're going to be taking your phone calls.
1-800-684-3110. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings have started. This is the process to ultimately confirm Judge Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How great of a day that will be. Now, we've got to go through the Senate Judiciary Committee. That will be the opening statements today, and then we'll finally, towards the end of the day, hear from Judge Barrett herself. First, it's all 22 senators get to speak. The makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee fan, we have 12 Republicans because they are the majority party. Senator Graham is the chair, and 10 Democrats, so that when it comes down to the vote, it's a majority vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee that then moves it to Mitch McConnell's hand to handle, then bring it to the floor of the Senate. Timing, we're looking at today opening statements, Tuesday and Wednesday questioning of Judge Barrett by the senators, and then on Thursday, it will be witnesses, people who know her and support her nomination, and sometimes those are people who disagree with her vehemently on her judicial philosophy, and then also people who oppose her nomination.
That's kind of the quietest day of these hearings, and then it will likely be held over a week, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will likely vote her out of committee around the 22nd. Right, Dan? That's right, Jordan. In fact, Chairman Graham was very direct, and we laid out the timeline this morning. He said that on Thursday, after those outside witnesses go that you just mentioned, he will move immediately into markup.
Now, that's just sort of a technicality, Jordan. They'll move from a hearing posture to a markup posture, and if Democrats are ready to vote, he could vote then. They will ask for it to be held over. Chairman Graham has already said he will acknowledge that request. He will grant it, and he will vote the judge out on the 22nd, which puts her on the floor of the full Senate during the week of the 26th. We don't know yet what day that week Leader McConnell will put her up for a vote, but I'm confident it will be that week.
A couple of notes I did want to make. You're right, Jordan. 22 members on the committee, seven of them still have to question. You mentioned that Senator Lee was there in person, having recovered. We have seen several senators go virtually, though, including a member of the Democrat side, Senator Leahy, so they have not had any problem doing that.
Jordan, just one thing of interest, though. I would think the reason that you would want to participate virtually would be, you know, some precaution of being in the Senate building. Well, Senator Harris is going to give her opening statement here in a minute, and Jordan, I want people to listen to this. The committee hearing room is in room 216 Hart. Senator Harris' office building, office is 112 Hart.
It's on the same side of the same building, one floor down. Yes, she's going to give her statement virtually. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. No, I mean, the thing is, I think she doesn't want a lot of attention. She wants to keep the attention on the Biden-Harris ticket. She is on this committee. She'll make a political statement virtually. It'll get a lot of attention because she's a VP nominee for the Democrat Party, one of the two major parties in America. I think she'll come at this at the ACA, the politics of it.
Bad Trump, bad Republicans. Not much about Judge Barrett. Maybe that, you know, she threatens these rights, that rights, Affordable Care Act, but then it'll be interesting. Than, I mean, is she going to continue to do, to appear virtually even though she does not have any, has not been diagnosed with COVID or anything like that? Is that recovering from that and has been campaigning across the country? Is she going to campaign, is she going to be virtual when it comes down to the question and answer time tomorrow and Wednesday? Yeah, we don't know, Jordan, but I mean, there's not really a rationale to be virtually today, again, from one floor beneath the hearing room and then not be virtual tomorrow. If you think back to the Kavanaugh hearings, Jordan, I mean, you're going to remember this very well.
Probably many of our listeners will as well. She had a very visible role. She wanted to be front and center. Look, as a member of the committee, she's perfectly entitled to do that, but it is going to be interesting to see what she decides to do on that front. The other thing that I think is going to be interesting, Jordan, is what are the Democrats going to do with that ABA rating of well-qualified that you mentioned? Because I'm just here to tell you, while it's not the gold standard for me, I actually think it's fairly hard for someone who's not a hard-left radical activist to get that well-qualified rating. That's just how impressive Judge Barrett was to the ABA.
And let me just give you a couple of quotes. Senator Schumer and Senator Leahy have both called the ABA rating the gold standard. And Joe Biden, when he was in the Senate, Jordan, he said he didn't give anybody else's rating more credence than the ABA. They say that Judge Barrett is well-qualified.
And the ABA is not a conservative organization, but when it comes down to looking at judges, sometimes they get it totally wrong because they are so politicized. But on this one, it was just impossible for them to come down and say that she wasn't supremely well-qualified. And even the minority vote was well-qualified. So it was like supremely well-qualified and well-qualified. And when a vote comes out that way, the actual determination by the APA is that, is the wording right? Is it supremely well-qualified? A substantial majority deemed her well-qualified. Yeah, I mean, that's how it comes out.
Highest rating you can get. Because when a substantial majority does it, that's actually the holding of the ABA. And the minority said well-qualified. So again, I think what you have to look at here is the politics. This is not going to be like Kavanaugh.
You can see this if you've seen the hearing room. It's not the same kind of politics. But a former DNC Presidential candidate contender who's also on the committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar, she does want to make it all about politics. Which is really the worst of the worst when it comes down to confirming a Supreme Court justice when you're literally saying this is all about politics. I've been saying that for years about the liberal justices because you know exactly how they're going to vote on every issue about 99% of the time. I bet on every case I could bet on how the liberal nominees will vote. And I think I'd be right 95% of the time.
Maybe there's a place I can do betting on that. I don't know if Vegas has gone to a Supreme Court decision-making yet. But it'd be interesting because if you voted on how the liberal is going to come down, you'd all be doing pretty well. Especially on the landmark cases because they do play politics. And Amy Klobuchar, Senator Klobuchar, she made it clear this is all about politics to the Democrats.
Take a listen. We cannot divorce this nominee and her views from the election we are in. We didn't choose to do this now to plop a Supreme Court nomination hearing in the middle of an election.
They did. You know, that is actually not true, Than. A Supreme Court justice passed away and every President at any time in their presidency has always nominated a replacement regardless of what time it was in their presidency or if there was an election coming up. And as the late Justice Ginsburg said, Presidents don't serve three years. They serve a full four years. So this idea that, oh well, even if President Trump were to lose the election in November, that he somehow doesn't have a role to play in our country, he is still President for months. And gets to finish out his four terms with the full authority of President of the United States.
Especially so if his party remains in power during those four months and there's a couple special elections and things like that. But again, this idea, it comes from Justice Ginsburg too, that Republicans did not decide this. People didn't know Justice Ginsburg was going to pass away. It happened very quickly. It was kind of unexpected because she was participating when we were doing the oral argument via phone on behalf of our client, President Trump, in our role outside of the ACLJ.
My dad was standing over there in the studio. I was next to him and he was standing up at a podium. It was done by conference call and Justice Ginsburg was doing it. And she was vocal. She had questions, tough questions, direct questions.
So people knew she was dealing with different illnesses, but she's been very strong, been a fighter. And so she happens to pass away at this time. Thad, it was not the Republicans who chose this moment.
It just happened. Of course not, Jordan. And look, the Constitution puts out a process by which that vacancy will be filled. And look, the United States Senate, Jordan, they have the obligation to provide advice and consent.
And in every situation that you describe, they did that, Jordan. That does not mean they confirm the nominee every time. That's not a real role if the United States Senate has to come to one outcome or the other by refusing or declining to consider or to approve or to confirm a nominee.
They are also filling the role of advice and consent. You need the presidency and you need the Senate to confirm a nominee. And I would just say one other thing to Senator Klobuchar.
I do agree with her in a narrow sense. We cannot divorce this from politics in the sense that the American people voted. Jordan, they voted in 2018. They voted in 2018 to send a United States Senate to Washington, D.C. that would confirm President Trump's nominees.
That election had consequences as well, and we're seeing the fruit of those today. All right, folks, we're going to continue. We're going to start taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. That's some interesting sound bites, too, from Joe Biden. One, recently, when he says the American people, he's asked, don't the American people, this is all in audio and video, deserve to know your position on court packing?
Don't they deserve that? And he says, no, they don't deserve to know. I asked Joe Biden this, what else do the American people not deserve to know?
I mean, seriously. And then a flashback to Joe Biden bashing the idea of court packing. Because, yeah, he was Senate Judiciary Committee chair.
Real nice guy. Think about Clarence Thomas, how he treated him. We're talking about race in America and these issues in America. Go back and watch Joe Biden in that hearing. Talk about racism on display, as Justice Thomas called it, a high-tech lynching. That was done by Joe Biden.
He was the, he was the lyncher-in-chief of that hearing, if you will. We will come back, take your phone calls, and remember, a very special day, because Rick Renell, our special advisor, former acting director of national intelligence, is going to be joining us right here in this studio. Right here in the studio, talking politics, 22 days out from November 3rd, election day.
We'll be right back on Jay Sekio Live. ...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. 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 right, welcome back to Jay Sekio Live.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is still adjourned. When they come back, if we need to go to it live, we will. But remember, this day is opening statements. So you have 22 members that get to make opening statements.
That takes a long, long part of the day with breaks. And then we'll finally get to hear, and I think that'll be great, but it'll be later in the day, from Judge Barrett. She's already put out the remarks from her opening statements.
You can read those. But I always like to see them deliver them. I think it's different when they're actually delivered. And sometimes they choose, they have long prepared opening remarks, so they choose specific parts of it to actually deliver orally before the committee.
But it looks different. I've been in those hearing rooms before where it's sweaty, and you're in these viewing rooms above. This is a huge room in Hart, where you can absolutely be socially distanced. In fact, on the Democrat side, the only people who are not there and are participating virtually are Patrick Leahy, Senator Leahy of Vermont, and Senator Kamala Harris of California. Though, standpoint, her office is next door to this hearing room. I don't know if she's on the campaign trail or not, taking advantage of being able to do a virtual appearance. But I also think she doesn't really want to be seen in this light anymore. She wants to be seen as a vice Presidential nominee, and so I don't even expect her to be there for questioning. We'll see.
I think that that'll be kind of a tactic that, honestly, it's going to be very politically decided, because the Biden campaign's going to figure out if that's a good move. Now, the Republican side, Mike Lee's back. He's recovered from COVID. He's back. He's there in person. We don't yet know about Mike Crapo yet, Than. I think that's one we're not sure if he's attending.
There was a question mark on my sheet. I think he's going to be there. Some are just because this is the opening day. It's not the day of questioning. And Ted Cruz is virtual. I'm assuming that Than is just getting back to Washington, D.C. He'll be there for—I would imagine he's going to be there for the questions. The vote.
Chairman Graham said he talked to him earlier this week. He had a self-quarantine because of exposure to COVID. Not a confirmed case, Jordan, but just a self-quarantine. He'll be back by the time the vote happens. Okay, I want to start getting your reactions. I also want to get reactions from Harry Hutchinson, senior policy legal analyst at the American Center for Law and Justice, to these statements from Senator Blumenthal today. He's taken the two nastiest shots, I think, so far at Judge Barrett. So far it's been very much about ignoring her and talking about Trump and the Affordable Care Act and election stuff.
Take a listen. Senator Blumenthal, the one who lied about his experience serving in Vietnam, by 45. President Trump's failure to act will likely lead to 55,000 additional deaths, 55,000 additional Americans' loss over just the next three months. Senate Republicans are refusing to address American health care or COVID-19 or economic relief because they care more about putting an extremist ideological judge on the bench and not just on the Supreme Court. So first he calls her an extremist ideological judge, so he's already made a decision about that.
But then he goes a step further, by 46. Sadly, it's not just the Affordable Care Act that's at stake. It's a woman's right to decide when and how to have a family, control over her own body. An activist judge on the bench, doing what Congress could not do. Okay, Harry, your thoughts on Senator Blumenthal, I mean, what a joke, calling an originalist textualist in the mold of Scalia an activist judge, I mean, doing what Congress could not do. That is exactly the opposite. And why it's so hard to predict how a conservative or originalist or textualist judicial philosophy could be applied to each case because you could come to different conclusions with the same philosophy.
Absolutely. You're not an activist. Activists were like, you know the late Justice Ginsburg, she made the law fit her where she wanted it to go, her decision. That same goes for the rest of the liberals on the courts. Why I said, if there was a place to bet on how justices were going to vote, I would only bet on liberals and I think I'd win 90% of my bets, especially on the big case of the day where they want to legislate from the bench. It is not Judge Barrett who will be an activist judge. That is ridiculous to claim that.
Absolutely. So originalist and textualist justices interpret the law before them. That is why they have the capacity at least to at least occasionally disappoint conservative voters.
Why? Because they are not rendering policy decisions. That is the job of a judge. And so if you look at Senator Blumenthal, who has a distinguished if strange relationship with the truth, he is making up his own facts, A, with respect to the coronavirus, and secondly, with respect to the decisions that Amy Coney Barrett will reach. None of us really know why because she is a textualist. She is a conservative.
She is an originalist in the mold of Antonin Scalia. Let me play this because Joe Biden has been repeatedly asked about this court packing idea. It's coming up in the hearing. It's come up a number of times in the hearing.
In fact, the wrong way. You got Democrats saying this nominee is court packing. No, there's a vacancy. There's nine justices. That law Congress adopted, updated the court. It was back in 18, again, 1869 when we got to nine justices. There's a vacancy, so there's only eight justices right now. You're not court packing if you're just filling a vacancy and then getting the court back to nine.
Court packing means adding more justices than nine, so do not believe Democrat lies on that, but take a listen because Joe Biden is starting to really double down and get nasty. Talking to a local reporter in Nevada. It's on camera. It's on video.
I expect we're going to be seeing it in ads across the country. Take a listen by 11. Well sir, don't the voters deserve to know?
No, they don't. I'm not going to play his game. He'd love me to talk about, and I've already said something on court packing. He'd love that to be the discussion instead of what he's doing now. He's about to make a pick in the middle of the election, first time it's ever been done. First time in history it's ever been done. You know, there's two problems there. One, is that the first time it's ever been done? Two, the fact that he said voters, he was asking, don't voters deserve to know? It was a really respectful question.
That's all the guy was saying. People keep asking him about it as a reporter, and he says no, they don't deserve to. What else don't they deserve to?
It's not just Supreme Court packing. What about issues like fracking, the Green New Deal, and Tifa? What are you going to do about Hunter Biden and your son and his connection to sex trafficking? The American people don't deserve to know any of that, Joe?
Nothing? And listen to Senator Sasse. He addressed that directly by 41.
When politicians refuse to give answers to the pretty basic question of whether or not they want to try to change the number of justices in the court, which is what court packing actually is, when they want to try to change the outcome of what courts do in the future by trying to change the size and composition of the court, that is a bad idea that politicizes the judiciary and reduces public trust. I agree with him 100%. Harry, quickly, about 30 seconds here, this idea again that Biden refuses to even tell the American people what his thoughts are. He can even say it.
I'm not sure. I'd have to do more, but he just flat out says people don't deserve to know. Absolutely. So the Dems are political opportunists who believe in nothing but power. They now wish to pack the court. Joe Biden in 1983 said it was a bonehead idea.
It is still a bonehead idea. When we play that, we come back and remember Rick Grenell, special advisor to the ACLJ, former Trump cabinet member, is going to be joining us right in the seat next to me in the studio talking campaign 2020 because, hey, folks, there's a hearing, but we're 22 days away from electing our next President. 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. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Folks, in just the next segment, I see him.
He's coming in now. Rick Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, a recent member of President Trump's cabinet. Remember, he declassified all those unmasking requests.
We're going to get into the election, politics, campaign 2020. He's been out on the trail. He's been out all over the country. And he really wants to give you all, as a special advisor to the ACLJ, his thoughts on what he's seeing, what he's picking up on, the issues. So he's going to be joining us in the studio today on Jay Sekulow Live. So if you're watching the broadcast, he'll be sitting right next to me. He's about to be in the studio.
He'll walk right in during the next break. But if you are, again, listening on radio, as most of our audience is, you may want to check out the video later today. It's posted up on our Facebook pages and tweeted out as well so that you can see what it was like to have Rick, not just via Skype or joining us via phone, but as an ACLJ special advisor at our offices, doing a number of different projects while he was here, but able to do the show today as well, which is great to have him on. But I do want to get to a final—this is going to be so much to analyze on the Supreme Court. So much. We're not going to be able to get to the calls today on it yet, but Mary Ellen and Jeff, you call back tomorrow and we'll make sure you're the first two calls of the day because I've got to spend time with having Rick here.
I've got a lot to talk about. So Jeff, let's make sure, and Mary Ellen, get a book just for paying it on and make sure maybe we can even call them and have them on as the first guest that we take on the broadcast tomorrow. But I do want to play this from Joe Biden because he's already told the American people as we play that they don't deserve to know his thoughts on court packing. I ask, what else don't we deserve to know, Joe?
I mean, seriously, it's that idea of just look at the swamp and how they look down on the average American voter. And second, how's Joe explaining this in one way? He calls packing the court in a typical Joe Biden word, kind of nasty, boneheaded.
Take a listen. This one, he was judiciary committee chair like Lindsey Graham is today by eight. President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate, the United States Congress, a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically absolutely correct. But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body, including the Congress, in my view, the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Boneheaded idea. Than, your thoughts just on this because I know Rick's going to be joining us and we're going to get into more politics. Of course, tomorrow's broadcast, Wednesday's broadcast, Thursday's broadcast, that's when it really gets heated, Than.
That's when the questions come. Today are opening statements. We're seeing some nasty statements, of course, about Judge Barrett calling her an activist, Judge Blumenthal, saying she's an extremist, ideological judge. But really this is more about Trump and the Affordable Care Act and Republicans versus Democrats. But yet tomorrow is when we get into the heat of it and we're going to have that full analysis all hour each day, Tuesday and Wednesday while it's going on, Thursday to kind of sum up all of the questioning that occurred. But Than, your thoughts on just the way that this hearing has opened so far. Yeah, well, first of all, why would you vote for someone in Joe Biden if he won't tell you what you stand for?
I'm not sure what the motivation would be if you can't get information from him. But you're right, Jordan. The next two days are the ones you're going to hear the most from Judge Barrett on. Look, I watched the Seventh Circuit hearings.
I know maybe many of our listeners didn't. She's going to show herself very well tomorrow. She's got a good grasp on all of these issues, a great grasp. But I would say over the course of the next two days, if there are going to be attacks, that's when they're going to come. I could probably even predict who they're going to come from, Jordan. But I think, much like you, I'd just wait to see how it rolls out. I would encourage the American people to watch it. I think they're going to like what they see. You know, I retweeted our special advisor, Rick Rinnell, who said that dogma lives deeply within him.
And I said it does within me, too. And I asked people to retweet it. It's on my Twitter, twitter.com forward slash Jordan Secula.
I hope you'll retweet it because Rick Rinnell will be joining us in the studio coming up in the second half hour of Jay Sekio Live. 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, playing 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. Everybody, welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. This is Jordan Sekulow. As we said early in the broadcast, it is great to have our special advisor for national security and foreign policy, former acting director of national intelligence and U.S. ambassador to Germany.
I also spent 11 years at the State Department. Our special advisor at ACLJ, Rick Rinnell, live and in person in the studio with us. He's usually been on the road, been very busy, even stepping down after stepping down as acting director of national intelligence.
Very busy, of course, as we get very close to the election. We're going to talk politics in the next segment. We got Rick for a couple of segments.
We're here in the studio. But I do want to talk to you about this because, Rick, it came out, you were on the first couple of days of the week, and then this came out while you were traveling, and I wanted to get your thoughts. We got these notes from Brennan. Now, the notes came out pre the tweet from President Trump saying declassify everything, you know, unredact everything. We get this all the time with FOIAs.
Sometimes it should be, sometimes with class, but he said declassify it. But in these notes, I'm reading from John Brennan's own notes, a CIA director, and we know this is after July 28, 2016, so right in the heart of the election, last election, Presidential election. We're getting additional insight into Russian action from, and that's all redacted, but then he goes, he's citing alleged approval by Hillary Clinton of a proposal by, on July 28, by her foreign policy advisor to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal, these are John Brennan's own words, by stirring up a scandal into the Russian, tying the campaign to the Russian security service to distract from the issue with her server.
The people listed that are briefed here are POTUS, that's Obama, JC, Comey, Dennis McDonough, the White House Chief of Staff, and then Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor. This, again, we saw Jim Comey testify and he said he'd never even heard about this. We have a letter also, Rick, you know, it was to Peter Strzok from the CIA, which is sometimes unusual, you can't use it in court, they say, it's true, they've got to do their own, they've got to do their own investigation. Peter Strzok got that September 7th, he's still on TV calling President Trump a Russian agent, and he was told by the CIA, in this letter, we can put it up on the screen if we have it, but in this letter he's told, you guys need to investigate what Hillary Clinton is up to, this whole thing may just be a way to distract from the fact that she had a private server with classified info on it. Let me also add that there are a couple of other pieces of information of people who have raised early red flags, saying from the beginning, the Russians know that Hillary is doing this opposition research, they know about the Steele dossier, and that they are feeding in propaganda. Now, one of the things that the Democrats have done through this whole thing is they've removed the phrase Russian propaganda.
They don't use it anymore. They're calling it election interference. The fact of the matter is they fell for Russian propaganda, but they knew it was Russian propaganda, so it was more than just falling for it. They had this whole strategy of pretending that Russian propaganda was true.
This is exactly what they did. Russian propaganda was used by them because they liked the dirt that was being thrown. Basically, it was, we know it's fake news, we know it's a problem, but you know what? It's going after Donald Trump, our political opponent, so let's just fan the flames a little bit.
Now, think about this, Jordan. Your government is weaponizing intelligence agencies to go after their political opponents. That's really scary, and it has to be completely open and transparent to the public as to what happened. What I'd like to know, because I think that you can dig a lot deeper, if you have the names that are redacted, and then go after these staffers who have been covering up for Hillary, and to see were those staffers working in the State Department, because a lot of the Hillary Clinton staffers were buried into the State Department, I could list a whole bunch of names of people who were appointed there who worked very closely on European issues, let's say. Because if Hillary Clinton and the DOJ are working together to push Russian propaganda into the mainstream and utilizing our embassies, let's say London, and how the Steele dossier was developed, and we're utilizing the State Department and the agency and others, we need to open that up and figure that out. And they're feeding it out to, it appears, that this was even pre-Steele, they're already knowing that what's coming with Steele is bogus, and it's probably something Hillary Clinton is pushing, which she was paying for, and the DNC was paying for. So, to kind of formalize this into some kind of report they could start sharing, because, but the fact that they just ignored investing, it doesn't look like there's any, I think if Jim Comey could have said, we looked into it, there was intel there, but there wasn't enough, it's something. But he took like, what I call, it's a way to take the fifth without taking the fifth under oath, when you just say you can't remember. That's his typical thing, but like you've always said to us, he may say that, but there's a whole lot of people, if Jim Comey knew, he didn't just find out on his own.
Mr. Copious, note taker. So, I have seen the career intelligence officials who have been saying from the beginning, early warnings, saying comments that this was all Russian propaganda. Those comments from career intelligence officials, and I think our listeners need to understand, that there were people in the beginning who said this is baloney, those voices, your government did work. Career intelligence officials saw this and said this is Russian propaganda and baloney, but those voices were silenced and their statements classified and pushed away by the political appointees under Obama. And this is where I think what we have to be honest with, is that it was the Obama administration that manipulated career bureaucrats, silenced them for their own political gain. I think that what people call the deep state or the bureaucrats should realize they're getting thrown under the bus. Look what James Comey did. He is now claiming that he knew nothing about this, and that those underneath him were the ones who were guilty of not raising their voice or doing the right thing. So, Comey is going to get away with this because career bureaucrats are going to be blamed.
I have to say, our career bureaucrats, the career officials in Washington, D.C., the intelligence community officials, should absolutely come clean and start telling us what they know, because they're about to be blamed by James Comey. You know, we've got a couple minutes left in this segment and we're going to get into politics. We've got Rick here on the set with us and we're going to be, we're 22 days out, and we're like three weeks out from election day.
Rick, we're hearing reports that we're not going to get anything from Durham anymore. We saw the one guilty plea to the one count of the guy who, I mean, an attorney who probably will never practice law again either and pled guilty to a felony, who basically outed someone who was a U.S. asset, knew it was a U.S. asset, took that information out of the email, sent it along. And so, all this talk about, oh, well, it wasn't a real manipulation of FISA, you got rid of a U.S. asset, and so, in Carter Page, to me, as the legal side of this, or outside the ACLJ, but on the President's legal team, you know, this has been our whole life outside the ACLJ for years, and unfortunately, too much of the President's time, all of our times, your time, too.
And it doesn't look like before election day, we're going to get, now, I didn't think we'd get to all of it by election day, but it doesn't look like by election day we're going to see justice done, or even the beginning of justice being done. And that's, I know, to our audience, extremely frustrating, but I think you can help them maybe understand how difficult, even when the President tweets out, declassify it all, it's like we didn't get everything that day, how difficult the bureaucracy is. Yeah, it's such a good point, I mean, I was thankful that the President is frustrated enough with this process, and he's in touch with- And he has the power to do it under law, he can declassify anything he wants whenever he wants to. And he's listening to the people who are saying, we need justice here, and so the President, when he says, a directive, go declassify this, the cabinet members should immediately push through and just demand that this information get off the desks of bureaucrats, and I know it creates problems where people say, oh, there's no due process, or we've had a lot of due process.
It's time to declassify and put this out, and I think we have to start holding cabinet members to account. If you can't do this, then you shouldn't be there. Yeah, if you can't do it, you shouldn't be there, if you feel like, you know, this is, just resign. And in this sense, if they refuse, they can be fired, but for cause, that's the way you can remove a bureaucrat. It's tougher without cause, much easier with cause.
If you refuse an order of the President of the United States, they can declassify as President whatever they want, whenever they want to, and they won't do it, you can fire them. This is why I think we have to have outsiders, Jordan. You can't have people who live and work and breathe in Washington, D.C. The swamp, the swamp. And we all have a lot of experience with the swamp, but we've never been the swamp.
Let's put it that way, we've never been the in-crowd. We'll be right back on JCECCO Live with Rick Rinnell, our special advisor. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. Music 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. 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 right, welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. We are 22 days out. Twenty-two days out from a pivotal election.
You're scaring me. I know Rick Grenell is in the studio with a special advisor to the ACLJ, former acting director and national intelligence ambassador. But you've also, since leaving those roles with the government, joining us as a special advisor, you've been on the campaign trail too, Rick. You've been traveling probably more than most people because of COVID all around the country, campaigning, seeing the battleground states. Some people that listen to this broadcast, you know, probably we're on in every state and every city. Some people, they don't live in battlegrounds. They're either in blue and red, so they don't see the kind of intensity that's there.
You have. Just first, your initial kind of reaction. Where do you think this is 22 days out? With the fact that the debate weirdness that's gone on this second time around with the debate, and we don't really know how politics is going to look these final few weeks with the President yet, though he's been doing some events already. And so since the hospital stay, but we don't know if there's going to be another debate at all. We don't know if there's going to be.
There's a lot of what ifs, and of course on election day. But what are you getting from the people on the ground in the battlegrounds? So this is the exact question that the President asked me this past weekend.
I bet. He's like, I need to know the intensity. What are you hearing?
And I love the fact that the President is totally focused on the people, not on the media spin, not on what the GOP chairman are saying. He literally wants to know that, you know, are people making signs? Are they standing out?
And what are they saying, the regular people? So I love it. And I have to say I've been throughout Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Those are the three that I've been really concentrating on.
Others as well, but those three I've been concentrating on. And I feel like the intensity in Nevada and Pennsylvania is way more than it was in 2016. Even more so.
Even more so. People out more public. They're more public.
They're more public about it. Every single time I travel in Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, I hear people say, I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I am voting for him now. I have met one person who said I reluctantly voted for him in 2016, and this time I'm not voting.
And I pressed hard on why, and they didn't really have an answer. But I will tell you that 99 percent of the time I'm talking to people who did not vote for Trump in 2016, but are convinced now through his policies and through the media manipulation. People are really upset that this guy, the outsider, is constantly criticized and pushed. I think the media have gone all over the cliff, and they are now helping us with everything that's crazy. I mean, look at Nancy Pelosi, you know, now trying to use the 25th Amendment.
Ron Johnson said it best. This is a coup. There is a coup going on. New York Post this past weekend on the front page, picture of Nancy Pelosi, and it said, coup, coup, C-O-U-P, C-O-U-P. And this is where we're headed, is that they haven't accepted the 2016 election results.
Are they going to accept the 2020? We know as part of the legal team, we've been looking at the different scenarios they start laying out. So they've already laid out going back to impeachment if the President's reelected and if the Senate switched, which I don't think that those two would happen, but if they did and they had any margin at all, just impeach. No reason, just we'll do an impeachment. If can't do that, 25th Amendment, maybe we can set up a committee and this committee can remove the President, the coup. And then they're also, of course, they look to, even if it's Joe Biden, how can we get rid of him too?
I mean, I think this is, one, it's a huge separation of powers issue. But two, for our audience, those states you're in, which I think the President won by 0.2, 0.3%, some very small margins, but they were historic to win as a Republican, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, places like that, Nevada, to go back to. But what do you think, what would your message be to people out there? So if they're in a red state, what do they need to be doing? And if they're not in a red state, I know that they can get active, they can donate, they can share, they can talk, they've got social media, they can go volunteer. When we get closer, if it's a state that's more open and going door to door, you can actually go there and help.
But what do you think people in the battlegrounds, who are being inundated with it every day, you've been with them, what do you think is the best thing they can do? So I've got three points to make. One, if you're in a red county, this is how we win, this is a base election. You have to drag everybody that is a Trump supporter or somebody who is leaning towards Trump, or if they voted, would vote for Trump. Don't spend your time trying to convince the middle anymore.
We've got 22 days left. It is about getting every single person who supports Trump to vote. We won Pennsylvania because we took the red counties and made them blood red. We made them incredibly high voter turnout.
That's the first point. The second point is if you live in Michigan, it's incredibly important to go vote for John James. You have to get out and make that Senate seat flip. That could be the reason why we hold the Senate, why we get Trump's nominations through, and how President Trump, after he's re-elected, is not impeached again. We have to hold the Senate.
John James is a key there to flipping that. Let's get people out to vote. The other thing that I would say, the third point is if you live in Colorado, please get out and vote for Cory Gardner. If we can hold that seat, they may not be able to flip the Senate.
Michigan, Colorado, incredibly. And that's some key if President Trump wins, or they're going to be coming after with impeachment. They're going to be coming after all these different, any way, even if it isn't successful by the votes that they need. They won't have the votes to actually do it.
They will be able to impede the President's seat yet again. I think the President did an excellent job, Rick, of being able to kind of, he would work with us when we needed to on that. And then most of the time, I will tell you, that happened very late in the evening. And during the day, he did the American people's work until very late in the evening. And then when it was time for it to deal with Mueller, and it was time to deal with impeachment and leading up to that, it was, again, if anything ever came up, it was late at night.
But if anything ever came up for the American people, that's where his first priority always has been. But you mentioned, like John James, it's interesting you said it, because he's running in Michigan. He's a very close, tight race within the margin of error.
Very tight. Great candidate. And I'm not going to tell people, we don't tell people to vote for him on this, but you know, you're looking for our information, what we think. It's funny you say it, because I literally, this morning, sent another donation to John James.
Same reason. There are ways that people down the ballot can also help. Yeah, absolutely. And push out turnout, but also, we don't want to just re-elect President Trump. We need to keep one of the, you know, we need to keep the Senate.
Yeah, it's so incredibly important. The Michigan flip would be huge. Colorado holding Cory Gardner. And Cory did the right thing on Judge Barrett. You know, he came right out and he said, in a tough re-election battle, where he could have tried to not say anything or kind of waffle through it, he came right out and said, no, I support it. Listen, Cory Gardner is a thoughtful politician who really looks at the data. He's not knee-jerk. He is somebody that I would even argue the thoughtfulness of Cory and his ability to kind of push through on some of these difficult issues by being thoughtful doesn't always get rewarded by voters, because they want somebody to be loud and look at black and white issues completely, you know, taking one quick side being knee-jerk.
That's not Cory. I think we should reward him for that. It was great to have Rick in the studio.
He'll still be on with us, though, a lot as we lead up to these next 22 days. Thank you, Rick. Thanks for being with us. Folks, go to ACLJ.org, as always. We have Rick as a special advisor because of your support to the ACLJs.
ACLJ.org. Talk to you tomorrow. We'll be right back.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-05 08:30:16 / 2024-02-05 08:53:11 / 23
