Democrats Scramble For Power As Biden's Spending Bill Falls Apart

Today on Sekulow, Democrats scramble for power as Biden's spending bill falls apart. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Sekulow, we are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Overnight, the Democrats have basically shelved Build Back Better or Build Back Bad, however you'd like to describe it. This is the massive spending bill, trillions of dollars.

It included a lot of their programs, Green New Deal, socialist-style spending programs that were out of control. You've got a lot of opposition to this from the individual small business communities, from the corporate world, saying this is going to further put America into debt, it's going to increase inflation, and they have not been able to get the votes on this, even through reconciliation. So bypassing the filibuster, they can't get their caucus in the Senate together. Joe Manchin has held out and said no. So at this point in time, you always are very careful with Congress.

You watch what deals they can be making because they can always make it. But it appears they have shelved basically the hallmark legislative piece for Joe Biden, especially when you're going into a midterm election that looks like you're going to almost certainly lose one of the houses of Congress, the U.S. House, and likely or potentially both the House and the Senate, which means that for the final two years of your first term in office, no major legislative spending or bills that are highly partisan are going to make their way through. So they're shifting. They're trying to shift to something they can pressure Manchin on more, which is we need a federal re-takeover of voting rights. Yeah, so let's look at the two aspects of this that I think are fundamental here. One, under the Build Back Better, remember, that's the provision that had the 87,000 IRS agents, $8 billion to the Internal Revenue Service, and also the famous, you know, you do have expenditures of $8,000 over the course of a year, the IRS can go in and get notifications from your private bank.

So that falls apart if this doesn't go through. Then they've switched to the Voting Rights Act. But remember, that sounds very lofty, except the Voting Rights Act fan actually had a revocation of the Lerner Rule, which was the one that prohibited the targeting of conservatives by the IRS that we went to court and won, including a declaratory judgment by the federal government. Yeah, let's be real about what the voting rights bill is, Jay. It's nothing less than a federal takeover of the election system.

And if you look at H.R. 1, the bill that passed out of the House, it takes over essentially all of the state role over voting mechanisms. And as you point out, Jay, it goes even further. I mean, it says the prohibition on the IRS to do the targeting that we know that they did, that the court said they did and gave that court order you're talking about that they must stop from. It would repeal that prohibition, Jay. So it's absolutely sweeping. Let me just tell you real quickly though, Jay, this is what President Biden said last night when asked if they should pivot off the build back better.

This is what admitting defeat sounds like. He said, if we can get the congressional voting rights done, we should do it. There's nothing domestically more important than voting rights. It's the single biggest issue. Jordan, what has been the biggest issue on President Biden's agenda every day for the last couple of months?

It's been build back better. Yeah, I mean, that's what they've been trying to sell to the American people. They've had events across the country. They've gone into blue states. They've gone into red states trying to sell, build back better. But Americans aren't buying it. The businesses aren't buying it. Individuals, small business owners, you've got this massive opposition to it. And so really the only people they've sold on it are the far left and they're spinning.

It's never enough. They don't even think this would be enough spinning, but they're now pivoting to an issue that, again, it puts more pressure on Manchin. It's a voting rights act. The way it sounds, it sounds bad to oppose those, right? You have to then break down why you're opposing something that sounds like something that would be good. But remember what's in that bill, the revocation of something we went to court for and won.

So that was this idea that the federal government through the IRS can target individuals based on their names or the positions that they advocate or whether they use the Bible as a guidance. I mean, this is what it said. So this is what they're trying to do. Encourage if you're on Facebook or any of our social media platforms, share it with your friends right now.

That's Facebook, YouTube, Rumble, wherever you're watching right now. We encourage you to do that. And give us a call at 800-684-3110.

What do you think about all this? 1-800-684-3110. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support. For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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. Welcome back to the set, Gil.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Listen, if this holds through the new year, this is a big victory because going into the midterm elections directly, it makes it much more difficult for Democrats. It'll be the same house, the same Senate going into those midterm elections to try and put forward a such a controversial piece of legislation that like many issues, the Biden team, remember this is coming from them.

It's his proposal legislatively. And I kind of contrast this with the Obama team when they were selling the Affordable Care Act and how much of a better job they did selling it to their own party. They had their own members going in and voting for the Affordable Care Act, knowing that because they voted that way, they were giving up their seat in Congress, but they were able to pitch them that this was such an important piece of legislation for Democrats and for the country, that it was worth that. What you're seeing here is Democrats are not willing to give up their seats for Joe Biden's spending plan.

And I think it's because the clarity on it, it's been no clarity. It's gone from, you've got the far left pushing $5 trillion. They're not happy with the amount this is at.

You have the remaining few moderates in the Democrat party, really only in the US Senate, say, I'm not going there. The people I talk to at home when I go back to West Virginia, they don't want this. It doesn't make sense saying that you're gonna have a federal program for one year so you can score it economically. There's no such thing as a federal program for one year.

They can't even get a program up and running in a year. So the idea of they basically used all of these legislative tricks and the American people noticed that. And so no one was sold on it. You don't see anybody, except for the Biden partisans, which is not really where the Democrat party is either, who are saying like, this is so essential. And you know it's not so essential when he's immediately pivoting, as Chad Perger reported, to shelving this and saying, no, it's voting rights that are now most important, not the spending bill.

So we've got, I think there's two issues I want our audience to focus on, because this is where our government affairs team led by Thand Bennett comes into play. And that's this. The Build Back Better program had in it that provision that said if there is, initially it was if you had expenditures of $600 in your checking account, the IRS could go in, get the information without a warrant, without probable cause from your bank who would be required to report it.

And that's initially what was gonna happen here. So that's number one. Number two, it gave 87, authorization for 87,000 new IRS agents. And then number three, okay, it was, I think Thand was it $8 billion that the IRS was getting? 80, 80 billion a day. Yeah, 8 billion in like one year. Yeah, it was like spent over a couple of years.

It's a higher almost. $80 billion to an agency that's totally out of control. So now they pivot to voting rights. Well, that sounds high and lofty, except the voting rights bill says that it basically revokes the win we had at the US District Court where the IRS conceded in a order that was filed with the court that they were engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional targeting of conservative groups and Christian organizations and that they wouldn't do it again. And there's particular procedures. And basically in this voting rights bill, the Democrats are proposing to do away with that.

So Harry, you have this dual situation where they're gonna make this pivot because the other one's not going so well. But then the bill is really a missed, the voting rights bill is a misnomer because it's really nothing about that. I think that's precisely correct. And this is consistent with the progressive's playbook. Democrats, like all progressives are addicted to the ceaseless pursuit of power and control. This pursuit is sold on the basis of advancing liberty, freedom, perhaps even voting rights. But this is a massive Trojan horse that shrinks the American people's freedom.

And it's important to keep in mind with respect to the voting rights proposal that this would shrink our constitutional rights because the Constitution has guardrails, which insists that the state governments have power to control elections. Yeah. So Thanh, let's get a kind of a breakdown. I think, Jordan, this is what you were going to, of exactly what has happened, what's going to happen likely in the hours and days ahead between now and at least the end of the year. Well, yeah, Jay, I mean, for the last several weeks, the only priority in the United States Senate and that President Biden would have said is that they were gonna get build back better past this year. I mean, just as recently as yesterday, Leader Schumer was saying, we're gonna get this done by Christmas.

That was the only priority on the table for the United States Senate and for President Biden. But Jay, bottom line, I mean, they could not get Senator Manchin to agree to vote for any version of it. So they've essentially conceded defeat on that. Now, they won't say it that way. So what they've said is they've said, well, we think that the voting rights bill, the so-called voting rights bill is more important.

So that's what we're gonna focus on this year. The problem with that, though, Jay, is they need to do one of two things to be able to get that done. They have to either get to 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, which they will never be able to do, or they have to convince Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to nuke the filibuster. That's something that neither one of them has said that they're willing to do.

So look, I just wanna kind of give people a peek around the corner. You know what I think's gonna happen? I think sometime in the next day or two, they're gonna say, well, actually, it's more important that we get a bunch of nominations done for the State Department. So we're gonna try to break, you know, broker a deal with Senator Cruz and get that done. Jay, I predict that's the next move. But to answer your question specifically, they've now failed on Build Back Better, and they're trying to pivot to voting rights. I predict they're gonna fail there too. You think it's gonna fail?

Okay, Jordan. Well, and to me, this goes to both of these pieces of legislation are IRS power grabs. So you had in Build Back Better a new, basically you were gonna recreate the agency size-wise, double the, you know, 87,000 new agents, $80 billion to go after specifically middle-class Americans. People who are, if you believe Joe Biden, are supposed to be economically struggling, and so don't have the lawyers and the accountants to help prepare their taxes when the IRS comes knocking with these audits.

So you've got that issue directly. So if that's gone, then you move to the voting rights legislation, which also then re-empowers the IRS to politically target. And by the way, are they gonna like this if this flips to Republican and the next Republican administration can politically, intentionally, politically target Soros's groups and leftist organizations? Because that's how they're writing it. Now, they write it this way because they know that the bureaucracy inside the IRS, you get one commissioner, one general counsel pick as a President, but the rest of it, it's a liberal bureaucracy. So even if the Republicans were in control, you would never be able to get those things done.

And I don't think it's right to do that anyways. The IRS shouldn't be targeting liberal groups or conservative groups just because they're liberal or conservative. There should be reasons why that are outside of partisan politics. That doesn't mean they can't go after people who are running phony charities and things like that. They already do that. They don't need special rules to allow them to do that. This is a special rule, again, to let them go in and say, we're gonna focus in on these conservative groups.

We're gonna ignore all the dark money from the liberal groups. But what's so ironic about both of these pieces of legislation, Harry, is they both focus in on giving power, as Jordan just said, to the Internal Revenue Service, the agency that is least capable of self-correcting, the agency that is least capable of playing it even because they don't. And we know this better than anybody because we litigated them and won.

But in two cases, one with monetary damages of our client, the other with injunctive and a declaratory judgment in permanent orders. But they're trying in both of these bills that are both failing right now to empower the IRS. That's what the American people need to know.

I think you're precisely correct. So Democrats routinely claim that they are all about achieving and advancing liberty. At the same time, they govern like emperors. As we can see, with respect to the Voting Rights Bill and with respect to Build Back Better, essentially, the Democrats have decided to target conservatives as part of an election reform effort. This is not election reform.

It's about election control, allowing bureaucrats at the IRS or elsewhere to place their foot on the necks of the American people. And I hope the American people will reject this effort. Yeah, I mean, to me, it's just unique that every major piece of legislation that Democrats want to move through, so they pivot from Build Back Better, which has been a disaster. And listen, it's a disaster because the Biden administration couldn't sell it. They couldn't sell it to the American people.

Thus, the legislators themselves were not willing to go out on a limb. There are already so many Democrats retiring from Congress because they faced no prospect of being able to win their next election. And you can't even sell them.

You can't sell them. They're already retiring. This is, again, it shows you the difference in competence, whether you like the Obama group or not. And we certainly were opposing almost everything they were doing.

But they were much more competent legislatively. They knew you get a victory in those first two years when you got the House and Senate because that's likely gone after. And then you've got to, you know, run for reelection for a second term. To pivot this way, though, but to both pieces of legislation trying to empower the Internal Revenue Service to scare Americans out of the political process. I think it ties in to the January 6th Committee and some of their hijinks that they've been caught doing as well. It's trying to scare you out of the political process.

That is extremely dangerous in the United States. You should feel like you have the freedom to speak, the freedom to support whatever political candidate that you want to support. And you're not going to be punished for that. In both these pieces of legislation, what they were trying to do is re-empower a federal agency to do just that, to punish you, to scare you, to silence you. And ultimately, it's to chill the speech, which is unconstitutional in the United States of America. But each piece of legislation, you know, don't forget, that's why you got to keep the pressure up on senators like Joe Manchin, that they don't fold and say, oh, this is not, this is voting rights, that's good.

No, look at what's actually in the legislation. 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. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Surprise, surprise, Adam Schiff caught again, trying to lie and mislead the American people on actual evidence in these committees. Let's start back. Remember, he got caught doing this with Ukraine in the impeachment there. He made his own transcript up of a phone call. And then when the transcript was released, oh, surprise, surprise, it didn't match up to what he said.

Again, that's by 24. So just to remind you, this is how he kind of started with making up this Ukraine call. And now he's making up information in the January 6th committee.

But take a listen, it's kind of flashback 2019, Adam Schiff tried to say that this was the actual call by 24. This is the essence of what the President communicates. We've been very good to your country. Very good.

No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though.

And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand lots of it on this and on that. I'm going to put you in touch with people and not just any people. I'm going to put you in touch with Attorney General of the United States, my Attorney General, Bill Barr.

He's got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I'm going to put you in touch with Rudy. You're going to love him. Trust me. You know what I'm asking. And so I'm only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again.

I'll call you when you've done what I asked. This is where, this is what I'm talking about. So right there, that was made up. He reads that to the American people. Totally false.

This sounds like he's reading something that's like a transcript, right? Except for the President never said, don't call me again. He didn't say...

He didn't say, I want you to dig up dirt. No. None of that was... So we use that and he started the impeachment.

Yeah. So we use, of course, we use the fact that Adam Schiff said those words incorrectly at the impeachment to show that they're basically creating evidence. Do you think they would have learned from that? Cause that really blew up on them, but they don't learn from it. So instead you've got the January 6th select committee and what happens now? Well, now Adam Schiff's staff has come out with an apology.

Why? Because they put up as evidence, text messages purportedly from Mark Meadows. From Jim Jordan to Mark Meadows. Except they moved the actual punctuation and left off portions of the text messages to make it look like they were... A direction.

Yeah, go ahead. So it looks like if you were looking at this, it looks like Jim Jordan was directing Mark Meadows to take a specific action on the election, whether to certify how to do that. And so it says on January 6th, Vice President Mike Pence should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.

That sounds like Jim Jordan saying he must do this, right? Or this is what you should do, Mark Meadows, and the President should do, and the vice President should do. In fact, what it was, was Mark Meadows forwarding from a lawyer, their opinion.

And it's a long opinion. If you would have put the whole text message, if you would have seen that he was just forwarding along somebody who sent to him some legal theory, and it was not a direction to Mark Meadows from a member of Congress. It was a member of Congress sharing a lawyer's opinion, and he decided to send that along to Mark Meadows. But they make it sound like... It's a direction.

They make it sound like that the text message was supporting this overthrow of the election, which it was not. They changed where it's set. And now this is, again, I'm gonna play number 13 here. This is Adam Schiff from a hearing just a couple of days ago. This is the one with the graphic. Here we go. If we could cue the first graphic. This one reads, on January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.

You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows about. About a lawmaker suggesting that the former vice President simply throw out votes... Except that's not what the text message said, because they made a period there.

There was no period there. There was another sentence, and it described the legal theories that were being promulgated, whether you agreed with them or not, is irrelevant. So they're using that as the basis to hold Mark Meadows in contempt when Adam Schiff himself adjusted the evidence.

And that's being, by the way, adjusting is being kind. They manipulated the evidence, is what they did. And remember, they've done that. FBI attorneys did that to get FOIAs on American citizens. To get far-contained surveillance warrants. And they got caught. And they got caught, and they got in trouble.

Prosecuting disbarred. And so, I mean, this is the norm for this side of the aisle, is to make up information. And you know what's great about this one? It's why we decided to bring it up today, because it just shows this idea that the partisanship of these committees is at a level that is so high that you can't take anything these chairs say for granted. You have to dig into everything. The piece that Jim Jordan got, and it's forwarded to Mark Meadow in a text, and the reason they got caught is because people said Jim Jordan doesn't syntax like this.

He's a very yes or no kind of texter. So it was clear it was like a copy and paste from another text. It was published online already. This was something already published online on a website the next day.

A discussion draft. No one was hiding this. The lawyer behind it wasn't hiding it.

Jim Jordan, he was not making a direct statement. That alone, again, trying to mislead other members of Congress, mislead the Department of Justice, mislead the American people. So they are voting contempt against Mark Meadows, former chief of staff, based on evidence. And that's why he says we need to talk with Mark Meadows. That's what Adam Schiff said. Except the basis upon that was evidence they manipulated.

So I want to go to Fan Bennett, because this is happening on Capitol Hill. What's been the reaction to this? I think the reaction, Jay, has been that tampering evidence doesn't get you to the truth. I mean, look, I mean, we've all said that January 6 was the dark day and those that are responsible should be held to account. But look, you don't tamper evidence to make that happen. When you do that, it doesn't get you to the truth, Jay. So look, the House of Representatives already voted to hold Mark Meadows in contempt.

They did it before this revelation happened. Look, I just think it's a typical- So the Department of Justice, let me just say, so the Department of Justice should not proceed in light of this revelation, because this was evidence tampering that was the basis upon which a motion for contempt was passed by Congress when the evidence was either intent, well, it had to be intentionally, of course, manipulated. And that is what Adam Schiff said is why we need to speak to Mark Meadows. To me, when you manipulate evidence, the Department of Justice should say no to that contempt order.

I think you're precisely correct. So if you look at Adam Schiff and if you look at his history, increasingly, he is committed to one thing and one thing only, insulting the intelligence of the American people. So the Democrats continue, including Adam Schiff, to flee from truth, what?

In hot pursuit of the land of make-believe. So Schiff is prepared to tamper with evidence for political purposes. And I believe if the DOJ proceeds with this contempt order against Mark Meadows, the American people would justifiably hold the DOJ in contempt. Well, in real life, not fake congressional hearing life, this would mean the dissolution of the committee.

At this point, you've altered evidence, you're talking about putting people in jail, sending them in contempt of Congress, which could potentially lead to prison, and you're editing, you're altering evidence. It's already a hyper-partisan committee. The only couple Republicans that join Schiff and the Democrats are already people who called to impeach the President.

They are outside the door. Neither one is retiring from Congress. The other may be retired by the voters in Wyoming. But to me, to see Liz Cheney doing this when her own father was a vice President at a time of war where there were no weapons of mass destruction, it's kind of like, give me a break, Washington DC. Stop lying to the American people. If people did something wrong, prove it for real.

If you have to alter evidence, that means you can't. By the way, we have sent out a letter, and we'll put it up on the screen, to the secretary of the army and others on behalf of the wreath laying ceremonies that are going on across the country this weekend. So we took affirmative action there. Support the work of the ACLJ and our Matching Challenge at ACLJ.org.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. When Adam Schiff chairs any kind of committee, what you have to always be on the lookout for is made-up evidence or made-up messages, made-up transcripts that try to mislead his fellow members of Congress, the American people, the Department of Justice, especially when you're talking about putting people potentially in jail. Holding them for criminal contempt, the cost that that costs the people who are involved. And when you start taking their text messages that you received and you edit them, when you put them on the screen, so that it appears that a Congressman was directing the White House Chief of Staff to take a specific action, rather than sharing an article, which the next day was published online publicly, no secret, legal theories, legal ideas.

When in our country did that become illegal? You know how dangerous that is for lawyers if this becomes actionable? The idea that you, I said to you during the beginning, law professors and lawyers write law review articles where they expound theories. And here they are trying to criminalize a theory. I think that is correct. So in the past, you had to actually make an affirmative statement in order to be convicted or even charged with contempt or perjury, for instance. Now, having an academic theory, a legal theory, that is becoming enough. And I think it's outrageous.

I want to play again. We did this in the first half hour, but for those joining us, or maybe in the stations that just carry a half hour, Adam Schiff went to the floor of Congress. This is to hold our friend Mark Meadows in contempt.

And this is what his basis was. Take a listen, number 13. We could cue the first graphic. This one reads, on January 6, 2021. Right there, please. Cue the first graphic. They put on the screen a graphic, we have it up on ours, that said something that was not actually in the text. Now go ahead.

Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all. Period. End of sentence. Except that's not what the text message said.

The text message wasn't from Jim Jordan. It was a whole other sentence added to that. And then Adam Schiff wants to use this fake text message that he put up to hold Mark Meadows in contempt. Listen to the rest of this.

You can see why this is so critical to ask Mr. Meadows about. About a lawmaker suggesting that the former vice President simply throw out votes. Okay. Well, a member of Congress did not say that. A lawmaker did not suggest that. And your office had to come out and issue an apology. Meanwhile, that apology was issued after you made a criminal referral to the United States Department of Justice on Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff, who of course has executive privilege to begin with. But just put that in perspective, that they would willingly do that, manipulate evidence to start a criminal contempt, like the FBI attorney, as Jordan said earlier, changes a email, the words of an email, attaches it to a FISA application, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and submits it to a foreign intelligence surveillance court and gets caught. Or like Adam Schiff, Jordan, you said, making up the Ukraine transcript. You wonder why people don't give this credibility.

That's why. No, I mean, he's been caught. He went after Don Jr. It was a WikiLeaks thing and they changed the dates. So the dates were wrong.

And the dates were extremely important to that, whether or not that was anything more than just forwarding along news that was already in the things that were already leaked out in the news. It was leaked out by major news outlets instead of showing that if you change the dates, it looks like he was trying to do this. He got caught there.

Schiff's caught there. He got caught with the fake transcript with Ukraine, made up a transcript, got before Congress an impeachment, sitting impeachment in the US Senate and made up transcripts to justify it and stuck with that, thinking that people, again, it's such a partisan environment, it won't matter. Now he's done it again while referring people for criminal contempt, asking the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against someone when all it was was an article that got posted the next day by an attorney shared.

It was not a directive. That's again, if he was clear about it, at least be honest about your evidence. When you lie about your evidence, it's time to dissolve your power. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support. For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at 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, 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. I want to also remind you, the entire beginning of the impeachment over this Ukraine phone call where Adam Schiff was, surprise, surprise, he was asked by Jim Jordan. So he's got a grudge against with Jim Jordan because Jim Jordan asked him straight up, do you know the whistleblower, your staff?

Have you had contact? And Adam Schiff said, no. He said, that's a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower. Then it was the New York Times, not Fox News, it was the New York Times reported that Schiff's office had already been working with that whistleblower even before they filed the complaint against President Trump. He wasn't really necessarily notified, but this is the problem with all this. But he called out that Congress was a liar.

Yes, and it's Jim Jordan who, like you said, has a personal grudge, which so he goes after, but I want to put this in a bigger perspective. They are exercising an awesome power of Congress, the power of contempt. They all exercise the awesome power of impeachment.

These are serious things. You want to impeach a sitting President of the United States, which they tried to impeach a President that was no longer President. And they do this with a transcript from Ukraine that they make up, literally make up the statements. And they play it as if it's for real.

And then when we go to do the trial, of course, we win because that's never what it was. Bob Mueller does a report, the Mueller report, and they get a FISA warrant against an American citizen. And it's based upon what? A false doctored email from who?

An FBI lawyer attached to a FISA application, foreign intelligence surveillance application, to a FISA warrant, to the foreign intelligence surveillance court. Then Adam Schiff moves to hold Mark Meadows, former chief of staff of the President of Trump, in contempt of Congress, which is a referral to the Department of Justice. Because, as we played before, he said that we could cue the first graphic.

This one reads, and he's quoting from it, on January 6th, Vice President Mike Pence as President of the Senate should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all. Okay. Not only did Adam Schiff not tell the truth about the substance of the text message, which was doctored, and the graphic that he displayed, which was incorrect, the full text message, which was forwarded to Meadows from Jim Jordan on the evening of January 5th, was much longer than what Adam Schiff put up there.

Why? Because it was an opinion letter from a lawyer. That's what lawyers do, Harry.

Absolutely. So Congress exercises awesome power with respect to its ability to refer an individual to the Justice Department for contempt. It's important to note, however, that the referral in this case with respect to Mark Meadows was grounded in false and misleading evidence. This, in my opinion, is straight out of the deep state's playbook in going after Carter Page, in using false evidence to procure, for instance, a FISA warrant.

So this continues, and I think at the end of the day, Adam Schiff is the manifestation of one thing and one thing only, human corruption. Yeah, but here's what the original text was actually written by a Washington lawyer and a former Department of Justice, the Department of Defense Inspector General, Joseph Schmitz, and included a four-page draft Word document drafted by Schmitz that detailed this legal reasoning. It was published the next day.

It was published publicly the next day. So then Congress moves to hold Mark Meadows in contempt, and Adam Schiff says it's because of, and he used this fake email as the basis, and then the vote took place. Yeah, the contempt measure's already been sent over to DOJ. Jay, look, I think this is a page right out of Adam Schiff's typical playbook, and I would even take people a little bit further back. If people will remember, when this commission was set up, Leader McCarthy was supposed to have the ability to appoint equal spots on the commission. Jay, two of the members that he appointed were Jim Banks and Jim Jordan, and Speaker Pelosi said, no, we won't seat them on the committee.

That's how you got the structure of the commission that you have now. Look, if you were going to pursue this event, Jay, it needed to be a bipartisan equal basis, so Leader McCarthy should have had access to appoint equal spots. Jim Jordan, Jay, who was one of the people he tried to put on this commission, and Speaker Pelosi unilaterally said no.

Yeah, I mean, the fact is, once they put Adam Schiff in that role, you know it's been cooked. There's no rational discussion here about right and wrong and who was really responsible, and why did Nancy Pelosi not allow the National Guard request that was made, and why are we not talking about that at all? Maybe her office made the wrong decision, too, about what kind of protection they needed at the Capitol, knowing that these large rallies were going to be occurring, and that people were angry in the country and confused about the election.

I mean, that didn't take a rocket scientist to know, except they said no to the National Guard, but they're not focusing it on that. That's why the whole committee is corrupt from the core, because instead of getting at the actual truth, they put in hyper-partisans and two angry Republicans, who are no longer really part of the Republican mainstream anymore, like Liz Cheney, who was removed from her leadership role. And I mean, talk about an interesting play, because executive privilege was definitely asserted a lot of those Bush years, especially because they went to a war on false information. Now, does that mean I don't think there should be executive privilege?

No. But talking about throwing rocks in glass houses. I mean, it's Liz Cheney. Her father led the efforts for a war in Iraq based off false information. They had Colin Powell going to the UN, and he had to eventually say what he did. He felt wrong because he had bad info. Let me play, this is... To show you how the circumstances of this, this is when Chuck Todd asked Adam Schiff about this evidence that he said he had in his possession, that clearly and unequivocally showed that Donald Trump was basically being manipulated by the Russians, and there was all this collusion and conspiracy.

Take a listen to number 18. But you admit it's a circum... All you have right now is a circumstantial case? Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that, and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. Now, then Chuck Todd follows it up. So he talks about direct evidence.

Listen to 19. So you have seen direct evidence of collusion? I don't wanna go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation. Of course, none of that was true after spending $40 million with Bob Mueller's investigation. I feel like you have to remind people the impeachment was not about Russia.

Nope. They had already failed there because they made up. There was nothing to... You had the Mueller investigation, all these people. So if they can't find anything and Adam Schiff had nothing, because there was nothing, there was zero there.

So what did they do? They shift to a phone call that you had the entire apparatus of the White House National Security team on, 35-plus people listening in on this phone call between President Trump and the new President of Ukraine the entire time, and he made up the transcript of that. And that's what the basis was for the first impeachment. It was not Russia. Adam Schiff had to find something else. So they said, oh, let's take this phone call. We'll make up our own transcript and we'll impeach on this.

And that was... I just wanna remind people, that first impeachment, they couldn't use Russia because that was done. That effort found nothing because there was nothing there. But remember who did use Russia.

I did. Because I used the way in which they laid that out as a basis upon which, okay, this is true, a basis upon which they started a special council investigation, which the special council knew months into it, there was nothing there. And Adam Schiff was talking about... You know what he was talking about? The Christopher Steele report, what the inspector general said, and by the way, the FBI and everybody else has now said, was totally based on no sources, totally incorrect. And that's the basis upon which they move forward.

So the reason we're calling this out today, and when we debated going back and forth whether we're gonna do this, is we've seen this pattern in practice play out. But then to refer a chief of staff over to the Department of Justice for a criminal prosecution on congressional contempt, when the evidence that you said is proving it, your office has now acknowledged you doctored, changed the meaning of, changed what was in it, changed the sentence structure, changed the sentence. You can't do that when you believe in the rule of law. And all they say, this is from the committee and their spokesperson, was the select committee is responsible for and regrets the error. They literally, someone is potentially facing criminal charges because of their error.

Why aren't they? The FBI attorney did, he's no longer an attorney because he doctored evidence to get the FISA award reauthorized on Carter Page. So he's no longer an attorney. These members of Congress, again, it's the people get to decide, their districts decide who to elect. But I do not understand, Thanh, why Nancy Pelosi, when they know they're facing a tough time with the House and the Senate, why go continually to Adam Schiff? Why not bring up some new people, some new blood, who don't have a history of making up evidence, misleading evidence, and also failing? So if you really thought, so why then do they go to Adam Schiff as if he is the only person that can do this on the Democrat side of the aisle? Well, Jordan, if you wanted the commission to have credibility, you wouldn't do that. If you wanted the commission to have credibility, you would also let the Republicans point whoever they wanted, because you would want the actual truth to come out. You wouldn't be wanting to push a narrative out. Look, you wouldn't have Adam Schiff on the commission.

The other thing you wouldn't do, Jordan, if you were looking for the truth, if you were looking for credibility, you wouldn't alter evidence, just plain and simple. Yeah. I mean, the way that even the headline, Lawmaker to Mark Meadows, it's false, phony. In real court, real trouble for Adam Schiff. Oh, yeah. But members of Congress, again, there's this political leeway. But let's just all understand here.

They are going after private, now private American citizens with phony evidence. That is dangerous. Dangerous. Support our work at hclj.org. Double your impact throughout the entire month of December. We'll take your calls this week.

Come back. 1-800-684-3110 to get your call in now. 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, 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 hclj.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at aclj.org. All right, welcome back to Secula. We're going to write to the phones. Warren in Idaho, online one. Hey Warren, welcome to Secula. You're on the air. Hey, thanks guys for taking my call.

God bless what you guys do. My question is, since we know Adam Schiff has done this twice, why is there not grounds to remove him from Congress? Well, I mean, listen, first of all, the Democrats control it.

So that one is you would be really removed of your committee seat, your chair, you know, being the chairman of the Intel committee and being on committees. We've seen that happen on both sides of the aisle. But that's not happening with Nancy Pelosi.

So that's one. Two, he probably is going to get reelected where he runs in California. It's very liberal. So they like what he's doing and they're not going to judge him on this the way that really the American people do.

I think they see him, they see another partisan actor, like hyper-partisan actor like Pelosi, who is willing to, again, make things up, like saying, I got the evidence on Russia, but there was no impeachment on Russia. And then it was, I got this transcript for the phone call, except for that wasn't the actual transcript. Oh, let's get a FISA award on someone, on an American and go through a secret court, which led to, remember, those of us who called for potentially the abolishment of that power from the government because they abused it.

So even though they will say they need it for national security when you abuse it to that level. And then again, making a text saying it came from a lawmaker as like an instruction to Mark Meadows and they've apologized. His staff has apologized.

I want you to understand, they will do, on the back end, they apologize because they know if they don't, they're going to be in serious trouble in court. But how do you really remove these people? It's elections. They don't, they won't have to be the chair of the committee if Republicans take back the house. So they're rushing this committee because they know it's very likely this will be dissolved.

Yeah. I think if the Republicans get in, this committee goes away because they've already shown their abuse. Listen, this is not a secret. I mean, Adam Schiff's staff acknowledged that they changed evidence, which by the way, as Jordan said, if you did that in a courtroom, you would be sanctioned.

You can go to jail. I mean, this is serious stuff now. They've got speech and debate privilege.

That's part of the constitution that protects congressmen. But to make this a basis of a criminal referral, I mean, I just think these, if you look at this in the entire scope of everything, you come up with this conclusion. This is nothing but crass politics. And, and I think you gotta be clear here. We have to be clear here. We have seen this playbook before.

This is not the first time we have been through this routine. This has been unfortunately pretty commonplace over the last four years. Will they be held accountable?

We'll see what happens in the election in less than a year. But the fact of the matter is that should not be the basis, Harry, of a criminal referral for prosecution. So Schiff is prepared, number one, to tamper with evidence for political purposes. So in my view, and I'm not acting as Mark Meadows' lawyer, I would recommend that he contests this referral based on the false evidence that a Schiff has basically introduced. Number two, we had the Russia collusion investigation. That was grounded in falsehood. Number three, the Ukrainian impeachment was grounded, largely in my view, in manufactured evidence. And number four, I think it could be argued, certainly in court, that Congress's January the sixth committee, its contempt citation, for instance, is invalid.

Why? Because the full committee was not seated. And so therefore, if you now have a contempt referral based on an investigation launched by less than a full committee, perhaps, and again, I'm going out on a limb here, you may be able to challenge their ability to bring any contempt proceedings whatsoever because they are not necessarily seated consistent with a congressional resolution. Instead of an actual committee looking into this, why wasn't there more security that day? Who could make that call? Well, the Speaker of the House can make that call. Why didn't she make that call?

Remember? Because she said the National Guard was racist and pro-Trump. But that's not being discussed at all in these hearings. So you're not getting the full picture. You're getting text messages shared of legal theories acting as if that supported what the rioters did.

Which has no connection to those rioters. But it's so dangerous to the practice of law that lawyers do opinions. I mean, this lawyer was former Department of Defense Inspector General Counsel, published his the next day.

These weren't secrets. But then here's my question, what actually happens with this committee if, in fact, the Republicans take control of the House? Yeah, I think it'll be dissolved, Jay.

I mean, I really do. I think much for the reasons that Harry talked about, it wasn't set up on a proper premise. And going back to the last caller, Warren's question, I mean, look, I think Adam Schiff's actions absolutely do warrant his removal from the commission. But as Jordan said, Jay, it's not going to happen under the Speaker.

It is up to the Speaker who sits on the commission. She's already made her decision. She's excluded the Republicans. She's appointed Adam Schiff.

You know what, though, Jay? Guess who's not going to be Speaker next Congress? Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, so you fire Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff gets fired too. Remember that. Nancy Pelosi goes, Democrats go with leadership. He loses all these positions.

He's now in the minority. And they know this is about to happen. And so that's why they're rushing this. And that's when they get into trouble, because it's like the Russia thing.

It's like they make it up and hope they can improve it. And they can't. And what does this tie have to do with the fact that there was a riot? This was just about procedure. This wasn't encouraging a riot.

Why are you getting held criminally contempt over what they're supposed to be investigating was the violence that occurred over a legal theory of procedure? Because no one was texting, go riot. And that's great. That's the problem.

No, everybody was saying, stop this. I mean, that's become clear in the last 24 to 48 hours. You said Congress didn't have more of its own security there. Maybe they fired the Sergeant of Arms. Is that being discussed much in this committee?

No, because it was a failure of security. But here, let me go a step further here. Look what we've talked about today. Build Back Better, which had all those IRS provisions in it, looks like that's not going to happen. Then they moved to a voting rights legislation, which sounds very lofty, except it really is another plan to give the IRS more control, including revoking the learner rule.

The learner rule is the rule we got in place that stopped the IRS ability to target conservatives based on their views, but at least not if they will rely on the Bible, whatever it might be. That legislation's in serious peril. This is all happening right now. Then you have, they may move to some other legislation involving nominations, and that'll be a nominations fight. But our teams were involved in all of this. I was at a congressional hearing that took place by Zoom in the next studio over, walked in into this studio and brought you a live report as to what exactly happened, which started this whole pushback on that $600 requirement, which would have gotten the IRS involved in everybody's business.

But the Voting Rights Act also, and all these other ones, are all IRS oriented, which is the agency that is the least capable right now of self-correcting any of this. So I say all of this to just put it in perspective that the American Center for Law and Justice and our offices around the United States and Dan's team up in Washington are really doing great work. And then we're able to come to you each and every day for an hour. Television, radio, streamed, social media, because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. None of this happens without you. You see the three of us today and fan in our DC bureau, but there are people behind the glass here. There are people that are monitoring the social media and getting things up right now as we speak.

Dozens. Your support of the ACLJ and this matching challenge, as we are now past the halfway mark for the month, makes a huge difference. That's right. You can be part of that at ACLJ.org. So when you go there, you'll see matching challenge right on the homepage.

Takes a couple of minutes. And again, it's a $10 donation that's effectively like $20 to ACLJ. We have a group of donors that will match the donation that come through the month of December. That's why we call it a matching challenge.

You have to take the initial step to engage the match. So you can do that at ACLJ.org. And we encourage you, if you're financially able to, this is just a great time to support our work because you are doubling the impact of your donation. Also, when you go to ACLJ.org, you'll see the plethora of the different kinds of work we are engaged in at the ACLJ. Some that we get to on radio, some that we don't, but it's all there at ACLJ.org. Donate today and we'll talk to you tomorrow. and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.