How To Stop the Left's Attempt To Make Roe Permanent

Today on Sekulow, how to stop the left's attempt to make Roe permanent. We're going to get into those details, how we fight back today on Sekulow. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. Share this broadcast if you're watching it with your friends and family, whether you're on Rumble, Facebook, YouTube, wherever you're watching the broadcast. Of course, many of you are listening to the broadcast and we encourage you to tell people about the show and what time you listen and where.

But let me tell you something, folks. What we have now seen since the leak of the authentic draft opinion overturning Roe vs. Wade is the left weaponizing this draft to attempt to, as early as next week, we're talking about next week, not next month, next week, codify Roe vs. Wade into federal law. Now, you might hear this term a lot, codify.

What does it mean? It means to put into the federal code. Well, to put something into the federal code, you have to pass legislation signed by the President that then becomes law. Then it becomes part of the federal code of rules and regulations. That's what codify means. To do that, they will have to get rid of the legislative filibuster.

So there's multiple moves here. They don't just need 51 votes to codify Roe and put Roe into law, into federal law. They would also need to do away. There would be no more filibuster in the U.S. Senate. There's no more for nominees.

Now there would be no more for legislation. So they are going, this is why we say, and Josh Hawley talked about it too, Senator Hawley talked about how this is like a religion for them. We've been saying that for years, that they worship at the altar of abortion. They're willing to throw everything out.

Everything, every principle they've got out to save this right to abortion, this industry that they're beholden to. Yeah. So what you've got is a three-prong attack. And this is how we're countering it. We've launched our own initiative. In fact, we've got a petition up. We're looking to get 50,000 signatures on, which is going to defend life and also to stop this kind of tactic. So number one, you've got a vigorous attack on the judiciary. That's the first thing we're doing. So they're going by protesting and making all these statements. They're trying to pressure the justices of the Supreme Court to change because until that opinion is out, is issued, it's not the law of the land. So that's number one.

That's the first progress. Number two, the second prong of their attack is get Congress to legislate, as Jordan said, codify, if you will, the right to abortion recognized under Roe. Now how we're countering that immediately, even though it's not, there is law being introduced on this, by the way. So it's going to come up in the house.

It's going to come up as early as next week. We've already got a team of lawyers at the ACLJ looking at how that would be challenged in light of if this Justice Alito opinion does in fact become the law of the land. Number three, they are trying to pressure really the executive branch by giving, increasing what we call court packing, adding justices would give Joe Biden more nominees. They're going to use all of those weapons based on this opinion. That's the approach they're taking and we're countering each and every one of those. And that's where everybody comes in to help.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, and remember that the pressure campaign on the court, they, again, they want to cause this, this months long protest movement trying to influence a member. They're looking just to try and get one justice to say, you know what, this is too much pressure on me, too much pressure on my family. And so that pressure campaign is very real as well. So they've got their legislative approach, their protest pressure approach, and they're praising the leaker.

There's even U.S. senators saying we shouldn't even find out who the leaker is. That's how, again, how little respect they have for the court when they so choose to have little respect for the court. If the court was upholding Roe versus Wade, they'd be praising the U.S. Supreme Court. It's playing politics, but we have to be ready for a full scale war to defend life. We can't just accept even if this opinion does become similar to the final opinion. We now know all their steps to take. It's not just in the states.

It's also to try and codify, federalize the right to abortion in federal law. We want you to join our broadcast today. Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

Be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. Now, Democrats are trying to use this to become like their election year issue, the midterm issue. By the way, last night you saw Donald Trump endorse candidates in Ohio and Indiana, won every single race. Everybody he endorsed won their primary, their Republican primary. Those were in Ohio.

J.D. Vance was the most high profile because it was statewide, but he also had races in Indiana for House seats. And everybody that was endorsed by Trump won. So to think that his influence is waning, certainly not in these first two major primary states. People continue to track that as well. But Democrats think this is going to be a huge issue for them. And this is my question for you.

1-800-684-3110. With inflation the way it is, with the economy the way it is, with the world, with war going on in Europe the way it is, how out of touch do you think the Democrats are by making these pushes politically? Now, I don't want to take away from their ability to potentially get this into federal law.

That's different. But how out of touch do you think they are politically when they think this is their winning issue? Killing babies is their winning issue. Joe Biden said it. Do we have the sound where he said aborting a child? He didn't say fetus.

He said aborting a child, killing a kid. Got to have that right. Take a listen. We're trying to get it.

Let me read for you right now. We've got a petition that's up that says this. The radical left is using, and we know this, a leaked opinion in the Supreme Court case. This is unprecedented, folks, that could overturn. Listen, if this opinion comes out, Roe is gone at least until they try to get it in legislatively. They're doing it as a political weapon to undermine the court, pressure justice, and make Roe permanent. This is the biggest fight of our generation, folks. We're not kidding.

We put that in the petition. It is the biggest fight of our generation. And it's happening right now because they're going to introduce legislation as early as, when Than joins us, as early as next week. When states like New York have passed their barbaric abortion laws, we know exactly what's at play here. So in addition to filing three briefs of the Supreme Court on the case that could overturn Roe, if that opinion sticks, we now have to do a three-prong attack. We've got a team of lawyers already researching if they do try to codify Roe in the federal government what that means.

That's number one. Number two, we are going to go after this politically. Jordan's going to announce more about that in the coming weeks, how we'll be able to fight back on a political level. And number three, they're going to make a move to try to do court packing. They've already said that in their – that court commission that President Biden put in.

This plays right into it. Now, we've got a petition that we just launched today. We wanted 50,000 signatures. We now have in – how many hours, Will, has this been? Just since this morning, so two or three hours.

Two or three hours, 21,440. It's going up as I watch. So we can get to 50,000. I want to be able to deliver that next week to the senators and the Congress.

Yeah. And this, again, folks, we've got to take action there. We're going to be joined by Sam Bennett in the next segment of the broadcast because, again, this idea that the legislative move is very real by the Democrats. They're trying to push through. They're trying to end the legislative filibuster. They are trying to use this week and this leak to do this even before we get a final opinion from the court.

They don't even know what that final opinion will be yet, but they're trying to use this leak to justify moving forward with this legislative push. So we have to watch that very carefully. And we're prepared on all three areas legally to take action here. Absolutely. We already got the FOIA request in.

This is the key. When Joe Biden says this, this is why you've got to fight so hard on this issue. Take a listen, Bite60. The idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard. Listen to what he said. I'm going to read now what he said, the idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort, terminate a child. That's what abortion means, terminate a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard. This tells – you know, when we said that they worship in the altar of abortion, we said that.

That's basically what you're seeing happen right now. We said that the abortion laws have distorted the First Amendment. Justice Alito in his draft opinion says, yes, cites one of our cases, distorted the First Amendment because all the rules change. But now you've got the President of the United States saying abort a child. Because they've lost the issue scientifically. You know, it used to be kind of a religious faith-based issue of when does life begin. Well, now these ultrasounds can show you very clearly at six weeks you get this heartbeat, at 15 weeks you've got a forming child. And that's why a lot of these laws are at 15 weeks. And he's saying the word child. Now, again, that is the key is they used to be so scared of even acknowledging that word because they wanted to use abortion distortion to make you think this is just a bunch of cells, it's nothing, it's just gobbledygook, and we're taking this out.

That's not accurate scientifically anymore. But they're actually admitting to saying, you know what, people should have a judgment about whether they want to kill a kid or not. That's how he's putting this in – that's how, again, casually, how casually they feel about this procedure and why they are willing to do anything politically.

If that means, again, getting rid of the legislative filibuster, if it means leaking opinions, draft opinions out from the court, potentially violating the law, utilizing the mainstream media to do so. By the way, word that Politico had informed the White House about this for days. So they had a time – this is also very important to note – they strategized this. The White House knew this was coming. That's the reports that are out, that this wasn't just some shock to everybody. So the fact that the protesters were there – and remember how Pat Mahoney said the first night was mostly pro-abortion protesters because they had a tip-off. They knew this was coming.

The White House also – the left knew it was coming because the Politico journalists were probably going to the White House saying if they had any comment or any statements like that. Again, so you saw that planned effort to already show up in the evening outside the U.S. Supreme Court to protest a draft. At that time we didn't even know it was an actual opinion, but then we got confirmed the next day that it was an actual legitimate draft that I guarantee you has changed from February to whenever the actual opinion comes out.

Yeah, but it's been three months. But here's the point. Someone stole a document from the Supreme Court of the United States violating all the rules. The left is taking this as an attempt to impact the midterm elections, as they've already said that, an attempt to pack the court possibly, an attempt to codify Roe in a federal law, which then would be subject to challenge, and we're looking at how that would all work. And then also, of course, maybe pressure one of the justices to change their vote. Now, could you imagine if a conservative – this came out of a conservative chamber, someone leaking an opinion? It's like I mentioned the other day. Could you imagine if Donald Trump had put a board of misinformation and disinformation? We'll talk about that later in the broadcast. The left would be going nuts, but instead what we're going to do instead – you know what?

They can act with all their emotion. And there are plenty of young people, pro-life young people there at the Supreme Court probably there today. We've got to have a strategy, and we do have a strategy that we have in place to counter this. We're looking at the litigation aspect if they codify Roe. We're going to work with members of Congress to defeat this attempt to codify Roe. And three, we're going to fight against any attempt at court packing if that's what they so choose. They might try to do that.

They're going to use everything they can. How do you think this plays politically? I think it plays disastrously politically for them. I think that this is not an issue that the American people are voting on. If they're talking about like the mom vote and how do you turn that vote away from the suburban vote from Republicans. Guess what?

Inflation, economy, do they have enough – can you afford to go on vacation? Those issues are still much bigger to folks when they actually vote. Now, in primaries these can have a bigger role because you can – again, a pro-life candidate in a Republican primary. Of course, you can kind of gin up support. It might excite their base a bit more. Well, certainly exciting Elizabeth Warren. But Elizabeth Warren is not a mainstream American independent voter. She's not the mom they're trying to target to convince don't vote Republican even though the economy is horrible, the country is going in the wrong direction, you don't like Joe Biden as President, the border, the war, the list goes on and on. This kind of messaging from Elizabeth Warren is not going to convince, again, the right – the voters that you've got to convince to somehow give Joe Biden more power legislatively.

Take a listen by 51. I am angry. Angry what's up? Angry and upset. The United States Congress can't keep Roe vs. Wade, the law of the land.

They just need to do it. I've never seen you so angry. You seem to be – This is what the Republicans have been working toward this day for decades. Shock. Half the country is totally pro-life.

Breaking news alert. A lot of people in the United States think that taking the life of an unborn child is wrong. And the Supreme Court maybe now, if just as a lead opinion becomes law, is going to say just that and now return it to the states. That's the other thing they try to ignore. I want to be more fair to the pro-life movement out there because it wasn't always the Republican Party for decades carrying the weight for life. It took a long time of activism to turn the Republican Party into the pro-life political party that it is today. But that was not a given decades ago.

It shifted over time because pro-life activists became more politically involved. And folks, this is why you have to be more politically involved. Because you see, you might get a court win. Might. You know, based on the draft opinion. And we're going to wait and hold on that. But before it even happens, they're trying to, again, use the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster to do anything possible to get this into federal law so that there's a federal right to what? Abortion on demand in all nine months? That's what they would hope for. We've got to be ready to fight back at the federal level, at the state level, and this is all before we even know the opinion of the court.

Alright, welcome back to Secular. One thing we are not going to let go. We're going to get back to the Roe vs. Wade issue, the legislative move issue. So if you've got questions about that, get your calls in now.

1-800-684-3110. But the Disinformation Governance Board that Secretary Mayorkas continues to try and defend, even today. And do we have the sound? He was before a Senate subcommittee hearing on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. And he gets asked about Nina Jankiewicz and what she's put out there, the partisan attacks.

Take a listen. When the department picked Ms. Jankiewicz, did it know that she had vouched for the veracity of the Steele dossier? Senator, let me repeat myself and add an additional fact.

One, we do not discuss internal hiring processes. Two, I was not aware of that fact. Three, as the Secretary of Homeland Security, I am responsible for the decisions of the department. And four, it is my understanding that Ms. Jankiewicz is a subject matter expert in the field in which she will be working on behalf of the department.

I can tell. So here's what we've got. We have a hyper-partisan person put in charge. Then we've got a fact sheet a day and a half ago.

So none of this was prepared before. So you realize this is all being done after the fact. They're playing catch-up on this, trying to save their Disinformation Governance Board. So they put out a fact sheet. They finally defined what they say disinformation is.

Disinformation is false info that is deliberately spread with the intent to deceive or mislead, but it can take many forms. So again, that's a pretty broad definition. That could mean anything, including protected spaces. It also says they're going to share this information with impacted people and organizations, including not just other federal agencies like, what, the DOJ and FBI, like they tried to go after parents, but also external stakeholders.

Those are the social media platforms. And while they say in their letter they have no operational authority or capability, remember a federal law in the US Code Section 230 protects these social media platforms for a liability on the contents that's posted. So do you think if they hear from the Disinformation Governance Board to moderate this content that they're going to ignore that?

Absolutely not. They're going to do exactly what the DHS wants them to do so that they can keep their immunity under federal law, which has been a big hot-button issue. So the fact that they say they have no teeth is totally inaccurate when you understand the bigger picture and, of course, read through. And by the way, the examples they use of other times they're combating this, you would not pick a 32-year-old hyper-partisan actor to be in charge of this. Combating disinformation from cartels and human smugglers, FEMA issues after Hurricane Sandy, cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and we were worried about cyber attacks by Russia. Why do we need this agency to do all of that work? In fact, all of that work was being done by DHS without the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board. They didn't need a disinformation board to do that work.

They already had the tools. That's why we found no authorization in federal code for this board. So we did look, as I said we would. We had our team of lawyers look to see where the authorizing regulatory framework would come from to put this board in place. And there is no published notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this new board. There was not even a press reliefs or even a mention of the Disinformation Governance Review Board on the DHS's website until May 1st when they published their online fact sheet. And remember this, when we challenged and won against the IRS for doing what, exactly what DHS is trying to do here, targeting, they did the same thing.

They shared with other agencies. They wanted to get DOJ and the FEC to go after one of these conservative groups to be able to shut them down. Now you would think that only the conservatives are concerned about this, shockingly, and I would say it's 99% conservatives, but Jake Tapper from CNN, he said something. Republicans are specifically criticizing the woman who is going to head this office, Nina Jankowicz, who if you look at her tweets, I have to say her reaction to Christopher Steele has been credulous, believing him, and her reaction to the Hunter Biden story. I mean, there does seem to be a partisan interpretation of various forms of information or disinformation.

A partisan, this is CNN, a partisan interpretation on various forms of information and disinformation by the person they have heading it up. So we're looking, look, we already sent the FOIA out. Freedom of Information Act request has been received by the Department of Homeland Security. They'll respond in about 18 more days. I'm sure we'll be in federal court with them on this.

We're looking at other challenges too. But they're now trying to de-escalate the impact of this, Jordan, which by the way, in part, because we and others have pointed out the ridiculous nature of the chilling effect this would have on freedom of speech. Yeah, I think what they want to do is they're trying to de-escalate, but they also then want you to turn the other way, and so it's to start ignoring it and say, well, you know, they don't have any teeth or it doesn't have any power. I think we have to all be committed to making sure this department does not exist any longer, it does not ever really get to fully function, that she is not in that position as a partisan actor, totally inappropriate. But, you know, as Senator Kennedy and other senators have said, the fact that we even have it is inappropriate. Taking out the bad actors who are at play here, we should not have a disinformation governance board in the United States of America where our first protected right is our free speech rights. And again, the idea that you can make statements, make statements and have opinions that other people disagree with and maybe strongly disagree with and maybe they strongly dislike, and you've got to hear things that you don't like in America. That's part of what makes America great, is that we have that right to challenge, to challenge views, to have opinions. And so we're not going to let up on this, though they are trying to kind of pull back, and I don't think the members of Congress will either.

So every time that Secretary Marrakis is going to be questioned before a committee, he's going to be asked about this disinformation committee. We need to continue the push to make it where it's politically, politically not viable for them to continue to try and get this enacted. Because if they do, this is going to be the federal government dictating to social media, content platforms, exactly what speech to allow and disallow.

Yeah, it's worse than the fairness doctrine in one sense, because the fairness doctrine was if you say one thing, you've got to let the other side speak, even in a private medium. Here's the problem that you have with all of this. The fact is, the disinformation group has been operating for months already. Do you think they should, and they're saying we're operating in full transparency, why is it that if it's operating in full transparency, and it's been operating for two months, you don't tell us until basically your executive director makes a mistake and says, whoops, the cat's out of the bag.

By the way, think about that phraseology for a second. The cat's out of the bag, like the secret's out, we are monitoring what people are saying and we're going to monitor disinformation and misinformation. By the way, they don't just say Russia and drug cartels.

No, no, they use that as examples. Other adversaries, other information to exploit vulnerable individuals in the American public. So again, when they start using vague terms, disinformation is, again, can take many forms, they say, so again, very vague definitions there. And again, they want to share, they're going to share this information with the organizations and external actors. That is the content provider, that is the content platforms who, again, have this balance they want with the federal government because they don't want to lose their protection for liability under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act. So if they tell something that's indecent, that's misinformation, that's disinformation, you need to stop that on your platform, guess what they're going to do? Listen to the disinformation board because they don't want to lose their protections under the federal law. We are not going to let this one go. They hope you will by putting out these documents that kind of make it look mundane.

But actually, when you read the document closely, you realize it's not mundane at all. We're going to continue to fight back for your free speech rights, for all Americans' free speech rights. Free speech rights, second half hour coming up, Secular. Become a member today. ACLJ.org Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Secular.

And now your host, Jordan Secular. So we are going to be fighting back against this DHS review board. I want to make that clear.

That's why we spent that last segment on it. We're not letting that go. We want to make it clear to you. We're monitoring it closely. Every time Secretary Mayorkas gets asked about it, any documents they put out, we've got our team on it, and we're going to keep updating you because we're fighting to end this disinformation governance board.

I think we've got the momentum right now. We just have to continue that momentum because big things happen in the middle of those kind of battles, like a leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion, which happened again. It's shocking to see now when you take a step back about all the coordination, the protesters, the pro-abortion protesters knew it was coming, the pro-abortion groups knew it was coming, the Democrats knew it was coming, and the White House knew it was coming. They all got pre-notice from Politico about this draft opinion.

So they had this coordinated effort ready to go. What are we going to do? We're going to have protesters at the Supreme Court that night.

What else are we going to do? We're going to start already talking about ending the legislative filibuster, and as early as next week, voting to make Roe versus Wade the legislative law of the land by eliminating the legislative filibuster, only requiring 51 votes. And remember when Elizabeth Warren blames Republicans for this? Republicans are some of the problem here in the U.S. Senate when it comes to Murkowski and Collins. I don't know that they're willing to go so far as get rid of the legislative filibuster, but they are willing to vote yes on codifying, and that means making Roe federal law. They are willing to vote yes. In fact, Susan Collins is a sponsor of legislation that would do that. So, Thad Bennett is going to break down for us how this could all work. We cannot just take for granted that this will get defeated, because we've seen a mansion and cinema type say no, they want to keep the legislative filibuster. That's true, but we've got new actors on this issue, including a couple of Republicans. That's exactly right.

So it makes it much more complicated. Let's go ahead and take a call even in this first segment here for the second half hour. Sure, let's go to Tamara in Indiana on Line 1. Hey, Tamara. Hey, guys. So, you know, if we really want to go with what this information board is saying, Elizabeth Warren and Joy Behar probably ought to be first on their list.

I say that somewhat tongue in cheek. But really, I am so disgusted at the politicians, elected officials who are talking about the Supreme Court leak on the merit of what was leaked, but not the fact that it was actually leaked. Because this is like just, it's monumental. Some of them are celebrating that the person that leaked this is like an American hero for their bravery instead of being the criminal or at least violating the rules of ethics of the Supreme Court and your oath of office as an officer of the court to not do exactly what this person did.

A huge breach. I call it an institutional attack inside the Supreme Court. And I'm sure that's how John Roberts is viewing it, too. Yeah, I mean, President Biden didn't condemn it. No, didn't say, you know, I disagree with this draft opinion, but also I strongly disagree with the fact that we got leaked opinions out of the court. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Republican there, he's going out and saying the leaker shouldn't be found out and they shouldn't be punished. They're going to make a hero or they're going to try anyways to make a hero out of whoever did this.

But ultimately, what you're seeing is a glossing over from the left about that whole fact. They don't care about leaks. They are the party of leaks.

We're going to talk to Rick Grenell. He's going to be joining us because, as you know, acting director of national intelligence talking about leaking is an issue. The Supreme Court was one of the last institutions that did not have a serious problem. There were some issues. They've had leaks before the Roe vs. Wade initial. The holding had leaked out, not the actual opinion. This is the first time ever in history they know that an opinion has been released before the final opinion has been released. It's not just a, oh, I think this is how they're going to vote or this is how it might come down and you have to trust a journalist. This is the actual draft before the final opinion is out. So it is very different.

But again, you can't just take that wrong. They're seizing on this to try and quickly take Roe and make abortion the law of the land through the legislative process. And we're going to get into how they're going to try and do that. Right, we come back. So you don't want to miss this because we have to fight back. Go to ACLJ.org, stay educated, and be ready for battle. The battle has begun, folks. Be right back.

Welcome back to Secchia. I know some of you got questions about the disinformation board. We're going to get to that in a minute, too. But I want to start off first with Than Bennett, our director of government affairs. I want him to walk through exactly what the Democrats are planning to do. Now, remember, they're doing this all based off a draft opinion that was leaked from the Supreme Court. They're going to try and preemptively get out ahead of the actual court opinion and make abortion, the right to abortion, a codified law at the federal level. Now, to do that, they've got to jump through some hurdles, but it is a different battle than some of the previous hurdles with the filibuster because there are a couple Republicans that would be interested in joining, at least on the codifying abortion as law. So you've got that, but they've also got a couple Democrats who aren't supportive of ending the legislative filibuster. So let's go to Than Bennett, Washington, D.C. Than.

Let's walk through. I mean, they're planning on beginning this process next week. Yeah, Jordan, there are really, I would say, I would kind of put it in three different buckets, three overlapping issues here. The first, as you rightly described, is the effort to codify Roe v. Wade. There are two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, that would be willing to vote with Democrats on that issue. Now, Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, opposes it.

So sort of in that universe, Jordan, you have 51 votes in favor of that. However, two things, the next two things I would bring up, the bill that they're going to put forward next week actually isn't just a codification of Roe. It's also an elimination of every pro-life restriction that's already on the books in the states. And on that issue, it looks like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are probably OK. However, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are the main sponsors of a narrower bill that still codifies Roe v. Wade. So what I'm concerned about, Jordan, is maybe they will try to pull a sleight of hand here and maybe instead of putting up the same bill that they've already put up and that they've already failed, they might put up a bill that looks like the one that those two Republicans sponsored and then ask them if they might be willing to provide the two votes to nuke the filibuster that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema won't give them.

That sounds like a lot, Jordan, but I want to boil it down just to this. Yes, they do have to get to 50 votes twice. They have to get it to nuke the filibuster and they have to get it to codify Roe.

But Jordan, they don't have to use the same mix of 50 votes to get to those two. They could use a couple of Republicans to clear one hurdle and then use all Democrats to clear the next one. If they did not have the legislative filibuster right now, they have the votes in the U.S. Senate to codify Roe.

They do. They have the votes to codify Roe. In fact, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are the sponsors of a bill that would do that. Now, I do want to clarify, Jordan, the bill that the Senate has already voted on in the past is a much more expansive bill. That's the bill that has already passed the House with 218 votes.

But you're right, they do have the votes to codify Roe if the filibuster was gone. You know, the saboteur who did this, I want to be really clear on this. The saboteur who did this at the Supreme Court, this is exactly what he or she was hoping would happen. Steal the opinion, leak it to your friend at the press, put it out there that this is – then have the court having to say, yes, this is Alito's first draft. It's the real opinion of at least the one that's being circulated.

Doesn't say that it's the one that's going to be the final opinion, but you do all of that. So the saboteur is getting what he wants or she wants by having this bill, this legislation, being put forward. Then, number two, they're going to try to federalize the right to abortion. Now, we've got lawyers working against that now, trying to figure out the angles on that.

But we could be looking at a clash that is unreal. But understand something, the saboteur has gotten what they wanted. They haven't gotten court packing yet, Jordan, but that's already being discussed. They haven't gotten the legislation through yet, but it's being introduced. They are trying to intimidate justices of the Supreme Court. That's not going to work, but you know they're up to no good. But it's happening as a strength the intimidation attempt is on. This is, again, I think then what I wanted to just boil down to is that because this battle is next week. This battle is not after the court opinion.

Ultimately, the final opinion comes out, which they don't even know what it will be yet. But they are trying to utilize this draft, authenticated draft, as a reason to maybe get a couple of sinners to act in a way they would not normally act. And vote in a way they wouldn't normally vote.

100 percent, Jordan. It's purely a political play. They are trying to take the news of the day and jam their preferred policy preference on the abortion issue down the throats of the American people. And look, and make it federal.

I want to really emphasize this, Jordan. I mean, codification of Roe, putting it into statute would be bad enough. But as of now, the bill that Leader Schumer is going to put on the floor of the Senate, it's way worse than that, Jordan. Yes, it codifies Roe, which is a terrible, terrible move. But it also says things like making sure that an abortion clinic has reasonable health and safety standards for women. Jordan, that's even something that states would not be allowed to do on this. So it would centralize all of these decision-making processes. And quite frankly, it would make abortions go up, certainly.

It would also make them decidedly less safe for women, Jordan. That's what will be on the floor of the United States Senate unless Leader Schumer changes his mind. All right, so we're going to be watching this very closely, very carefully. They say court packing is the second issue they'll look to. So they're going to try to do it legislatively. They've got to move to court packing. Schumer said, you know, first I'm starting with the legislation.

So that's where they're going to start first. Also on the Disinformation Review Board, we've got a lot of calls coming in about it. Let me go to Julie in Iowa online, too. Hey, Julie.

Hi, guys. I just have one thing that's very irritating to me, this whole disinformation, misinformation. Because to me, disinformation means a lie. That's what disinformation is, a lie. And since when does the government have the right to tell anybody they're not allowed to lie? Only if you were in court.

You can get trouble for lying to law enforcement officials, obviously. But they determine they don't define it this way. It doesn't have to be a lie. No, it's an opinion. Just your opinion. Your opinion can be misinformation. And, you know, people shift opinions. I have opinions that change over time based off the information you learn and based off your age and based off your life experience. But you still have opinions. And that's part of free speech, is the ability to – you know, some of those protesters who are out there who are 20 years old today might have a very different opinion on the issue of abortion 20 years from now.

But they still have the right to have their opinion today and their opinion 20 years from now, regardless if they're on the pro-abortion side or the pro-life side. And that is – that's my issue with it, is that it gets – it's way more than lying, which, by the way, they still shouldn't be in that game. But it is so much more broad than that.

Yeah. So, Fan, there's – obviously there's a number of senators who have spoken out against this. The DHS puts out a fact sheet, which to me doesn't help really at all.

This is all after the fact that they got caught. But we do have a board of governance of misinformation and disinformation. We've researched that there is no published notice of proposed rulemaking on this. There is not – it was not even a press release or a mention of the disinformation governance board on the DHS website until last night at 5 p.m. when the DHS published its online fact sheet.

What is the sense on Capitol Hill right now, especially within the Senate? Yeah, quite a bit of outrage, Jay, in the fact that you noted that this board has been operating before really anybody knew about it. That's one of the things, Jay, that we really want to get at, this Freedom of Information Act.

What actions did you take before this came to light? That was one of the questions that Secretary Mayorkas was really pushed at today in a Senate hearing. By the way, Jay, I think maybe the most telling thing of all of this is that the person in charge of this is actually one of the worst disseminators of disinformation that you can possibly find.

I mean, you know, the Hunter Biden laptop, the Steele dossier, all of those are things that she put forward. So, you know, by the very definition in this fact sheet you're talking about, she would be disqualified from leading this board. But very quickly, Jay, I think the Senate action that we need to focus in the most on is a bill that's being put forward by Senator Tom Cotton. It's got a number of co-sponsors, Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, Jim Risch. It would defund this board and say that any other board like this may not be set up inside the Department of Homeland Security.

Jay, I don't think it's going to get any Democratic support, but we ought to put pressure behind it until the shame for setting this up causes the secretary or, quite frankly, the President to take this board down. You know, again, I want to go to the phones. 1-800-684-3110. Let me go to Bill in Wyoming on Live 5. Hey, Bill.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. I got to confess, I'm really nervous about the leadership that Mayorkas is demonstrating. Because it seems to me every time I listen to him, he either doesn't know what he's doing or he knows what he's doing, but he doesn't want to talk about it.

Am I wrong or what? He knows what he's doing. He knows who Nina Jacobowitz is. He knows who he's put in place there. He knows what this board's doing.

He's acting surprised. And, you know, again, so he's being hit by these questions from senators. Did you know she said this?

Did you know she said that? And then he kind of dances around that. But, again, he knows exactly.

No more. Do not give them the idea that they don't know what they're doing, they're dumb, they don't have the issue. They know exactly what they are doing.

And he's peddling disinformation, in a sense, by acting like he doesn't know about what the disinformation board does. So it's all a government game. But we have to make sure you understand, you are up against who we're fighting. They're smart.

They're tough. They have planned it out. This is not by accident a disinformation governance board. It is not by accident that they had protesters there and barricades ready to go with the court and that they already had legislation ready to go based off a leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court.

These aren't accidents. These are preplanned political attacks. Political attacks on your free speech rights, political attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court, political attacks on the life of the unborn child.

The list goes on and on. We come back. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us to talk about the problem with these leaks that have been plaguing the federal government and causing serious harm to the U.S. government. Join our petition. Stand for Life. That petition is growing. ACLJ.org. Sign it.

We'll be right back. You know, when we're talking about leaks and leaks from the highest level of our federal government, leaks from whether it's the executive branch, legislative branch, but especially the judicial branch. You know, we're reaching kind of a new threshold of political leaking, that there's a justification in the D.C. bubble to leak even documents, court and legal documents that have for so long we've kept sacred because they are those court legal documents, whether we agree with opinions or not. It's occasionally happened throughout history out of the Supreme Court, never at this level.

Usually it was private use to benefit yourself financially. Oh, the court's coming down with this decision, so let's buy this stock or invest in this business. Or maybe it was the opinion's going to be this broadly, but you didn't get the actual draft opinion and you didn't have time then to influence the court and try to pass legislation.

But I think an expert on this, obviously our senior advisor for foreign policy and national security, Rick Rinnell, was the acting director of national intelligence. Rick, you talk a lot about the problems with leaks. This one goes to even like a new level because it is a legal document that has been leaked for political purposes to try and influence the judicial branch of the United States. You know, it's really frustrating.

It's sad. I think it's an attack on our public service. You know, we expect bureaucrats and people who are paid by the U.S. government or by government agencies to be of service to the public and not to have their own personal agenda. But I think you have to blame the media here for over the last 20 years abandoning the idea of public service or fair coverage to immediately evolve into anything goes as long as your agenda is furthered. And whoever leaked this document had an agenda and decided to abandon public service.

They're being paid by U.S. taxpayers, but they're ignoring U.S. taxpayers. And I think that this is a real problem. We've got to get back to bureaucrats, public servants who work for the people, not for the agenda. And when we find these people, they need to be fired. We need to weed them out. And I will appeal to anyone listening to us that works in government or is paid by taxpayers out your colleagues.

Police yourself. Let's figure out who are the bad apples and get rid of them because you're losing your credibility with the American people. And this is where the politicians, the political divide, Rick, I mean, it's one thing, again, they can have all their opinions they want about the leaked document, but we didn't see Joe Biden say this leak is wrong.

We didn't see any Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or any Democrat senators or members of Congress say that the leak was wrong. They didn't start with it's wrong that a court document like this was leaked. They went right to the politics of it.

The agenda that's and that's the problem is, is that they're furthering the agenda, they're pushing this idea that the means justifies the the end and are the ends justifies the means. And so what we have to be able to do is be very clear that there are consequences for this. And I think that if we had a big high profile firing, someone lost their law license, if they're a Supreme Court clerk, for instance, and and they just immediately, you know, they lost the trust of the public.

Then I think you would see people get nervous. Now, you can't blame the media for wanting to have these documents. That's their job. But we prosecute the leakers.

Yeah. And I think what we're seeing is that they already want this leaker to be celebrated. They're going to try and protect and celebrate this leaker, make them a hero of of the left. So, again, we're following it very closely.

Obviously, this is now a full scale war for life going on. Legislatively, they're trying to push through. We see the intimidation on the justices. They're trying to push through and we haven't even gotten a final opinion yet. You know, most people are predicting that would be coming out late June, maybe early July at the latest.

Maybe it comes out sooner now. And they are trying to create this outrage in the country. We're on it at the ACLJ. But you see now this leak issue is getting into all segments of the government. Everything is becoming hyper politicized.

But I want to go to one other issue. I know people are following closely in our country and it's whether or not we're getting closer and closer into combat in Ukraine. And we had a Congressman Adam Kinzinger has put forward, Rick, an AUMF, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Ukraine that he wants Congress to pass to give Joe Biden the green light to send in U.S. troops. You know, I'm always amazed that we have so many members of Congress that are trying to always beef up the military without beefing up the State Department or the diplomatic peaceful options. Why aren't we seeing a diplomatic surge? Why aren't we having, you know, our secretary of state living in Russia trying to solve these problems? Now, I know we can all say, oh, Putin is going to do his own thing, but we're not even trying. We're not even trying to put pressure diplomatically. I just think that we've given this up. You know, Macron has gone over there one time and then we sent in the U.N. secretary general.

I mean, these people are never going to be able to negotiate a solution. And so I think we got to blame Joe Biden and Secretary of State Lincoln. Lincoln has his own plane. He can go to Moscow. He can knock on the door.

He can be there. I don't understand why the State Department is not much more aggressive. But when you immediately talk about use of military force, American soldiers in Ukraine, I think that it's a real problem. First of all, you're teaching the Europeans to get out of the way and that the Americans are always going to be there. That's the opposite of America first. We tried to get our allies to do more and to pay their fair share, and they need to police their own area.

I've said this before. But, you know, when we tried to remove all the troops and we were pretty successful in getting rid of the troops in Somalia, it was because we told Kenya, hey, you should police your own neighborhood and not expect the Americans to do this every time. And so I think we've got to make more progress there, certainly with when it comes to Ukraine. But I'll finish with this, Jordan, is that we shouldn't be talking about expanding NATO membership when the current NATO members aren't paying their fair share.

Yeah, I mean, now you've got these countries like Finland and Norway trying to get into NATO, which we also know is a factor that Vladimir Putin is using to justify these aggressions. So it's not, again, good or bad, it seems like, my last question for you, Rick, it's like you said, it seems like there's just no strategy, no diplomatic strategy. And so the only way they've got is to throw more missiles at it, throw more bombs at it, and maybe throw U.S. troops into it.

Well, that's the official Washington way. That's their problem, is that they always push aside the State Department and they rush in with just military options. We ask, you know, Adam Kinzinger is somebody who has asked the Defense Department to think about winning hearts and minds. That's not the job of the Department of Defense. I want to have a credible threat of military action, so a strong Department of Defense.

But the options in the lead up to war are plenty, and we're not using them, and certainly we've got to stop mocking diplomats who are tough, send in the tough diplomats and try to avoid war. Rick, I always appreciate your insight both on the leaking of the issue there and the polarization, even now we're seeing the judicial branch and also this move by Kinzinger to try and give Biden the authority to send U.S. troops into war against Russia. But folks, we've got a massive battle. The battle we thought was maybe coming when the opinion came out, right? So everybody was preparing for that and we were prepared for it at the ACLJ. Now, the battle has begun and they're going to try and push it next week. So we need you to sign our petition to defeat abortion. It is growing by the thousands as we speak and protect the opinion to overturn Roe vs. Wade at ACLJ.org.