A Wild Week in Washington

This is Logan Sekulow with a special episode of Sekulow, featuring the most wild week of our broadcast, keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments. Recall 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. What a wild week it has been. Earlier in this week, we started talking about what was coming out, which was what has been dubbed the Ministry of Truth, the Orwellian style group coming out of the government, actually the Disinformation Governance Board, which we thought, okay, that's going to carry our week. We're going to talk about this, the fact that the government is putting together a group of people that are going to censor speech and make sure that you're not spreading out what they deem misinformation, disinformation, partial truths, half-truths. But no, that's not what happened. That didn't end up being the full lead of the week. No, because what happened, as we all know, is in the first time in really our lifetime in terms of something of this magnitude, a Supreme Court decision was leaked to the press, a draft decision ahead of time, a draft that's a couple months old, but on maybe the most landmark case in our, again, in our lifetime.

I think there's no way to really go around that. I mean, people have been talking about Roe versus Wade and abortion rights and healthcare rights, and the fight has gone on for decades. And now a leaked decision has come out and the world erupted, as you would expect, because it was clearly intended to subvert the actual decision, whether it was to sway a decision, whether that was to keep the decision, in place.

We don't know. We don't know a ton yet about who leaked it, why they leaked it, but we know that this happened and it caused thousands of people to protest on both sides of the aisle when it comes to people that are pro-life activists, like we are here at the organization, or if you are a pro-choice activist. What I did find interesting, you had someone like Elizabeth Warren out there saying, they finally did it. They've been working at this for decades, you know, to get this to happen.

Yeah, no kidding. We've been working at it for decades. It's been a part of the organization for decades.

And I never thought, honestly, we'd live to see the day where this kind of thing can happen. Now, they are trying their best to, you know, the new word of the week that we all had to learn, codify, codify Roe. And we've all gone through all of that. So we have the leak. We have the disinformation misinformation ministry of truth.

We have President Biden saying that the MAGA group is the most extreme of all time, but not all time, maybe just of right now. There's been so much. We've had a petition going on about the decision that happened or the draft decision that came out.

And that petition has had not only 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, over 60,000 people have signed that petition. And that is not all. And this discussion went deep.

So what we're going to do is for the remainder of the broadcast, we're going to look back at the week that was, if you will, and show you some of the best highlights of everything that's happened this week. We're going to look at some people's legal minds. Some people that, you know, discuss all of these topics as well as, you know, one thing that we've really harped on here at the organization for the last couple of years is education and children's education.

I mean, you've heard that in the news a lot. What's your, what are your kids learning? Well, we created a series here a couple years ago called Bald Beagle. Yes, that's right.

Beagle with a B. And it's a kids YouTube channel. Now it's also a kids rumble channel that goes in to do fun puppet cartoon shorts that are made specifically to educate your kids on American history. And we have a brand new one that came out just this week about Alan Shepard, the first American in space.

So you're going to hear a little bit more about that later because that just celebrated a big anniversary yesterday. It's a great video. Our team here is amazing.

They've done an awesome job. It's something you should definitely send to your kids, your grandkids, using the classroom. We have people sending in video clips of their kids actually watching this in schools, which is awesome.

It's like we did it to supplement the schools, but it's awesome to see some schools have taken it in. So we're going to discuss that and so much more. And again, we encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ and sign that petition. It's still going right now. That is at ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org right now. Sign that petition. Look at the amazing content we've put out just this week. Again, we'll be right back with more on Sekulow.

We appreciate all of you for supporting us, appreciate everyone who has tuned in this week, and we'll see you next week. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls on this too.

1-800-684-31. Tim, because one of my top concerns of this entire effort is, and of course we've got our FOIA in to learn more about this group. We filed immediately on Friday with the Department of Homeland Security.

If they don't respond in about 20 days, which is about 30 calendar days, we're going to take them to court in June. And so we're going to get this information. But it's also the idea that once the government announces something like this, when they announce a disinformation government's board that's going to be reviewing all of this speech, it in a sense scares people. It's chilling of the speech. So there's a doctrine of the First Amendment.

You start saying, maybe I won't write, maybe I won't go to that political rally, maybe I won't put the sign in my yard, maybe I won't put the… This thing on my social media platform. So the doctrine is the First Amendment prohibits the chilling of free speech. That is activities taken by a government actor designed to limit or basically scare people, chill, stop First Amendment activity because you think you might be violating a law. Now here it's particularly onerous because the agency that's been tasked with working this through is the Department of Homeland Security, which is a law enforcement mechanism, a law enforcement agency. And the idea that a law enforcement agency now has a board of governance with misinformation and disinformation is chilling. The existence of the board itself is chilling to free speech. Now the question becomes here, and we're looking at this right now, we would like to challenge this head on. This thing needs to not come into existence. You know what the problem is? It's already been in existence, folks, for two months. It's just now it's out publicly. And, you know, Mayorkas says, oh, well, and we have the bite again where he says, oh, I could have rolled it out better.

Yeah, let's play that one again. I mean, this is… This week we learned the DHS's disinformation governance board was coming out and we saw media concerns about free speech. You understand some of this pushback? Oh, there's no question, Brett, that we could have done a better job in communicating what it does.

Really? I don't even know if they know what it does. That's the scary part of all this. I think they know exactly what it does. It's going to put a ton of pressure on social media companies to clamp down even harder. They don't like the truth social launch. They don't like that Twitter's been bought by Elon Musk. I think they rushed up their announcement because of that. They don't like Fox News. They don't like conservative talk radio. But especially where the pressure can be put on is the social media companies because they opened the door to content moderation. That's their fault. They opened the door to say, let's bring in these outside groups, outside organizations to moderate our own content.

And we've gone through that process before at the ACLJ. Now there's going to be a government agency helping them put more restrictions on the content. That means more shadow banning. That means more Facebook jail. That means more getting kicked off the platform because of opinions.

And this is the difference. If you're going to have to cartel information. Which they could do by the way without this. You don't need a disinformation governance board. You need a subpoena and a search warrant. Specifically Russia.

You should be utilizing the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. You don't need to announce a board. You don't need to tell Russia that you're doing it. That's why I don't believe either of those lines. Because you don't tell the cartels what you're going to do. You don't tell the Russians what you're going to do. And by the way, here Russia, target this agency now and target these individuals who are leading this agency now.

No, it's a game. He came up with talking points for this because he knew he was going to have to go on Fox News and answer the question. Yeah, and he did a very poor job of doing it. Now it was interesting, Brett Barrett brought up the Steele dossier because that was foreign information aimed at the former President. Listen to this one, number 21.

Was the Steele dossier disinformation? It's not for me to opine on that, Brett. You know Americans in general. I'm going to stop right there. It's not for me to opine.

Well, but wait a minute. I thought you have a board of governance that's for misinformation and disinformation. Now here's the rest of his answer. Just censorship. And that's exactly why we set up this working group to make sure that our work to address a real threat to the homeland, the threat posed by Russian disinformation, the threat posed by Chinese disinformation, by Iranian disinformation, the work that we do does not infringe on people's right of free speech. But you implicated a person to head up the organization that has said the misinformation isn't – they're not – she wasn't talking about Russia and Iran. She was talking about right-wing outlets. Right.

I mean, this is the – I will play it for you again so you understand. This is what Nina, the executive director of your new disinformation governance board that we're paying for their taxpayer dollars, said is the biggest problem by two. Most of the disinformation that we've seen, this highly emotionally manipulative content, is coming from the right. If you look at the top 10 most engaged with posts on Facebook or Twitter on a given day, they are usually posts that are coming from the right.

And that's because the right does deal on this highly emotional rhetoric. She was a Wilson fellow on misinformation and disinformation at the Woodrow Wilson Center. I mean, I just think about this from – this is the person they put in charge of it, 32 years old.

I don't know if she's a lawyer or not. Maybe. I don't know. I do know this, that the potential chilling of free speech here is drastic. So we're not just talking about it on this broadcast. We have taken action. I'm putting it up on the screen right now again. This is the Freedom of Information Act request that we went out on the air with on – we announced it Friday. We sent it out Friday. We are looking at taking direct legal action in addition to this, which the FOIA will end up, I suspect, in court because they're going to either not want to produce documents or what they produce is not going to result in – this is the problem – it's not going to result in the real information.

Right. I mean, we want to look at who are the DHS officials involved in establishing this board other than Mayorkas and the other name people. Were members of Congress involved?

Because we've seen a lot of Democrats pushing for this. Non-government entities, left-leaning groups, were they involved? How involved was the White House staff? Again, we were even looking for certain words, election, candidate, misinformation, abortion, reproductive freedom, religion, Christian, patriot, conservative, Twitter, Musk, free speech, speech, Constitution, First Amendment, because again – We know the words because the IRS – remember with the IRA, they'd be on the lookout list within their agency.

That's the same kind of problem here, except DHS has even more power. They'd be on the lookout list, as Jordan just listed, for specific words and phrases. So we want to know that too. And we want to know their definition of disinformation. How are they going to define what disinformation is? All we've heard is talking points about what it's not and who it's supposed to be targeted at, but of course none of that makes any sense. I want to take your phone calls on this at 1-800-684-3110. Join the broadcast.

That's 1-800-684-3110. It is an attack on our free speech rights. It is an attack that we've really not seen before at this level because – And do you trust the Biden administration?

Of all people – Could you imagine if Donald Trump did this, they'd be screaming – first of all, he wouldn't have. It was really Barack Obama in a speech about a month ago who called for this. So Barack Obama, former President, saying we need more content moderators on social media.

And guess what the Biden administration does? They listen to Barack Obama and they say, you know what, we're going to put in an official office of content moderation. This, to me, is what's scary here is because people want to have opinions. And you should be able to have opinions in this country without being demonized or criminalized or have the threat or fear of an agency like the Department of Homeland Security, a law enforcement agency, coming after you because they don't like your opinion. This is a country founded on radical opinions. Opinions that are outside the norm are okay. Opinions that – again, it's opinion.

And then, of course, people have a tough time now. Who defines facts and truth now is also a game because it really depends on what media source you go to to define what is a fact or what is absolutely true. But sometimes in many situations, like in war, it's hard to get truth because it's a messy situation, so you get as best information as you can.

But sometimes in that best information comes disinformation from one of the two parties in the conflict. You know, I'm looking at some of the posts, the comments that are coming in, and here's what's interesting. A lot of people think – and I mean, I can understand why you think this. This can't possibly be real. I mean, is this possibly – and I think it was one of the senators – I don't know if it was Josh Hawley or one of the other ones – who wrote a letter or Tom Cotton saying, I thought this was not real when I heard about it.

And some of you are saying the same thing. Could this possibly be real? Well, not only is it real, it's been in existence for two months, and they only leaked it out because it was about to get out.

So that's exactly why they leaked it out. But you have to understand, when you've got this kind of – Jordan set the stage on this. Chilling of free speech here can be dramatic if you let this stand. Yes, it can, because, again, the average person who hears about this – and I'm not talking about to even most of you listening to this broadcast or watching this broadcast – the average folks out there who, you know, it gets towards election time and they decide to say something online or start talking to their friends about who they're going to vote for, maybe put the yard sign up or the bumper sticker on their car, maybe attend an event, this makes them think twice. Because they know right now the party in charge, if they're conservative, doesn't like those events and is looking for a way to demonize that speech and criminalize that speech and block that speech from ever seeing the light of day.

So you can see this chilling effect it might have on just average folks who, when it gets close to election time, want to have an opinion on the candidates they choose, the issues they care about. Support our work at ACLJ.org, but I want to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110, it's 2022, and this is happening in the United States of America. Give us your call, 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Secular.

We are taking your phone calls to a lot of those to get to, 1-800-684-3110. Now we know it's an authentic draft of a Supreme Court. It was a circulated draft.

It's not the final opinion of the court, and so the Chief Justice has made that clear. There is a law enforcement investigation going on now to find out who was the source of this to Politico. I will note that Politico brought in a national security reporter to handle this article, which would be outside of their beat, but would be normal in a situation where they were dealing with almost classified documents.

So they knew what they were getting into as well. This is a strategy from the left to try to influence campaign and then, of course, codify Roe. Yeah, so I'm going to quickly go back to Pat Mahoney, who was just at the protest.

He's a client of ours. Pat, again, I want you to focus on the one thing here that I think is important for our audience to say. This is obviously a tremendous breach of security, an attack on the institution of the Supreme Court. I hope this opinion, which has now been authenticated by Justice Alito, actually becomes the majority opinion of the court. It will be tremendous. What a victory that will be for the pro-life community. But you said there are young people out there today in droves. That is encouraging.

Tell us about that. It was very encouraging. In fact, Jay, we had a part news conference, part rally, part prayer, and I actually, I felt my 68 years of age, I was by at least 40 years the oldest person out there. The kind of energy that we are seeing, and I looked over at the pro-choice side, and you could tell they were a little taken back, and Jay, I've been at Supreme Court cases for over 35 years on abortion-related issues, many with you.

This was one of the first times where our crowd was much younger than their crowd. It was really an extraordinary moment. No, thank you. I appreciate you calling in, Pat.

Thank you. That, to me, is the encouraging thing. The other thing that's encouraging, of course, is if Justice Alito opinions hold, and I say if because justices can change, a majority opinion can become the dissent.

That has happened in cases. But I read the entire opinion yesterday, and it's gratifying on a couple of different levels. Number one, it's a complete repudiation of Roe and Casey, clearly. Another point, and whether it stays in the opinion or not, who knows, is right in the beginning of the opinion, under actually Section 1A, which is the first legal substantive, it says the constitutional analysis must begin with the language of the instrument, talking about the Constitution. Then it said there's no constitutional recognized right to abortion. And then the court acknowledges on the next page that there is a theory, though, that has been bantered about by the courts where the right to abortion has to exist because if not, it's discrimination against women. And then this is what the court said, and this is very gratifying to us. I hope it stays in.

You never know. The regulation of a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny unless the regulation is a mere pretext designed to affect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or other. And as this court has stated, the goal of preventing abortion does not constitute invidiously discriminatory animus against women, see Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, which I argued twice, once in 91 and once in 92. Then the court went on to say later that the Constitution's First Amendment jurisprudence has also been disrupted by the Roe v. Wade decision. And it talks about there has been, the court has, and it says it's flouted ordinary rules on, for instance, and they have distorted the First Amendment doctrines. And the case they cited was Hill v. Colorado. They cited the dissent of Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy. That was another case that I argued.

So there's a, whether it'll stay in there or not, I don't know. But the fact that those cases serve as a basis for what is now going to be the most historic opinion the Supreme Court has ever issued is significant. Cece, you've had a chance to read the highlights. A hundred page opinion here.

What's your sense? I think it's a great opinion, again, if it stands. And it's great that it goes through, you know, the fact that abortion was not part of our history. And it keeps hitting the point that abortion is not found in the text of the Constitution, which we have argued all along. It says that Roe's decision was on a collision course with the Constitution from the very beginning, because the Constitution unequivocally leaves the question of abortion to the people. So, and that Roe and Casey didn't end the debate, and so they are trying to end the debate with this decision.

And I think, you know, on the last— Send the debate back to the states is what they want to do. And I think one of the most important decisions or statements was that political or public response can't influence this decision. So, you know, if this was a try from the left to try and influence some justices to change their vote, in the opinion itself says, you know, the public or political response to this opinion cannot influence what the decision is. Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, and Casey perpetrated its errors.

Then the court says, we therefore hold that the Constitution—if this becomes the opinion—we therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives. But what you have happening right now is an attack on our representative constitutional republic. Yeah, I mean, this is an attack on one of the co-equal branches of government, and it's the judiciary, which, unlike other branches, but, you know, its enforcement arm is based off the fact that we accept their opinions and we follow their orders, like them or not. That's what gives the court legitimacy on top of being one of those co-equal branches of government. When you start playing politics with the court, like it's legislation leaking or draft legislation leaking, and even the leaks we saw at the White House and places like that, if this becomes the norm for court operations as well, this is not good for our country, but it plays into hyper-partisanship inside the court. The entire legal process in our country will become a political process, even more so than it already is today. So I think that everyone needs to understand one thing clearly here. The left, they're not giving up on losing this case.

No, no, no. This might have been a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt, but they convinced somebody to do it, put their career in jeopardy, and certainly potentially even go to jail because they thought there was an opportunity. They felt like there's somebody on that court that might be, all they need is one that they can influence enough with this public campaign of your life is going to be miserable, might even be in jeopardy because of your decision here.

And that is very dangerous, Cece, for the court as an institution. And I want to say this is a draft opinion. They've authenticated that it's a draft opinion of Justice Alito.

We think we know what the lineup is, 5-3-1, which is a win if it holds. But there is unbelievable pressure they're trying to put on the justice. I think it personally backfires, but that's my view. I would think so too, and I would also think that anybody who has ever wanted to be on the Supreme Court at any point in their life maybe thought that at some point this case would come across their desk. Of course.

So I hope that they already have the resolute, you know, their decision of this is how I'm going to rule and I'm going to stand by it. They stand by the courage of their convictions and by the Constitution. And let's not forget November. Joe Biden is looking for anything to distract from the economy. Anything to distract from what's happened in Ukraine.

Anything to distract from inflation. I mean, the list goes on and on. All these attacks. Remember yesterday, talking about the DHS Governance Board. All those things that have been rolled out in a horrendous way and handled so poorly. The border, you know, the list goes on and on. So if you can get your base, that's all he's focused on now, your base to at least get excited and angry, then they think they might have some political chance.

You know, they know they're not going to win over conservatives with this position, but they're having trouble even getting their base in support. We come back, we're going to take a lot of your phone calls. People that hold on, we're going to get right to them. Share this with your friends and family if you're watching the broadcast and give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. Find out more about the ACLJ, as always, at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back, second half hour. Become a member today. ACLJ.org. I'm talking about freedom. I'm talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. So I have a feeling many of you listed this broadcast, voted for President Trump, maybe twice for President of the United States. Well, guess what? If you did, and if you supported any of his candidates that he's endorsed, or if you even like his judicial nominees who are now in the U.S. Supreme Court, President Biden believes that you are part of the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history. The most extreme political organization that's existed in American history.

When the President of the United States, take out that he's a politician also, but when the President of the United States makes that comment about so many millions of Americans, he is telling his government to target them. Because if he honestly believes that, whether it's about politics or not, if they're that extreme, well certainly, you got to eradicate that. You got to eradicate that political movement. You've got to make it where people are afraid to say that they support Donald Trump, or they support America First, or they support these other candidates that he's endorsed. You say, again, you start people, this is that whole idea of how do you chill out speech.

One is to, of course, moderate all the content and take it down. But the other is just to silence it. So where you're going to have to make decisions like, do I want to say this or will my job be in jeopardy? Or if I post this, is the FBI coming after me?

Or the IRS? That's their idea. And signaled by the President. Signaled by the President of the United States, telling these agencies, and the disinformation board is just the latest example of how they are putting people in place to put that pressure on. That board, what it appears to be doing, and it appears its purpose will be, is to pressure social media and content platforms to limit or remove conservative speech. And they're just using MAGA to describe Americans who say America First is a good idea. Maybe I don't support Joe Biden's Inflation America. But this idea, again, to demonize your political opponents this way, and that is what they're doing. It's not to say don't vote for them because I strongly disagree with their views. It is the demonization, and then we see the weaponization of these various agencies of our government.

And I want to hear from folks. How concerned are you about this? Because we are in election season right now in the midterms, and this is all in prep for the big election. So they're testing different messages now because he's got to run for reelection ultimately once those elections are over. But they think maybe they've got this moment to reverse course with how bad things are looking for Democrats in the November elections.

So what do you think? 1-800-684-3110. Does language like this from Biden make you think twice? Not because you're not a patriot, but because you've got to put food on the table. You've got to keep your job. You don't want to lose your employment or have your social media accounts shut down because you happen to be someone who supports the America First agenda. That's somehow dangerous in our country.

I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. But something Jordan said earlier in the broadcast, and it's got to be repeated, and that is this issue, this is being signaled from the top. When the President of the United States, do we have the short bite of that?

I want to play it. Six seconds. This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history. And four days before that, we find out that the President through the Department of Homeland Security has put together a Board of Governance for misinformation and disinformation. And we're already on top of it at the ACLJ, so we want to let you know we're working on it right now. We'll take your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

Let me tell you something else. Another project, we want to educate your kids. We continue to do that. We have our Bald Beagle project. We've had a lot of great success with that. May 5th is an important milestone date in American history because it marks the anniversary of astronaut Alan Shepard's journey into space. In 1961, astronaut Shepard became the first American to leave Earth and explore space. It's called Historic Day, and we've got a video up at baldbeagle.com.

It's up there on the screen. And that talks about this as a great way to educate your kids on the greatness of America. That's how America was made great. So you want to take a look at that and share that with your family. We'll be back with more in a moment.

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. 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 versus 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 so 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 is 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 I'm sure the intimidation attempt is on.

I mean, 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 senators to act in a way they would not normally act and vote in a way they wouldn't normally vote.

100%, 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, 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 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's my issue with it, is that 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, 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 hip to 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 are 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 pre-planned 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. We're going 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. We're going to get to some of your phone calls now. 1-800-684-3110 if you want to be with us on the broadcast. Laura is calling from Washington State on Line 3. Hey, Laura.

Hello, everybody. I am so proud that you guys are fighting for us. And I want to let you know that I'm a pro-life leader and actually of a pro-life organization here in Washington. And we have been in front of the local Planned Parenthood for the last 15 years and myself only the last seven. But I want to let you know that we are standing for our rights for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, because we hold signs that say pray to end abortion every day.

We actually even have a house across the street where we can post these signs and things to offer help. But what I want to tell you is what I observed on Monday before it became news about the leak. The Planned Parenthood here, the parking lot suddenly filled up at a very odd hour, and it wasn't with patrons.

It was all kinds of cars. The affiliate that's in Seattle tots our building here across the street from us as the most beautiful in the state. But suddenly in Seattle and in Olympia, all these pre-printed signs showed up that day. Now, I'm not telling you that I think the Planned Parenthood was in on the leak, but I know they were.

Let me do tell you this, Laura, because I've litigated Planned Parenthood, Jordan has CeCe Hiles with us, she has. They're prepared for these moments. When that decision was leaked, they were in front of the Supreme Court, thousands of people within an hour.

Things in Washington like this, they don't happen in one day. This was a planned story. So the White House knew.

I mean, that's what the talk is. So they weren't caught off guard. And let me tell you something, Planned Parenthood is so entrenched inside the Democrat Party, you're right, Lisa, they knew. And we talked to one of the pro-life protesters saying how that night it was all the pro-abortion protesters who were pre-planned ready to go in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the next day, it was more of a balance if not even favoring the pro-life protesters. So it was obvious that they knew because it's a mainstream media, it was political, but it all starts spreading around because they're entrenched inside the Democrat Party. Yeah, and the fact of the matter is they are trying to get this opinion modified by threat.

I mean, I hate to say it that bluntly, but that's what it is. This is an intimidation campaign targeting, in my view, the Supreme Court of the United States. That's what I think they're doing.

Yeah, absolutely. Planned Parenthood always has a plan. They're not planning parenthood, but they're planning attacking anybody who stands for the right to life. And they're worried about this draft opinion because it's incredibly strong and it upholds the right to life of the unborn baby and they can't tolerate that.

No, they can't tolerate it. And it's extensive. It's a 68-page opinion repudiating the false basis upon which Roe was decided, which even liberal commentators, and Justice Alito cites these liberal commentators, says it was wrong from the start. But because it's abortion, and then what happened was, which was so interesting, it didn't really get them the kind of rally they thought they would get.

And now what are they doing? LGBT kids can't go to school under this opinion, which is the exact opposite. We'll get into that in a moment. The exact opposite of what Alito says. Interracial marriage is going to be banned in the United States. Yeah, in the same as to Clarence Thomas?

Literally. So I want to go to Bob's call in Maryland because this is a really good call because this is part of the Democrats' plan. Hey, Bob, you're on the air.

Hello. Great. I presume if Congress succeeds in codifying Roe v. Wade, their legislation will be carefully crafted to align with a court precedent regarding federal primacy. And I'm wondering if Justice Alito's draft opinion gives more grounds to fight that on the basis of deferring to the states and the fact that powers that are not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states.

Yeah, so you're going to have this clash between the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. And believe me, we're researching all of that right now. I don't – politically, we've got – listen, our government affairs team is already working on this, so we've got a team working on this. Legally, we're also working on it. We're supposed to get actually our first draft of kind of where we think it could be.

Friday is, I think, tomorrow is the plan, right? Yes, and the issue is if the Supreme Court is saying there is not a constitutional protection for abortion, there is no right to abortion found in the Constitution, and they're specifically saying this is an authority and a right that goes back to the states, there is an argument to be made that it's not an issue that can be decided at the federal level. Yeah, but it will be litigation, and that's – we need to stop it at the legislative stage. That's right, because what they know is that if they can do this at the federal level, it keeps the battle stuck in federal courts, and it prevents the states from moving forward with putting in the restrictions that their state legislatures want to do, because everything would get stalled, and it'd be, you know, who has the right role. So they've got a strategy in place, but it can be defeated.

It's a political strategy, so it's not automatic, but it is – they're moving quickly, like as soon as next week. Yeah, so, you know, here's what they're talking about. They're talking – it's a three-prong attack, and we're fighting back on all three prongs. We've already sent the freedom of information out request on the other, on the misinformation disinformation governance committee. On this one, what we're doing is addressing it three ways. Our government affairs team is already pushing on Capitol Hill to have the pro-life senators and congressmen stand firm here. We're encouraging, of course, by broadcasting for the Supreme Court to stand firm, if in fact that's their decision, to not be intimidated by an unbelievable breach, an institutional internal insurrection that has taken place inside the Supreme Court. And then third, and this is important, don't allow this to be court packing. But Chuck Schumer just, what, 40 hours ago?

Here's what he said. Given that the conservative court majority is likely to be around for a while, do Democrats need to look more seriously at court expansion? Look, the bottom line is our first step is to have the vote that we're going to have next week, and the bottom line is that we're going to look to these elections in November, and I think it's going to – the American people are going to speak loudly and clearly that we need some change. He says the bottom line is we're going to look to these elections in November, and I think it's going to – the American people are going to speak loudly and clearly that we need some change. And the reporter was asking questions about court expansion.

So there you have it. Yeah, they're demonizing the judicial branch, and I think what you've got to understand is that this is not happening – they're not waiting until November. They're starting next week, and it's not all just Democrats.

There's a couple Republicans at play here too with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. So they've got a whole plan. We broke it down yesterday with them. We can break it down again in future broadcasts, but what we've got to be ready for is to fight that back legally because they are preemptively – remember, there's no official opinion out yet.

You have to understand that. There's no official opinion out yet, and they're trying to rush through a federal codification of the right to an abortion in congressional law, trying to use a couple Republicans to get it done. Yeah, but we should make no mistake about it. They will do everything – look, they know – now we know that this is an authenticated opinion, so they're thinking this may well be it. Now there may be modifications to it that probably have been, but they're thinking this is for real. They're not – Planned Parenthood is not stopping. No, they'll do anything to undermine this draft opinion if it is real.

I mean, it is a real draft opinion, but if it remains the same, they are running scared and should be because it's very strong for life, and they will do anything in their power to undermine it. Folks, that's why we want you to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. We've got a brand new petition up. Over 50,000 people have signed this. We need, again, that strength in numbers, standing up together, letting the government know that no, they are not the majority view, and we're not going to be demonized, and we're not going to shut up, and we're not just going to sit by and let them do whatever they want and intimidate courts and intimidate justices. We're going to stand up, and we're going to fight back. You can do so by signing our petition at ACLJ.org. Everybody's always saying, what can I do?

Can I do something else? And we're going to get those to the House and the Senate next week. Because that battle has already begun legislatively, so you think that you may have won the judicial battle, maybe, since 1973, and you've got to go right back, and we're ready to Congress next week. Go to ACLJ.org to sign that petition.