Today on Sekulow, Donald Trump embarrasses CNN. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow.
Folks, we're going to take your calls on this at 1-800-684-3110. Last night, President Trump goes into hostile territory. A day after, again, a court case, a court decision, a civil case that many people in a sexual assault allegation in a jury trial would be so scared as a politician to go into, especially enemy territory on stage with a crowd which you never know if it's going to be an actual Republican crowd or a bunch of phony Republicans. Even I got nervous a few times when they would go to people in the crowd, they say, well, this is someone who's never voted but they're leaning Republican.
You're like, yeah, right, this is going to be another setup question. Yet none of them were. The left is melting down that CNN even allowed President Trump to defend himself, to talk about his policies. He's the leading Republican candidate right now for President of the United States. The fact that he was even allowed to discuss the allegations against him, the legal challenges against him, what he's faced. Again, every policy issue from January 6th to the election, and he let him have it. And he let him have it clearly when he said, you know, the stolen election. And what did he point to? The CIA, which we talked about yesterday where Tulsi Gabbards called how they stole our democracy by the CIA getting involved in our elections to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop.
I mean, right there. You don't even look at like the other issues or the fact of the early voting and all of the laws changes. Just the fact that the CIA was meddling in our election is enough to say it's a questionable election, right?
But no, not for CNN. And the way the media not only hates Donald Trump, but they are scared to death of you. So when they saw the room applauding and cheering, take a listen to Joe Scarborough by 46. And what I saw last night at least was as chilling as anything I've seen on television since January the 6th. And what he was referring to there was not just President Trump's and his performance, which by the way, he did a great job.
You went into hostile territory and owned them. He embarrassed CNN, embarrassed Kaitlin Collins. She tried to, maybe Don Lemon was right with all the cutting off and trying to jump in all the time, right? And asking the same thing and just you don't like the answer. So what?
You're the moderator. The people that came to that town hall is who Joe Scarborough is really scared of. I mean like Rick Wilson, all these fake Republicans who were part of that Never Trump crowd, he said, you know, he couldn't believe that the audience was giggling. You mean they don't, you can't believe that half the country loves Donald Trump because they voted for him? I mean, some of this is like, where do you live?
And what, what, what country do you live in? Do you not realize that at least half the country still wishes this was their President because they believe there wouldn't be war in Ukraine. They believe he could end the war. I do certainly after he explained it last night, don't you?
1-800-684-3110 and trying to corner him. You know, will you support this ban on abortion? When that ban is even, there is no actual major federal legislation that would, at this point, I mean, we've got a divided Congress right now that has been negotiated out that pro-life groups agree on. The battle, like he said, is in the States, but CNN is like shocked that people celebrate the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. So I want to know this. Did you tune in last night? Was it the first time you've tuned into CNN in like years?
It was for me. I mean, usually I'll flip by some of these networks, but I've never spent that much time on it and you've got to give him credit. And I think it just, the rest of the Republican field, I mean, come on, how do you even, I don't even know how you go to that level. 1-800-684-3110. If you want to talk to us on air, that's 1-800-684-3110. Also a new major ACLJ case involving parental rights. This one is shocking.
So don't tune out. Share this with your friends and family. You will not believe this new case at work at the ACLJ. Be right back on Sekulow.
Welcome back to Sekulow. The ACLJ has filed a new case in Nevada. It's up at ACLJ.org.
If you're on our email list, the ACLJ email list, you would have just gotten this this morning. We represent the parents and a 15-year-old female student in the Las Vegas Clark County school system who is forced to perform a profanity-laced, sexually explicit, obscene monologue written by another one of her classmates before the entire class as a graded assignment in her drama class. So there's 15-year-olds too. They each write a monologue.
They're folded up and put into like a hat and then you've got to pick one out. And whichever one you pick out, you have to perform for the class. Now this one was so pornographic in nature that the original draft was actually, and that's unbelievable, this was the one that actually was edited by the teacher. So even the teacher knew it was so extreme that they should edit some of it. But when you hear what they didn't edit out, and you can read all of it too at ACLJ.org.
But then it gets even more extreme, right? The mother of the student goes to the school board. The school board cuts her off when she's reading the monologue because they say it's too obscene for the school board. And if you watch the video of the school board meeting, when they put the video back up, not only do they bleep her out, they blur her mouth and they blur the sign interpreter for the language. So the language was too much for adults at a school board, but perfectly fine for teenagers, 15-year-olds, at a public school drama class. So I call this an old school ACLJ case because it really is.
So here's what you've got. The parent has the right to control the upbringing and the education of their child. They go to a public school. The public school teacher's first mistake was allowing that particular monologue, laced with profanity, to be read by another student.
To be drafted, first of all. But then to be read by another student. And then compelling that student to read it. Then it compounds the era is when the mother, as the parent of the child, goes to the school board meeting for what's called the public comment section. And that is the section of the school board meeting where parents and others in the community can make comments.
Okay. She makes a comment and she's going to read the monologue. And they censor the monologue because they think it's inappropriate.
So it was inappropriate for a bunch of adults, but it was perfectly appropriate for a 15-year-old in a high school classroom. So we are now counsel in that case. It's in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. It is a lengthy complaint. It has federal claims. There are also state claims involved here. So this is a major piece of litigation.
We're going to be very aggressive in the litigation here. It's an outrage. No student should be put in this situation. No parent should be put in this situation. It's Clark County.
It is Las Vegas, Nevada. They need a lesson in the First Amendment. Yeah. I want to play for you some of the school board meeting where the mother who we represent in this case, how she was cut off and edited. And again, if you watch the video, we've got links at ACLJ.org, you will see. It's tough for her to even read this monologue out because of how obscene and pornographic it is.
It's not just the curse words. It's how obscene it is in nature. And I mean, I can't say it on broadcast air, but if you go to ACLJ.org, we've got it there for you so you can see just exactly. You can understand that what we're claiming is obscene and pornographic is exactly that.
And you will be shocked when you see it at ACLJ.org. But take a listen. I'm going to read you an assignment given to my 15 year old daughter at a local high school.
This will be horrifying for me to read to you, but that will give you perspective on how she must have felt when her teacher required her to memorize this and to act it out in front of her entire class. I don't love you. It's not you.
It's just, I don't like your dick or any dick in that case. I cheated, Jo. I'm sorry. Excuse me.
I don't. Thank you so much for your, thank you for your comment. Forgive me. We're not using profanity.
Are you? Okay. This required my daughter to read, memorize this and read this pornographic material. Excuse me. Please don't engage with the audience. Okay. So please continue your public comment.
Your time is, you've got one minute and 19 seconds. I ask you simply, this is a public meeting. I asked for decorum and I'm asking. Dr. Jara, thank you so much. Dr. Jara.
If you don't want me to read it to you, what was that like for my 15 year old daughter to have to memorize pornographic material and, and memorize it and. Madam President, members of the board, staff's on this. We can have the Regent Superintendent speak. Thank you so much, Dr. Jara. It seems like you may have some concerns and while we're not allowed to engage back and forth in a dialogue, we would absolutely like to make sure that your concerns are addressed.
Material just finished what I was going to say, please. My daughter was forced to engage in the portrayal of this blank activity by her teacher. We have pornography laws regarding minors in this state and many of those were violated because of this assignment.
I don't have time to name all of the laws that were broken that day, but one example, NRS 200 710. It states it is a crime when a person knowingly uses, encourages, entices or permits a minor to be the subject of a sexual portrayal in a performance. In one of my meetings with school administration, they blame my daughter for not saying no to the assignment.
They blamed my daughter who is the victim. Teachers are in a position of power. Educators must understand the laws about sexual abuse and that is where I am hoping you will help.
I'm going to tell you something. The outrage of this, of course, as you saw, we played you the whole clip, was not only did they edit out what you said, which of course they did because it was obscene and pornographic and the chairman of the school board said do not read pornographic material from the podium. But they were having the 15-year-old daughter read it in the classroom and required to memorize it. And the school board's reaction should have been, we're horrified, we're going to get to the bottom of this. Instead what they did was blow it off as they do and now we're in federal court. We just filed the first amended complaint. The ACLJ has now entered the case. We're taking this very seriously and we're going to get justice for this parent and for her daughter and not allow this to ever happen again.
It may be hard for you to believe, but it actually gets worse. So then the parent went to the school before he would go to the school board and said, this just seems inexcusable, the assistant principal agreed. The school administrator told our client, again, Candra Evans, that school officials would meet with her daughter, the student, and that the school would not allow any male faculty to meet with the student because the nature of the language of this monologue that was written without another female present. I mean, these were promises the school made. In addition, the school promised they would also not allow the teacher who gave the assignment to meet with the child who read the monologue because, again, this child, they know that this student is complaining, right?
So guess what happens? After making that promise, the assistant principal of man met with the student alone without another female administrator present. Then she was forced, the student, to meet with the teacher who broke that promise. That meeting left our client in tears. To make it worse, the principal instructed the student not to tell their parents.
How much did we hear about this under COVID? Don't even watch what your kids are being taught. Don't let the parents come into the room where you're doing the broadcast.
Telling a 15-year-old student at your school, you can't tell your mom and dad what happened here today? Do you think these schools are trying to pull one on us? We know they are, but we are calling them out. This is one of those unique opportunities where you could, I think, impact the entire system, not just in Nevada, but all over the country by making sure these teachers and school administrators know we are going to expose them.
They can't just run away and cut microphones off. And the school board, too. So there's claims that we've made for the parent on the school board, for their First Amendment rights, for the students' First Amendment rights.
There's intentional infliction of emotional distress. There was even an assault claim because she was forced into the room to meet with the teacher, even though she asked not to, and they promised that that would not be the case, and of course got screamed at. This is where the school board has to be.
So here's the takeaway from this that's very important. We have to hold the school board accountable, which means we don't just take a little apology letter and everything's okay. We are litigating this case in federal court to protect the parent, but more importantly than the parent even here, of course, is this 15-year-old daughter.
Nobody should be put in this situation ever. So our job here is to get justice. Justice is going to mean litigating this case fully.
And this is what you need to know. Because of this broadcast, we're able to get you this information. Because of our legal work, we're able to get into court. All of this happens because of your support of the American Center for Law and Justice. I want to encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ as we go into a break.
You just go to ACLJ.org, and any donation will make a big difference. We encourage you to do that. We appreciate that. That's how we bring you this broadcast every day. That's how we get into court for these individuals. That's how your voice is heard in Washington and, frankly, around the globe. So support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org. Now, a lot of you are watching on social media right now.
Let me encourage you to share the feed with your friends. Yeah, and if you have a similar situation, and you've got a student in school and you believe a similar situation has occurred, contact us. ACLJ.org slash help.
You can fight back and we will fight with you. ACLJ.org slash help. Even, I just want you to be clear here, folks, of the case that we've just filed in Nevada on behalf of the parents and the student. There's a claim of not just intentional infliction of emotional distress, but even assault and battery. And that's because under Nevada law, remember the student, one of the promises made by the student was we are not going to, per the school, you're not going to put one-on-one with the teacher.
Okay, so the teacher can lecture you and scream at you. And guess what they did? Forced her into a room with the teacher, who then screamed at her, the student, a minor, left her in tears.
Well, under Nevada law. I mean, so this, they're in big trouble. And they're facing, again, now they've got the ACLJ and the national attention and the national focus. And I think it's speaking on behalf of a lot of kids all across the country and parents who find themselves in similar situations and say, what do I do? How do you fight back against a system like this?
So this parent did what we always encourage, go to the school board. Which is always the first line of defense. But the fact that it's, isn't it just interesting, it's too obscene for adults at a school board meeting, but not 15-year-old kids. I mean, that's, that's the bottom line. Well, take your calls. 1-800-68-431, Ted. Jerry's calling from Rhode Island online too. Hey, Jerry. Hey, team, this set of facts, I can hear it in Jay's voice.
This is such a starry to spices. How do you measure the damage to this kid for ongoing, for remedial? And I hope there's some punitive things that I hope goes all the way to trial in front of a jury and is a nationwide thing. So here's what you've got. So in a case like this, you have federal claims, first amendment, a whole series of federal claims, but you also have state claims and the state claims include intentional infliction of emotional distress. As Jordan said, the state laws in Nevada are actually very good.
So here's what you've got. You've got a federal claim and a state claim. Damages are actual damages, compensatory damages and punitive damages. The punitive damages are to send a message to school boards in Clark County, Nevada, which is Las Vegas, but also around the country that guess what you don't get to do, berate and embarrass a 15-year-old student by having her read something that the teacher should have never allowed to be read in the first place. And then to complicate it for the school board to silence the mother because they don't want to hear, quote, profanity. That was the words that they, or pornography, that the words that the school board actually used. So what you have to do is, like you said, Jerry, litigate it fully. It's not a letter and, oh, we're sorry and we're done.
Nope. This has to be litigated fully. I want to take the deposition of the teacher. I want to take the deposition of the principal. I'm going to take the deposition of other students. So we are, again, you can find out this information at ACLJ.org. The lawsuit is there. The amended complaint is there. All the counts.
And again, I think it's interesting. This is not just a First Amendment case. I mean, we got negligence, intentional infliction, emotional distress. We talk assault and battery.
So again, this is how you fight back against these entire systems. If you're in a similar situation, if you feel like your kid has been put in this kind of situation, contact us at ACLJ.org slash help. That's ACLJ.org slash help. We will keep you updated on this. And again, I encourage you to share it with your friends and family. Go to ACLJ.org.
Share the new blog up. There's the video. There's the link to, if you want to see the whole monologue and see how obscene and how pornographic, because they can only listen to the first sentence before they cut it off, it gets much worse. Let me tell you, what she read in the school board meeting was nothing compared to where this monologue goes.
So check it out at ACLJ.org. You want to take Bob's call? I think we should go back to, because there's a lot of discussion about that or you want to hold that one.
That's up to you. Yeah. I mean, we're going to talk President Trump and the CNN town hall last night, some of the issues that came up there. We know, again, this is probably the biggest news story of the day right now, is that he walked into enemy territory, basically shut down CNN, embarrassed Kaitlin Collins, embarrassed the entire network, which was like in tears, to a point where they literally cut it off. Which is unreal.
It was supposed to be an hour and a half and ended up being 70 minutes. And the problem with it was CNN lost control of it because the guy walked in and just took control of the situation. And the crowd was on his side.
Well, here's the other thing they got to figure. Republicans supported him. This is a guy that's done TV for 30 years. Okay? He knows how to do television. I mean, but Bob has an interesting question about what comer was, Representative Comer's yesterday. Let's go ahead and take that. Bob?
Well, thank you for taking my call, guys. I did want to know about the emoluments clause because Joe Biden has taken money for his family, apparently, to enrich himself by the power of his office from foreign interests. And how does that line up with violating that clause? Of the Constitution. So the emoluments clause is you can't take a gift or anything of value while you're President of the United States in public office.
Here's the thing. First of all, there's been no evidence yet establishing that anything went to Joe Biden. So I think we got to be clear on that. The evidence that Representative Comer put forward from the committee yesterday didn't establish that. What it established was there were transactions between entities controlled by various Biden family members and foreign companies that may have had relations to the government. But to make that into an emoluments clause case, I don't see it. We certainly haven't seen the evidence of that.
What really has to happen in that case, they broke yesterday, which is when we talked about this before. We have to be able, there's got to be a lot more connecting the dots here. That was just, honestly, I just don't see it as something that's going to move the needle here. That just wasn't enough. Now, maybe there's more that we haven't seen. And by the way, that 1023 that they want released, here's the problem with releasing a 1023.
And again, I know this isn't going to be popular, but we got to tell the truth here. A 1023 is a form used for an unverified allegation. So it's not a 201, it's not an FBI, you know, you're in an interview. It's a form for an unverified allegation. If the FBI is going to be compelled to start releasing every unverified allegation 1023, they could do it on anybody that's listening to this broadcast. Now, if the whistleblower comes forward and they have direct knowledge, that's a different story. That's where we got to be careful on all of this. And I think Congress too, their question there was, we know there is the 1023, now they've kind of acknowledged it exists, so did you do anything? Did you just write it down or did you actually open up an investigation?
I mean, that's their secondary question. We're taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110 on the laws as well. At Washington State, and this is one again, we want you to contact us at aclj.org slash help. Especially if you're in Washington State and you have a kid in school between 13 and 17 years old, this law applies to you right now. It's been passed in Washington State.
And I want to go through what it does. So in Washington State, there was a lot of talk about what this might do, but is this actually going to go into law? So this is how they did it. It goes into effect in July. So if you're a Washington State parent, I know we're on a lot of Washington State channels, and you've got a kid- This is violating the parent's rights. Yeah, if you've got a kid who's between the age of 13 and 17, if they run away and they go to a licensed youth shelter, without your knowledge, and they claim that they want to have an abortion or sex change, the notification requirement to you is void. Usually, you have to notify the parents within 72 hours. They have to track you down if they know if they've got your minor in their custody. But they don't have to do that if there's abuse or neglect.
So now, the compelling reason not to notify you as a parent is that you're abusing or neglecting your minor if you're not allowing them to have an abortion or a sex change. Oh, and by the way, they're going to pay for it. I mean, how long are they going to be in the custody of the state? We can challenge this now, but we need you. ACLJ.org slash help. If you're a Washington State parent, that's ACLJ.org slash help. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Seccio. We've announced a couple of things today on the broadcast the ACLJ is working on directly. We were also talking about the town hall last night. We'll take your calls on that. Did you tune in?
That is the first question. It may have been your first time tuning in to CNN in a long time. And what did you think? Because I will tell you, I think that President Trump came out looking like, again, someone not just who won that event, but owned the stage. Embarrassed CNN. Embarrassed Caitlin Collins, who supposedly career is like being in the balance over this performance last night and was supposed to be getting a primetime offer, but they said it doesn't directly impact the primetime offer, but it could. Slow things down. Let me tell you something.
They had to cut it off. So I don't think liberals, if that's who they're trying to reach, are going to think that's the person I want carrying our torch at 9 p.m. But she tried to take on Donald Trump. And most people that we've seen take on Donald Trump not only have failed, but it can be even career ending. It can be so embarrassing. And they thought that a crowd of Republicans was what, going to boo him? So we'll take your calls on that at 1-800-684-3110.
I also want to take calls on our new case that's in Nevada. This was a student forced to read not just something with profanity, I mean totally obscene. So obscene when the mother went to the school board and tried to read it, she got one sentence out before they said it was way too obscene for the adults in the school board. It violated their obscenity rules at the school board. But this student was yelled at, assaulted, not only their constitutional rights violated, intentional infliction, the list goes on and it does in our complaint.
Which you can read at ACLJ.org. Let's go to the phones. Let's go to, well first we'll go to Henry, online too. Hey Henry.
Hello, how's it going? Good. Hey, what I want to say is, you know, it seems like you guys are talking a lot about the school board, the parents and all that.
And to me that's all after the fact. You guys really need to focus on and go after the teacher. Forget the school board, they ain't going to do nothing about it. Yeah, go after the teacher. It goes after everybody. So you got to go read the complaint.
So again, you have to look at who's got the resources, right? Who's going to be paying for the damages? That's the school board. Who is alleged that did the assault? The teacher here.
So just to understand how this works, some of that is just how it works legally. But what you have to do is send a message to the school boards that hire all these and set the policies that this is going to be a bad decision for you. The first plaintiff listed in our filing, Henry, maybe just wasn't clear to you, is the teacher. I am very curious if the teacher was scared to speak out against what was written in the sense of this was written and turned in. And did she think the backlash could be so big also on her for saying, no, you can't do this kind of thing because it obviously deals with very hot button topics. So I'm very curious also to see the editor's response. The teacher edited it.
Oh, she did already make an edit. Yes, because it was that it was much worse. Right.
Now it's hard to, if you read this whole thing, realize how much worse could it be? And at that point, this was just a student being graphic for graphic's sake. And provocative. And that's always going to happen because you always have teenagers who are going to try to push the envelope.
But as a teacher and as a school board... I think there's just a line and you all know where that line is. It's kind of like when the Supreme Court says they can't define pornography, but everyone knows it when they see it. And that's kind of where you are in this kind of... This is way beyond artistic expression and just sex.
This is likely a... It's just graphic sex to be graphic sex. Right, exactly. In a sense where a kid was probably creating something to intentionally inflict some kind of chaos within their school. Knowing that they weren't going to have to do things.
Right, exactly. Make a girl who didn't write it have to perform it in front of the class. Embarrass them. Yeah, so think about the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Then they forced her into a room, which they promised they wouldn't, with the teacher who screams at her. I mean, the way they are treating the kids, like they owed the kids. These schools don't own the kids.
Washington State doesn't own your kid. Challenge it. Contact us at ACLJ.org slash help. I think it's pretty interesting. Coming up in the next segment, we'll talk more about the Trump CNN town hall because there's actually been a leaked call from Chris Lick, the CNN CEO.
And we get to hear about what he thinks. So we represent, I want you to check out ACLJ.org, Kendra Evans, Terrell Evans, of course the student in the case. And you can check out ACLJ.org. It's been filed in the U.S. District Court in Nevada. And we've gone through it at the website, again, and you can even see the video of the school board meeting, but the parents cut off. She's cut off within like the first line is this is too obscene. We have the entire monologue there for you at ACLJ.org. So you can see that we're not just like blowing this out of proportion at all. In fact, I just don't even know how to fully explain it to you, being on all these different kinds of broadcasts.
No, you have to just go read it. Even streaming, if I was to read this, you'd have to mark those broadcasts. You would have to tell YouTube, you would have to tell some of these other platforms that what you're putting on there is explicit. Right, which I'm not going to do for our audience right now. It affects monetization, it affects a lot of things that come through.
That's how hardcore it is. It would certainly be, not necessarily demonetized, but certainly advertisers would choose not to be on this video because of it. Not that we really care about that, but also we are on over-the-air radio and there's stuff we just cannot say. We'd have to mark a broadcast like ours that's explicit. Explicit on podcast. You might be confused.
Yeah, a little bit. To our core audience because it's like, okay, why? So if you're not listening right now, I don't want to do that to our audience.
And we've got it for you available so you can see it at ACLJ.org. Now, when you do it, imagine you're 15 years old. Put yourself back in those shoes. You didn't write this. You picked it out of a hat. All the things you're going through as a teenager, they're going to shove you on stage and you've got to perform this. No choice. And when you complain about it and they tell you, okay, fine, we're not going to make you meet with a man about this without a female President, they make you meet with a man.
I mean, you'd think the left would care about this, right? She specifically said, I don't want to feel like a male is yelling at me about this. And they put her into a meeting with the assistant principal who's a man, no female President. Then they say, we're not going to make her meet with the teacher one-on-one without someone present. They forced her into a room with the teacher one-on-one and the teacher yells at her.
Okay. Then they cut the mother off. So we represent, again, you've got the parents have claims, the student has claims, and this is a major U.S. school district. This is Clark County.
And not only are they being exposed, but now they need to be held accountable. If you find yourself in a similar situation, I want you to go to ACLJ.org slash help. If you're in Washington state right now and you have a child between the age of 13 and 17, it doesn't matter where they go to school. If they run away under a law your governor just signed starting in July. But you can challenge it now because if they run away, they go to a facility that's licensed for runaways. Under the law, they have 72 hours to contact you as the parent.
Unless there's a compelling reason that young person has run away and they shouldn't contact you. That's abuse and neglect. That's pretty common law. They've now, in the definition of abuse and neglect, if you're seeking an abortion as a minor and you're not allowing it as the parent, that's abuse and neglect. They're going to pay for that abortion. So not only are they going to allow the procedure, they're going to pay for it. This is for a minor or sex change. Again, you are abusing your child so you won't be notified where they are or that they are having this procedure. And they're going to have the procedure and it's going to be paid for by the state. So if you are in Washington state right now and you have a child between the age of 13 and 17 and you want to challenge this law, we're ready to do it.
Go to ACLJ.org slash help and we will represent you. Now, on to CNN a little bit. And we're going to take more calls on this as well. On to CNN, it's interesting the pushback they've gotten, of course, on just having Donald Trump there. That started before it happened. But then the fact that he kind of owned it and he won, if you're going to pick winners and losers, everybody said Donald Trump won, CNN lost.
They're trying to respin it. Yeah, even on the left, they were so angry with CNN. And CNN, I think they do like a morning call. They had, obviously after these big events, they had a morning call this morning with their CEO, Chris Licht, who as we know has come in and kind of shaken things up, tried some new things as CNN's founder in the ratings.
He said America served very well and the backlash was absolutely expected. I'm going to read some of these quotes. Again, this is coming from the CEO of CNN.
So there are some quotes about, you know, we got to hold the President accountable, that kind of thing. But I think some of these things are very interesting as we see the media landscape shifting. I do think we also need to wait for overnight ratings, which we should know within a few hours. When we do the Secular Brothers podcast, we should have the overnight ratings.
Very curious to see about that. More there. As we said, we all know this is to the CNN staff because again, there's probably backlash amongst them.
And he even brings that up. Definitely. They were all I mean, they were all crying. Yes, we as we all know, covering Donald Trump is messy and tricky and will continue to be messy and tricky. But it's our job and we're going to do it fairly, toughly and aggressively as Caitlin did last night.
I absolutely, unequivocally believe America served very well by what we did last night because it laid bare and created, in the words of Jeff Scarborough, a political earthquake. So you keep moving on. He keeps talking about this.
He congratulates Caitlin. Obviously, we disagree with her performance in that. But, you know, I'm sure he's just protecting his staff. She has tough questions followed up. We wanted to get him on the record about abortion, talks about those kind of things.
But this is maybe the one of the parts that stuck out to me. He put, obviously, I want to acknowledge they said he wanted to acknowledge the elephant in the room. I'm aware that there has been people with opinions and opinions, backlash. And that is absolutely expected.
I'll say this as clearly as possible. You do not have to like the former President's answers, but you can't say that we didn't get them. And then later on, he says to get these answers, hold them accountable in a way that no news organization has done in many years.
This is the interesting part. This is the part that really caught me off guard because this is definitely a message to his staff to say this isn't going away. While we all may be uncomfortable hearing people clapping, that was also an important part of the story. Because the people in the audience represent a large swath of America. And the mistake the media has made in the past is ignoring that those people exist, just like you cannot ignore that President Trump exists. So pretty much saying what we've done for the last few years was a mistake by pretending he didn't exist.
Because all you did is... And half the country supports him. Yes. And that's a pretty big statement actually coming in from CNN's CEO, who we know doesn't necessarily lean as left as his predecessors.
He's probably still – I would say he's definitely a liberal, but is someone who is also keenly aware that they have to attract an audience, that they're going to go out of business. They're in last place always. I mean, listen, you kind of know why because once the thing was over, they go to this panel and it's... Oh, it's vomit-worthy. They're so bad. They're so out of touch with even – they're out of touch with Democrats. They're out of touch with Republicans.
Oh, yeah. They're just media gross. I sent you guys a screenshot last night because they kept putting up on the chyron, the graphics, like the lower third text, things that they were like thinking that President Trump said that was egregious that all conservatives would agree with. Even the fact of him saying, I know – they put the doesn't want to proclaim that Ukraine should win the war, that kind of thing. But this was even Trump calls overturning of Roe versus Wade a great victory in quotes. That was like the controversial headline and it's like, yeah, no kidding.
Why wouldn't you think that? Why wouldn't everyone who watched this who was potentially a conservative, which is probably the most people watching except for those who just want to get mad, watch this and not go, of course, to his audience and to himself. Of course, it's a great victory, but they treat it as, oh, it's an egregious statement. Like we can't even believe it. It was fun to watch.
I really enjoyed the sort of takedown method. I think that it should be a wakeup call to everyone who is dealing with Donald Trump here in the next year. I brought up this analogy and I'll bring it up later. We'll talk more about it now.
It's a weird one. I know, but I'm a professional wrestling fan. I'm a WWE fan. They always say when someone goes away for a few years, even if they're a bad guy, it's hard to bring them back as a bad guy because distance makes the heart grow fonder. So as soon as he sort of came back on screen was saying a lot of the things seemed very strong, seemed not like a feeble old man, which is what we've been dealing with for the last few years. And all of a sudden there was a strong person in the room who could answer every question without thinking about it. And I would say under the circumstances, even when I disagreed with him, he answered questions in the best possible way. I wasn't expecting that. And I forgot about how entertaining it can be. And I think there's a lot of people who saw that. And when you have other people running against him, it's going to get really, really tough, really tough on the Republican side because no one can really control a camera like President Trump.
I mean, you can hate him, but you can't disagree with that. I would say similar to the way Obama could do it as well. There's something, they have that energy, the electricity that you can't replicate. And you can, you see it when most politicians, you see a performance. What you see with President Trump, it may be a performance, but he's darn good at it in the sense that it felt very authentic, it felt very real, it felt very in the moment. So I think it's interesting to see CNN's response. So what that also means to me is that if Donald Trump's willing to participate more, guess who's going to have more?
CNN. I think, listen, it's worth it to an extent because he shows how good he is in those settings, how he can own the room, own the moderator. I don't know, I mean, I think Chris Licht would like to have it this way, I think his own staff and his own audience. I'm not sure, like they want to put her in the 9 p.m. hour and they think that was the coming, I know he's backing her up and that's his job to do because he put her in the situation. And listen, Donald Trump is Donald Trump.
He takes down about everybody who tries to challenge him. But what they don't, what I think that they failed the biggest on, what really outraged them the most, is not that just Donald Trump performed great. Is that the Republican audience, they're shocked that they like Donald Trump. But yet they publish polls about it, so it's like they have to see it in real time to remind themselves that we're all out there. We exist, we look like normal people. We're not all insurrectionists. We don't all dress in camo every day and carry guns necessarily or protest even. But there's a lot more of us than you want to acknowledge, and that's what scares them. Because that means we can actually win. Support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org.
When you're back, we're going to take four of your calls. I want to go back to our case that we filed just for a second in Nevada. Because a lot of times when you think of ACLJ cases, maybe more recently you think of the First Amendment, you think of these constitutional claims. But you don't think about the assault battery that occurs. And of course, even with the students we represent in Washington, D.C., of course their rights are being violated. But it goes worse than that because of the way they were treated.
In this matter, you had physical contact, and I want to make sure that's clear to you. So this is what's happening when these students say something about feeling like they were put in a wrong situation. It's not like you expect a student who's 15 to say, oh, I feel like you violated my constitutional rights and this and that.
They just say, I'm really uncomfortable here, right? So in this situation, after the school knows, the principal knows that this has occurred and there's a problem. And they've said, we're not going to make you meet with the teacher alone to deal with this. They force her into a room with the teacher, who is a defendant in this case, and we are suing for damages. So it's not just the school district we're trying to hold liable or the school or the principal. But individually, the teacher as well. And during the meeting, this is after she's already in tears, the student.
The teacher grabs her and holds her, forces her to stay there. Like, re-abuse is the language we use. So that's how serious this case is, but we know, and that underlying fact is, and by the way, you can't tell your parents what happened. We know that this is what school boards and teachers' unions are teaching teachers to do. And that they are saying, you know, parents don't watch your kid's Zoom class. Remember that.
It's the same thing. This is happening in real life. Also in Washington State, let me just remind you again, if you're in Washington State and you have a child between the age of 13 and 17, the governor has just signed a law that in July, if that child runs away and goes to a licensed facility for teens, runaway teens, under the law, they have 72 hours to contact you unless there is abuse and neglect, right? They have to have a compelling reason not to contact the parent basically immediately, as soon as they can. They have now defined that to mean an abortion for a minor. So if you're not allowing that for a minor, you're a minor student. They can take your kid and pay for the abortion and not tell you, or pay for a sex change. And that means how they're doing that is saying you're abusive, thus you have lost your rights as a parent.
If you want to challenge this, go to ACLJ.org slash help. You've got to have a student, a child between the age of 13 and 17 in Washington State. It doesn't matter where they go to school, private or public, because the state is going to – this is now known. They are trying to tell kids, do this. You want to get an abortion and your parents won't let you? Run away to us.
You want to have a sex change and your parents won't do it? We'll pay for it and we won't tell them. And we're going to say they're abusive.
So ACLJ.org slash help if you want to fight back. Yeah, and let's not forget what President Biden said about your kids just a few weeks ago. There's no such thing as someone else's child. No such thing as someone else's child.
Our nation's children are all our children. Yeah, I mean, it used to be that that was kind of like a nice, warm thing. But you realize now that that has meaning. It's not just a little bit like, oh, we watch each other's back and we take care of each other's kids and we want to help.
No, no. They mean they own them. You don't. You're not in control. They are. You give them over to the state, not just while they're at school, but whenever the state feels like, eh, we're going to redefine what abuse is. That's how they're doing this in Washington State. They're not rewriting a bunch of law. They're just rewriting a section of the law to redefine what is neglect, what is abuse. And it's now, again, not paying for your kids 13 to 17 year olds say, I don't I don't think it's right to pay for their sex change. It doesn't prevent a parent from paying for a kid's abortion. Does it prevent a parent from paying for a sex change? All it does is say you get to be the decider on that so long as that child is a child. That's why we're saying between the age of 13 and 17, if you want to fight this, we want clients.
You need a child between the age of 13 and 17, a Washington state resident. Contact us today at ACLJ.org slash help. I want to be in court on this quickly.
ACLJ.org slash help. Let's go to Mira, who's calling in California on line three. You've been on hold for a long time, Mira. Thanks for holding. Hey, thanks for taking my call. I am really angry about this situation.
I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist in California up near Reno. And each and every adult that had a face to face with this child would be reportable for criminal charges of assault. And it's such a terrible situation. It goes along with our you just can't say no and why women are still having a terrible time with rape charges in court. Well, this is why I think it's so unique here.
I would think the left would say. I mean, this is a woman who said, I do not want to be in the room with just a man here screaming at me about an obscene and sexually laced monologue that I was forced to perform. So don't do that.
And they did. Then it was don't put me in a room alone with the teacher who I'm complaining about. I mean, you understand that right away.
Just not alone. And they do it and the teacher grabs them. Physical contact here. Assault. Battery.
Tears. Then the mom just tries to tell the school board about the monologue. Lord knows they cut it off after one sentence because that's how obscene it is. So I just want you to understand that when we are fighting here, whether it's parental rights in Nevada and on behalf of the students' rights.
Or this Washington state law. We're fighting. We've got attorneys ready to fight with you.
And we encourage you to contact us at ACLJ.org slash help. We're going to talk more about Trump, too, with our podcast, Secular Brothers podcast. We're going to get into it. I think my favorite part of last night was his statement on Ukraine.
It was for the first time. One, I do believe he could end it. Just like Reagan got the hostages back, I think that those actors would know even before he took the oath again. They better bring this to an end.
Yeah, it didn't feel like an empty threat. No. And I think he's right to say, I'm not going to call Putin a war criminal. We've got to negotiate an end to this.
Can we play some of it? Do you believe that Putin is a war criminal? He's responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Well, I think this is something that should not be discussed now. It should be discussed later, because right now we have to get a war. If you say he's a war criminal, it's going to be a lot tougher to make a deal to get this thing stopped.
Because if he's going to be a war criminal, where people are going to go and grab him and execute him, he's going to fight a lot harder than he's fighting, you know, under the other circumstance. That's something to be discussed at a later date. Right now, we want to get that war settled.
Okay. See, he understands reality, Logan. They don't, because they're war bongers. It's bizarre, but the left loves war. They want this Ukraine war to go on to anything. He said, will you declare that Ukraine has to win this war? They have repelled so far Russian aggression.
Their country has been destroyed. Winning almost- I think he just said, I just want people to stop dying. That's part one. And then after that, he said, you figure out all the other stuff. Which is true in all of wars, especially wars you were trying to put it in. It's very rarely a clean ending in modern days. No, no, this is not- winner and loser. And this is certainly not like that either. So, again, check out the Sekio Brothers podcast this afternoon, wherever you watch our show. So, Rumble, YouTube, Facebook, check it out. Contact us, ACLJ.org slash help.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-05-11 14:26:20 / 2023-05-11 14:47:19 / 21