Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Dems Try to BAN Trump from Office

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
September 6, 2023 1:12 pm

Dems Try to BAN Trump from Office

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1022 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


September 6, 2023 1:12 pm

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s crusade against former President Donald Trump rages on. Now Smith wants to probe how Trump raised funds via voter fraud claims in numerous states that President Joe Biden won in the 2020 presidential election. Smith also filed in court yesterday claiming that Trump’s public comments on the indictments will negatively impact a jury. Will the judge take these new legal matters raised by Smith seriously? The Left is also likely preparing to abuse the 14th Amendment by declaring Trump disqualified to be on the ballot in some states. Our legal team discusses how this is unconstitutional. Further, Fulton County DA Fani Willis’ efforts to indict Trump will include a televised hearing today in Georgia. Will the Deep State DOJ’s lack of justice and accountability in either case be fully exposed? On today’s show, the Sekulow team discusses the Trump case, the need to restore institutional integrity in our legal system, and other news.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Today on Sekulow, Democrats desperate attempt to ban Trump from office. 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. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We're taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Continuing illegal theories that have begun to float around Democrats, people like Adam Schiff and others on the 14th Amendment. We're going to address that today on Sekulow.

I don't want to keep that out there without addressing that from our perspective. And also, new moves by the special counsel escalating investigation into how money may have been raised off of investigating potential voter fraud and how those funds may have been utilized. So what we're seeing then is, again, this continued legal push against President Trump. But we're also seeing an outside purpose, which is being floated around by Democrats like Adam Schiff, that regardless of these Jack Smith hearings, and by the way, I think what it shows them is interesting. The 14th Amendment's been around a long time.

It's like they just stumbled upon this today. They haven't read the Constitution ever before. I mean, you have to wonder, I know the Democrats don't really usually care about what's in the Constitution unless they think it will benefit them. And so this time, they found the 14th Amendment in Clause 3, and they think, well, suddenly, we could just have secretaries of states take Trump off the ballot if he is the nominee for the Republican Party, because we're going to self-disqualify him without any adjudication.

Yeah. So the article in the 14th Amendment, Section 3, it's called the Disqualification Clause. And it says, basically, someone that served in office of any state and includes the executive, which means it includes the President, if they shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, they cannot serve high office. Now, the interesting thing here, there's not even a charge by Jack Smith that Donald Trump did that. Yet, you now have this drumbeat going. And I'll tell you where it's going, folks. It's going from the Democrats to the democratically controlled states.

Because if you can remove Donald Trump or anybody else, for that matter, off of, say, 10 states and maybe one or two swing states, well, then the election is over if he's the nominee. We want to get your reactions. You talk about the ultimate election interference. And by the way, we've got a team at the American Center for Law and Justice that we organized this morning that's going to get into this in great depth. We're going to get this information, what the legal issues are. We're going to get it distributed to the secretaries of state. We will notify all 50 secretaries of state that what the law is on this, that you can't just self adjudicate this. So again, very, very important.

We'll take your calls on it, 1-800-684-3110. We've got a lot of other things we're talking about as well. And by the way, Georgia may come out with a ruling in the federal court about the removal of that trial also could come out today. Yeah, so it looks like there's potentially new charges for the special counsel, the 14th Amendment move. And does this end up in federal court? Does the case out of Georgia all end up in federal court?

This all could happen the next hours as we're on the air. Some people expected even yesterday. But I think on this 14th Amendment, what is dangerous about this too, and just a little history, it goes back to the Civil War. So the Civil War was easy to determine the losers in that war, the Confederacy. They started their own country, they started their own currency, they had their own uniforms, they had their own rankings, their own President, their own representatives, their own cabinet. So it was very easy to identify who those individuals were that would be barred.

They had entire military. This, again, President Trump left office when he was supposed to leave office. And again, he disagreed with the outcome of the election. It's how some of the elections were conducted. But you don't get to be judge and jury.

No. And I think, again... That's what they're trying to do. That means they don't think the prosecutions are enough.

It's what you said earlier. They don't think that's enough. And they're afraid he can win the general election.

So this idea, there are two things that I think it shows you. One is they realize that the indictments aren't hurting President Trump. And number two is that he could actually beat Joe Biden and beat the Democratic nominee there. Now they wanna figure out how to take him off the ballot. And all you have to do, it's two or three states. If you do it in two or three states, you could swing the election. You're talking about interfering with the election.

They wanna take someone off the ballot without adjudication. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. As my dad said, we're gonna get this out and our analysis out to all 50 states and the secretaries of states as well, because they're gonna be the ones under pressure by these liberal groups to put these policies in place, or even think about it. We'll be right back. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Didn't think we'd be talking about the 14th Amendment, but you never know. When Donald Trump is in the political discussion, you just can't really predict what's coming next from the left. So this time, they filed him on these four different law challenges. They've got state challenges. They've got federal challenges. They've got special counsels. They've got DAs. They've got it on the business side.

They've got it on the political side. Now they want to go to the Constitution and a provision, post-Civil War provision, which is pretty clear what it did then. Wouldn't have been hard to figure out how to utilize that provision. Then I think it gets tougher the further you get away from the Civil War and how clearly defined the lines were in that conflict that the United States went through. They go to a provision of the Constitution that says, well, if you were an elected official, you support any kind of insurrection or rebellion against the United States or you've given comfort.

Or gave aid and comfort. Yeah. So if you were a supporter of the Confederacy, I mean, that you could not hold federal office unless two-thirds of the House and Senate decided to let you move forward with putting your name on the ballot. So they want to disqualify. They're saying they could potentially use this to disqualify President Trump. The question is, that's without court.

Yeah. So it reads self-executing, meaning that for the purposes of a Presidential election, if you wanted to keep a candidate off the ballot, what you would do is have the secretary of state would say, I have reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding the activities of January 6th, leading up to it in the subsequent statements. And thus concluded that that was in fact an insurrection or a rebellion against the United States. Thus, I've concluded that under the 14th Amendment, Section 3, that candidate will not appear on our state ballot, which means that election is put into total chaos. They're doing this self-executed.

There's no judicial review. We've got a team of lawyers at the ACLJ working on this. I want to head this off at the pass. So I'm notifying all 50, we're going to notify all 50 state secretaries of states on this. So we're going to take it very seriously.

Let's go ahead and take some calls coming in. Yeah, I would have played this before we go to the phones at 1-800-6431, Tim, because these are the Democrats, typical names you've heard, Adam Schiff. Here's some secretaries of states in here. So that's where you get nervous, like a Michigan secretary of state.

Toy you around with this idea, Tim Kaine, a US Senator. They all, you know, suddenly they read their constitution and they think, oh, they've got the key to defeating Donald Trump. He's not actually having to beat him at the ballot box. They don't want to do that.

And they don't want to take that risk. The lawsuits, the indictments, that's not working. So we'll have to just, we'll just remove him from the ballot. We won't let you even have an option to vote for Donald Trump. Take a listen to all the Democrats, all of a sudden figuring out Article 14 of the 14th Amendment, section three. The 14th Amendment, section three is pretty clear. If you engage in acts of insurrection or rebellion against the government, or you give aid and comfort to those who do, you are disqualified from running. It doesn't require that you be convicted of insurrection.

It just requires that you have engaged in these acts. It's a disqualification from holding office again. And it fits Donald Trump to a T. The arguments for disqualification are quite strong. Section three of the 14th Amendment is a radical and sweeping proposition.

Donald Trump is disqualified just as if he were running and not a born U.S. citizen, or if he were running and he were 24 years old. Under that section of the 14th Amendment, the language is specific. If you give aid and comfort to those who engage in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States, it doesn't, it doesn't say against the United States.

It says against the Constitution. I really think that this legal theory is something that we really need to concentrate on instead of concentrating so much on the indictments. I mean, I'm very excited about them myself, but I definitely think 14th Amendment all the way had just prevented from running.

I'm very excited about the indictments themselves, but the 14th Amendment all the way. So they have no Trump. So maybe then they'll get indicted for election interference.

Yeah. I mean, think about what they're doing here and maybe they should get indicted for election inference because, you know, the Secretary of State of Maine or New Hampshire decides, you know, I don't like Donald Trump. I'm just going to remove him from the ballot because I think what he did was wrong. And that's enough without adjudication.

He hasn't even been charged with insurrection or rebellion. But this is where they start playing the game and they're laying the groundwork now. So again, the American Center for Law and Justice, we're giving you a full discussion over this. We are preparing legal memos as we speak. We've got a legal team on it and I am hopeful that by next week we've notified all 50 Secretaries of State.

It's that critical. Let's go take some calls. Yeah. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Pam in Oregon on line one. Hey, Pamela. Hi. A couple of things, guys.

I really appreciate what you do and God bless every effort. Number one, according to the 14th Amendment, the President and my orchestra actually be impeached and thrown out and taken to court because they've given comfort to our enemies that came across the border for giving everyone fentanyl and killing our people. Except it's tied into insurrection or rebellion. So that's what it ties into. It has to be an insurrection or rebellion.

That's where the aid and comfort comes in. It's called the Disqualification Clause, but go ahead and finish up, Pam. Okay. Number two, I'm wondering why anyone hasn't come against a derelict in our presidency right now or a my orchestra. You've got to have votes. You've got to have a majority of votes in the United States House of Representatives to impeach and then two-thirds in the Senate.

And I'm going to be blunt and honest with you, and Jordan is following this, especially with ACLJ action. I just don't think those votes are there right now. No, I think that there's a widespread support to potentially bring this move against Mayorkas just because of how bad the job has been done at DHS on the border, on the targeting of Americans' free speech, the disinformation work. As Pam was talking about, what's been coming across the border, there are parts of the Constitution, Article 4 about guaranteeing the Republican foreign government also fighting against invasion of the United States. So I think that, again, if the votes were there, the idea is there. But impeachment really comes down to the numbers game. I mean, ultimately, and do you think it's going to be something that is going to be a beneficial discussion to put the country through, to put Congress through?

And I think, again, on Mayorkas, we've got 24,000 people in ACLJ action that are ready to say yes. They believe it's gotten so bad at the border with what Pam just went through with the drug crisis, with the amount of illegal immigrants. We talk about, as well, the terrorist threat that's come through that border. We've had Senator Lakeford point that out as well. We're going to go through that later in the show. Then when you add all those things up, an impeachment of Mayorkas makes a lot of sense because he's not carrying out his duties as Secretary of Homeland Security and lying to members of Congress when he comes to testify in Washington, DC. But you also do. I mean, there's a numbers game there.

Seriously, I think you don't just always base it off, do you have the numbers right away? It's also, is this something we want to take the country through? Is it a fight we want to have? Think on Mayorkas, Congress is pretty close. Even on Biden, there's discussion on pretty close. I'd say there's probably half the Republican conference right now wants to move forward that way. Some of that is because Democrats cheapened impeachment under President Trump. Oh, they lowered the bar for impeachment so significantly.

That you just, if you think it could be a political win for you, you move forward that even if you can't actually get an impeachment conviction. I think that's right. All right, we're going to continue to take phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. We'll also take comments as well. Let's go to Bruce, who is calling from Pennsylvania, listening, watching on aclj.org. Hi, Bruce. Hi, how are you guys doing? Great. I'm good.

All right. This has been eating at me since the last election. In Pennsylvania, that they changed the election laws. My question is, is it possible for the citizen in Pennsylvania to go after the state assembly, the Lieutenant Governor, the Governor, and the Attorney General for not upholding the Pennsylvania constitution because they violated the way they changed the election laws? Yeah, so that was adjudicated because we handled one of those at the Supreme Court for the Trump campaign on November 6th and actually got an order from Justice Alito to stop the counting of the late ballots. But at this point, A, you'd have statute of limitations that would expire.

B, you'd have standing issues. And C, that's been adjudicated. You got to look forward.

You can't look back right now. A lot of these, when we looked closely, a lot of these states that were in kind of a gray area before have made things kind of clear. And I'm not saying that's necessarily in a good way, but they have, in many of these state constitutions, there's this very broad clause for secretaries of states, which I think we need to get to that 14th Amendment issue again. And what it says is basically a secretary of state can do anything they need to to get people, for their abilities, people to vote.

And they're sweeping provision like that. So then the secretary of state can say, well, we'll accept these, we're going to mail everyone a ballot. Or we're going to mail everyone a ballot and you don't have to date it. And if it comes in three days late, we're still going to count it, even if it's not a military ballot.

So there were a lot of state constitutions in red and blue states that had that provision that the state legislatures had delegated over in your state constitution, not just the law, but in the state constitution. We've got a lot of people watching on our social media platforms right now. So wherever you're watching, let me encourage you to go ahead and subscribe and share it with your friends. You know how to do it. We don't have to walk you through it, but a lot of you are watching. We appreciate that. Also, support the work of the ACLJ. We're right on top of the situation on this disqualification.

It goes right to the heart of the constitution and to the electoral process. You give us a call at 800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. We've got one phone line open, but if you want to support the work of the ACLJ, ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. I'm going to get a letter. We're going to get a letter. Jordan and I are working on it now with a team to fit all 50 states that'll be their secretaries of state.

We'll hear from us that you cannot self get rid of a candidate. Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Secula. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. A lot of discussion. It's interesting to me. I'd say that this didn't come up the entire first term of the President. In order to come up for the second campaign, which was we can disqualify President Trump using Article 14, the 14th Amendment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which again, these are civil war amendments.

They were very easy to figure out at the time. A lot of this is because people weren't going to be prosecuted, but what they were saying is that the trade off from not being prosecuted or even executed because of treason after that conflict was that you could not hold office in the United States unless Congress voted to allow you to hold office. So then there's people say, well, if you think there was an insurrection on January 6th and President Trump was responsible for it, you could just decide as a secretary of state that's the case. And in your state, take him off the ballot. And where I think this gets interesting is I guess it would be the primary ballot because secretaries of states don't have any power. That's the political parties decide how you make the ballot in the state. But it would be, even if you did get in the ballot in the primary, it would then be the actual general election, you would be taken off the ballot. And how we portray this as potentially, I mean, it sounds insane that we're ever talking about, but how this comes to fruition in a dangerous ways, you don't need this in all 50 states. No, you just have to do it in six or seven, four or five states, and you've swung the election.

Done. You've interfered with everyone's vote and decided that one political party cannot win. They could take the ability away to get to the electoral votes needed. Listen to what our friend Alan Dershowitz, who was our colleague at the first impeachment of President Trump, was on our legal team.

Listen to what he had to say about this. Alan Dershowitz The problem with that 14th Amendment argument is there's no mechanism. There is a mechanism for undoing it, but there's no mechanism for actually concluding whether or not President Trump gave aid and comfort to an insurrection or rebellion. Professor Tribe, my former colleague says, well, it's self-enforcing. Any secretary of state can do that. So the secretary of state of Michigan can decide who the next President of the United States is by keeping Trump off the ballot? It's absurd. The framers of the Constitution would never have tolerated something like that. They made it so hard to impeach. You think they're going to make it easy to prevent somebody from serving as President?

No. This is, the danger of this is, because it is self-executing, is like Jordan said, five states get together, they say that's it. And you know what?

That's it. And you might as well go home, the election's over. So we've got a real challenge here and we're going to let you know when you're sending an email on it tomorrow, but we're getting a legal team together on it now.

And we'll work with ACLJ Action as well and hit it both legally and legislatively. All right, let's go ahead and take calls. 800-684-3110. A lot of people calling in on this. Yeah, sure. We'll go right to the phones. Let's go to Henry in California online for, hey, Henry.

Thank you for taking the call. Sure. Hey, uh, I want one quick comment and then, uh, my question is pretty simple.

Uh, the comment is that God gave us four natural senses and he also gave us two additional ones called horse sense and common sense. I'm hoping that you guys will file a lawsuit. And is there any problem with doing that? You need to fight fire with fire. If these people are, can do this where they can cancel Trump off even in 10 States, then why can't you guys file a counter suit? Here's how it would work. The first thing to do is to know, first of all, get all the research done, which is being done right now at the ACLJ. Get every legal commentary, get it all together in a comprehensive memo. From that memo, we will then distill a letter.

That letter will then be sent certified to all 50 secretaries of state. Then it would be up to the candidates. They're the ones with legal standing. If a move was made to disqualify, that's what it's called the disqualification clause of the 14th amendment. If there is a move to disqualify someone, then the candidate would go do it. Um, and, and there, and we work with their lawyers or whatever.

I mean, I'd be happy to do it cause I think it's outrageous, but you got the ACLJ doesn't have legal standing to bring the lawsuit itself. Now there is a possibility you could look at a disenfranchisement case where people's votes are being disenfranchised by exercising this. So what we will look at that, which may means that our members can sue.

We've done that before. So we'll look at all those options. That's another one we need to put on the list for research is who would have the proper authority to bring a case, the disenfranchised? Is it just the campaign? Certainly the campaign does.

Maybe it's a disenfranchised as well. We're going to look at all of this. It's that serious and it's getting that much attention. So we're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110.

I must say the calls are pouring in. A lot of you are watching on our, so thousands of you are watching on our social media. We encourage you to do that. Share it with your friends. That could be, you could be watching with Twitter, which is now X.

You can be watching on rumble, which is our preferred Facebook or YouTube of course. Let's go ahead and take another call, Jordan. Yeah. Let's go to Sydney in Missouri or in Maryland on Line 6. Hey, Sydney. Hey, Jerry, how are you doing? We're great. Good.

I just have a quick question. If by any means they are able to keep President Trump off the ballot, are the people still allowed to write him in? And if they did and he still got an overwhelming vote, could he be... No, he's disqualified.

It will not be recognized. Yeah. So this is not just about getting yourself on the ballot. You're disqualified from a holding office. Any federal office is what this bar is because of course it's a federal constitution.

We need to explain that. It's called the Disqualification Clause. So it's not just New Hampshire not putting you on the ballot. It's you are disqualified from serving as President of the United States. Effectively, it would work by not putting you on the ballot. But even if you were on the ballot, the states... You could have a whole constitutional crisis because you have states not recognizing other states' electoral votes. You'd have Texas... You know, Texas tried that in the Texas versus the Texas litigation of the Supreme Court during Trump's election challenges and the court did not hear it, although it was original jurisdiction.

And Alito and Thomas said they should have and I agree. But I think we got to get on this now. And we're gonna be the experts on the 14th Amendment. We are anyways, because we've litigated these.

But it's that serious. So we're taking your calls 800-684-3110. Yeah, we got plenty of time. No, we got a minute and 58.

What do you think? Yeah, we can hold people over to the next half hour. Keep people... Get your calls in 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And again, I got one line open right now, but we're gonna get to more of your calls and question on this. I do think it is something you have to take as real and we need to fight back on this right now. Don't let this continue to grow. I don't think we want this to continue to simmer. I think the push, the rejection of this theory needs to be loud and clear for the American people.

I would hope it would be bipartisan because I don't want to tell people who they can and can't vote for. And I think the Constitution has been very clear. These are people who took up arms against the United States in the Civil War. That's why these provisions were in.

I think it was, again, 1865 to 1867 is when they were adopted. And it was a very clear cut because people could have been executed for taking up arms. Instead, there was widespread amnesty, but at the same time, there was laws put in place to say, but you're not gonna hold office.

We're not gonna let you hold federal office. That was easy and clear cut. And this again, the fact that the Democrats just today have decided how easy this is, really, they never even talked about this a month ago. Where was Adam Schiff talking about this three months ago? Donald Trump's been leading in the polls since he left office. He's been the leading Republican candidate. I don't remember anybody talking about this.

I'll tell you why it's happened. The indictments didn't do it. The indictments increased the former President's support.

This didn't do it. They're going to the next thing because as you said, four or five states, you end up controlling the entire election cycle. Support the work of the ACLJ.

If you care about election integrity and your right to vote, ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org. And share this feed with your friends right now. Back with more in a moment. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We're taking your phone calls 1-800-684.

Reset the whole thing for everything, Jordan. So again, you're starting to hear this. And I think the reason why we're talking about today is not because we think this is something you want to talk about, but something we have to talk about. It's important to our country. It's important to the next election, especially with the amount of people who lost faith in our elections between the 2020 elections and the midterms, the 2022. I mean, we saw the number of people who thought, you know what, it doesn't matter if I go up. We can't win.

It's stacked against me or it's rigged. And this idea, we've been telling people, no, you've got to get back out there. You've got to make sure you vote, got to get your friends to vote. And now you're hearing from Adam Schiff that instead of allowing you to take a vote, they're just going to remove Donald Trump from contention. Now, the way we talk about this through the 14th Amendment is by the ballot, but you can even be on the ballot and get the majority of votes. And the secretary of state just doesn't recognize those votes because under the 14th Amendment, they're going to read that, well, if they interpret the 14th Amendment to apply to Donald Trump and be someone who held a position in the United States government, who then engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the US government or gave aid and comfort to the enemies thereof, and if you could get a two-thirds vote of each house to remove this disability, the question is, could a secretary of state just do this without any adjudication? The history is, of course, a civil war.

Is it self-executing? That Lawrence tribe from Harvard and others believe it is self-executing, that the secretary of state of that state could just say, yes, that's it. That's very dangerous for an election, let me tell you.

Horribly dangerous. And so you can understand that how this doesn't have to be widely accepted, but it just has to be applied a few places and you can't win. It becomes statistically impossible to win an election. So if you could convince enough secretaries of state without going through court, I think this would end up in court. And I think that, again, if you look at the history of this, the legislative history, it was very clear of how this was being interpreted post-civil war, when you had a confederacy of states with a government, with their own currency, with their own representatives, with their own uniforms, and also ranks and militaries be defeated, that those are the ones that were being prevented from being on the ballot, or else the civil war never come to an end. They would have kept putting the people forward.

They were still pretty popular in half of the country. But we got a lot of good calls coming in, 1-800-684-3110, because we're talking about it because it's like Adam Schiff just figured this was out in the constitution. And these liberal scholars, you wonder, I don't remember Lawrence Tribe putting this forward. Any of these others who have spent their whole life doing constitutional interpretation, it's like they skipped over the 14th Amendment, this provision, until yesterday.

And suddenly they found out it's there. And they're going to tell you it 100% applies to Donald Trump because they don't like Donald Trump. And they don't think you should be the deciding factor whether he's President. They think they should decide if you get to decide whether he's President or not. What they're really taking away the power, it's not so much from Donald Trump. It's from the American people.

It's saying you're not smart enough. You can't be trusted to choose who should be the next President of the United States. It sounds absurd because it is absurd. And I don't think that was ever the intention. But it would not be that hard for them to get five or six secretary of states to do it.

No, no. Unless we push back on this very strong, that this itself would be, this would be an insurrection. That this would be, again, an insurrection against the American people.

This would be a rebellion against our constitution and our system of government by taking away your ability to choose. 1-800-684-3110. We're going to continue to take your phone calls when we come back from the break. You get a lot of calls coming in. We're going to answer all of them. We want to spend time with those. If you've got questions, if you've got comments, get them out of the air. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. But I think at this moment in time, when we've encouraged people, don't be discouraged. You've got to get out and vote. Imagine how discouraging, imagine the election interference would be if New Hampshire and a handful of these states, doesn't have to be big states, just enough statistically to make it basically impossible to get to 270. So you can't get to the Electoral College win. And you would have basically an insurrection by the constitution.

I don't think that's, again, was anyone's intent of this provision. But Adam Schiff suddenly believes overnight, this is their key to defeating Donald Trump. Don't even have to defeat him. We just won't count the votes for him. 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back.

All right, welcome back to Secular. We're taking your calls. 1-800-684-3110. A lot of calls coming in.

So I want to get to them. We've had people hold on about this 14th Amendment issue. Diana calling from Arizona on line five. Hey, Diana.

Hi, thank you. My question is with regard to Trump being dropped off the ballots and the January 6th trials, doesn't someone have to determine whether January 6th was an insurrection or a riot? Except for the location, it seems to me that Seattle was much worse. You would think that there would have to be an adjudication of rebellion or insurrection or aiding and abetting and rebellion and insurrection or insurrection. But that is not the way that the 14th Amendment reads. The liberal scholars are saying, no, wait a minute, it is self-executing, meaning the secretaries of state who determines who goes on the ballots or the board of elections of that state can make that determination themselves. I believe that is unconstitutional for two reasons. It takes your constitutional right to vote away from you.

It also violates due process. So we are in the process right now. We've assembled a team at the ACLJ that's researching this issue thoroughly. We are going to analyze it thoroughly and we're going to get a letter out to all 50 secretaries of states as well as board of elections because it could come down to that as well. And then we will look at, once we've done that, what litigation routes are necessary as this drumbeat has picked up so drastically since the Georgia indictment. And why is that? Because the Georgia indictment did not derail Donald Trump from being the leading candidate for President.

Yeah. The special counsel, the DA of New York, and it's all been backfiring. And you've seen only a continued rise of the polls by President Trump. And you've seen actually other Republican candidates basically stall out inside the primary. So Republican voters have been very clear about who they want they're not going to be in so far.

They've been very clear. The money's drying up. You're not seeing people hit fundraising numbers.

People had like little bumps after these debates, but we're talking like two, three points. So no one is taking a ride. We'll go back to the phones, 1-800-684-30. Can we go to David in Illinois on line three? Hey, David.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. I wonder, given section five of article 14 that reads, the Congress will have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Doesn't that apply to all the previous sections in article 14, meaning Congress could only do this and not just even by resolution, but by legislation, which would need to be passed in both houses signed by the President.

Yeah. I mean, I think that they would make an argument, if you believe their theory. And again, we don't, if you believe this theory that it's self-executing by setting up the court systems, by setting up again, an election process they have. And if you go through the rest of the constitution, I don't know if that would bar any States from taking action. Could Congress go back and clarify? I think the constitution is made clear.

It could, but is this constant? Is this Congress going to do that? No, I don't think that Congress alone has to specifically lay this out more because again, you've put this provision in place. What you could say is, listen, you can't just have people willy-nilly deciding when to interpret this as an insurrection, when not to. And I think we were better than that than a country that we actually had to legislate. Your constitution is always going to have issues. ACLJ exists because the gray areas that exist in the constitution. When we talk about freedom of speech, how far does that go?

How far does freedom of press go? And again, your ability to practice your faith, all of those, that's just one amendment. That's just the first amendment. So there's lots of issues that you can litigate and legislate surrounding the constitution, but telling Americans who they can and can't vote for, it seems about like the most un-American thing to do.

And we were coming out of a civil war where a part of the country declared themselves independent, lost a war, and certain people were excluded. I think that provision would allow Congress to speak to this more directly if we thought this Congress could, but we know with a divided Congress, they won't. So I don't think you're totally wrong in the idea that Congress could have a further role. I think the constitution makes it clear. I think if you're the other side, you could read into this and say, you know what, take me to court on it. I think what we have to make sure is that doesn't go that far. That this doesn't get to a position where you have to, again, have to go fight this out in five or six states. And then ultimately, you know, that the Supreme Court again is deciding elections or deciding who people can and can't vote for.

That's why we have a primary process. And parties are set up and they can have rigorous standards. They can exclude people. Recently in Tennessee, we had a federal election for a house of representatives and the state party decided who could be on the ballot.

That, again, could people have gotten a ride in? I think potentially. Would they have had to recognize that in the primary?

I'm not sure. But that was, again, that was at the primary level where the parties were making the decision. If Donald Trump has, again, done what's necessary to get on the ballot as a Republican in states and met those, and then meets the qualifications to be on the ballot as a major party representative, you're going to have one elected secretary of state, or five or six, let's say, to really influence the election, decide it doesn't matter. We're not going to even count the votes. You don't have to take them off the ballot. They don't have to even accept the votes.

You could write in, you do all these things. You could win the election by numbers. You could win the state and they exclude you from getting electoral votes from the state.

1-800-684-3110. I just think it's very suspicious that all of the sudden, we hear this from all these Democrats, let's play it, Will, because I don't remember hearing this during the January 6 committee, or at the conclusion of the January 6 House hearings, did they say, because of what we've found here and our power under the 14th Amendment, which there is that Article 5, like the caller pointed out, Donald Trump's disqualified. You don't like it, take us to court over it, but we're going to say that. They never said that. This was something they didn't even discuss until last week.

Take a listen. The 14th Amendment Section 3 is pretty clear. If you engage in acts of insurrection or rebellion against the government, or you give aid and comfort to those who do, you are disqualified from running. It doesn't require that you be convicted of insurrection.

It just requires that you have engaged in these acts. It's a disqualification from holding office again, and it fits Donald Trump to a T. The arguments for disqualification are quite strong. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is a radical and sweeping proposition.

Donald Trump is disqualified just as if he were running and not a born U.S. citizen, or if he were running and he were 24 years old. Under that section of the 14th Amendment, the language is specific. If you give aid and comfort to those who engage in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States, it doesn't say against the United States. It says against the Constitution. I really think that this legal theory is something that we really need to concentrate on.

Instead of concentrating so much on the indictments, I mean, I'm very excited about them myself, but I definitely think 14th Amendment all the way had just prevented from running. All right, so there you go. This was just something they figured out last week. I do want to make this clear to people. This is not like some new provision.

This has been the provision since the Civil War or the end of the Civil War. So all these scholars who believe this was so clear-cut didn't even discuss this two weeks ago. They all got nervous when they realized that indicting Donald Trump wasn't scaring people from supporting Donald Trump. They all got nervous when their chosen candidates from Washington, D.C., failed right out of the gate, when the debates became a joke, when the theories that you could submit, again, the fundraising dries up.

We've seen those articles today. So now you're going to say, well, even if this person would win or could win, we're not going to allow them to win. We're going to find this provision of the Constitution from the Civil War. We're going to treat him like Robert E. Lee. Someone who left the office when they were supposed to leave office, disagreed with some of the election results, still does, but left like you're supposed to, handed over power, peaceful transfer of power. Just because some other protesters decided they didn't think that was the right thing.

I don't think how you could apply January 6th to the Civil War. And I think it's just absurd the stretch that all these people are trying to make. And it's the Donald, it's the Trump syndrome, like we talked about.

It is the Trump syndrome, but it is this idea that you would have a self-executing Secretary of State who becomes judge, jury, and in one sense, executioner by having the person either struck from the ballot or not letting those votes be calculated as part of the actual election. It's very serious. So what you've got to do is we've assembled a legal team at the ACLJ. We're going to move that legal team forward and continue to fight it out. AP is just reporting a group has filed a lawsuit to bar Donald Trump for the primary ballot in Colorado. So that has started under a clause under the 14th amendment. So in that particular case, so they're going to target the primary ballot, which is actually decided, you know, mostly that's the political party decides like how you make your way to that ballot. Usually the Secretaries of States are less involved in the primary process. They do have to see that the elections are held and the process goes forward.

But that's interesting that in Colorado, and again, you've got to start looking at their laws too and how their state laws apply that they're targeting the primary process that you can't even choose this person to be your nominee as Republicans. That needs to be met head on. So here's what we'll do. Let's pull that lawsuit if we can find and have our team do it. We're not going to be able to get it by the next segment. And I would file an amicus brief at a minimum in that case.

Yeah. So we'll take your calls. 1-800-684-3110 support the work of the ACLJ. Again, part of what we're going to do here is educate all these Secretaries of States. You can see the lawsuits are starting to be filed already 1-800-684-3110 to join us on the show, ACLJ.org to support our work.

We'll be right back. So the lawsuit filed in Colorado, again, this is a lawsuit tried to bar President Trump for being the Republican primary election ballot in Colorado. It was brought by individuals from Colorado and the group CREW, which is a group based out of Washington, DC. They're basing it all off of Lawrence Tribe's law review article, which again existed this year, didn't exist 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago. They just suddenly found themselves studying the 14th Amendment and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which they believe they can execute by a civil lawsuit that you don't have to have a conviction, but you could... Technically, I think the way I read is you don't even need the civil lawsuit, but of course, without it, you could just still have Secretaries of States society. Now the way that this could be fought back quickly is Secretaries of States around the country act reasonably and say, this is absurd.

But I don't know if we live in that world anymore. No, I don't think we do. I think you live in a world where they... Let's check who the Secretary of State is in Colorado. And I have a feeling they're going to file these mostly with Democrat Secretaries of States or Secretaries of States that have made comments against Donald Trump for political purposes.

And you don't have to file it all 50 states, just a handful, and you can't win the election. I mean, we did the program today. We said it would start. It's starting. Let's take Daniel's call out of Maryland.

He's on line one. Hi, Daniel. Hey, thank you for taking my call. Listen, I support you guys for what you do.

I thank God for you. My question is, in addition to what you guys are doing with the Secretary of State in each state, what about the citizens of each state? The power of the citizen, what can they do?

Two things. They can petition their government for redress of a grievance. So the citizens of Colorado could petition the legislature to say this is incorrect, or petition the governor or the Secretary of State. And number two, if in fact this is now valid litigation, and if we determine that we can file a legal brief in that case, we could do it on behalf of the citizens of Colorado that would sign up. And we would, I'm sure, get thousands of people to sign up. So, Daniel, stay tuned is what I can tell you. Stay tuned. Let's see what we have here. We are working on it. We've got a team on it.

We're going to be working on it as soon as we're done with the broadcast today. Yeah. I mean, this again, it makes free speech a disqualifier to become President of the United States. The idea that you believe, hey, I don't know if this election under this unprecedented time where we had a pandemic, so I mean, there were real things to actually question and talk about. I mean, it was a time when things were different. People weren't going to school. People weren't going to work. Everybody was working from home. The idea was you had to tell, how do you have an election with social distancing?

How do you get the ballots to people? So we threw out lots of rules during this. And then the idea was you can't even question what happened during that, or you're going to get disqualified for being President. By the way, the Secretary of State of Colorado was a Democrat.

So I mean, surprise, surprise, that they would start there. Not a state, by the way, that's very determinative, but again, you get a couple of those that aren't necessarily determinative. You just need a few swing states.

I mean, literally two swing states, probably you could swing the election. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go back to the phones. Pam in Maryland online too.

Hey, Pam. Hey, I'm actually in Missouri. A couple of questions for you. First of all, you kind of answered what people could do within their state to get this changed. But what about people like me who are in Missouri and I can't petition the Colorado legislature, but yet they are stealing my vote. So there may be a ability to say that your vote is being effectively disenfranchised. So we will look at that issue too.

I am holding in my hand, Will just brought it in, our executive producer. What is it, Will, 100 pages? 118-page complaint, jock full of nuts. I thought it was supposed to be simple and self-executing. Oh, simple and self-executing. And it's got individuals against, I mean, it looks like they've listed a group of individual voters. So to answer Pam's question, your vote may be being disenfranchised. We're going to look at all of this.

I'm going to go to work on this as soon as we're done with radio in the next six minutes. And we've got a team on it now, but I'm going to expand that team out because obviously this is going to be the new cause du jour, the cause of the day. And we're going to be on top of this because this will disenfranchise voters from around the country. I think that there's probably a role for secretaries of states to challenge this. That ends up at the Supreme Court.

You can have those direct original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but that takes secretary of states who are willing to take a stand too. Let's see if they are. Let's take James Callout of Florida. He's listening on Sirius XM. James, go ahead. Hey, hi, how are you guys doing?

I'm thankful for everything you're doing. This is just a quick comment. If they said President Trump, former President Trump in tight balance, what about these other Democrats, elective officials, you know, like Maxine Waters and Schumer, where as they reach all of Schumer's comments, one of the judges was threatened. James, you're a hundred percent correct.

It's a double standard. Here's what Schumer said are the steps of the Supreme Court. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. So you have a threat from a sinning U.S. senator, happens to be majority leader, saying to the justices, if you rule the way that you might rule, it's against the position we want, you will rule the day.

You will be hit by a whirlwind. That sounds insurrectionist, but I don't think none of us would bring a charge under the 14th amendment to disqualify Chuck Schumer. It's ridiculous.

But you brought up a very good point. Let's take another phone call. Yeah, we'll go to Charlene in Arizona on line 3. Hey, Charlene, listening on Rumble. Go ahead, Charlene.

Hi, how are you guys? Okay, so if you think about the amount of fake and unfounded allegations that the Democrats have tried to persecute Trump with over the last several years, it's obvious that they are still very threatened by him. And so, you know, to the point where they are pre-planning to have him removed from the ballots, according to the 14th amendment, wouldn't he have to be convicted of the J6 charge before they start conspiring against him again to have him removed? Well, that would be my position, that it has to be some kind of, you know, a final adjudication, but the language itself is very vague. But I think due process would demand that. So you have to read the Constitution in total, in context. It can't just be self-executing, anybody thinks this, but that's, you know, that's where it's going to be fought out, and it looks like it's going to be fought out. Yeah, and I do think that you bring up the point, there are ways to hold people responsible for this that make this a clear amendment to the Constitution. There's also, if you look at the Civil War, that's clear, pretty clear cut.

You could easily take that to a court and figure that out, not difficult to apply. Starts getting a lot more difficult when you're 100 years post that, you're talking about political speech, and you start again deciding whose political speech you like and whose political speech you don't like, and you're going to tell the American voters who they can decide, even as they're going to be their nominee for their party. I mean, think about that attack by Colorado. These liberals are trying to tell Republican Colorado voters who they can and can't vote for. In their primary, to determine their party's nominee to the presidency.

Think about, let that sink in for a minute. So liberals, activists, who may not even, in some states, you know, you have to be registered with the parties to even vote in the primary. Each state's different on that. But in the states that require that, you've got these liberals telling you as a Republican, who you can and can't vote for. Not that you must vote for someone or shouldn't vote for someone, that's your decision. But that your vote for that person, even if you do vote for that person, it won't count. We're not going to allow them on the ballot. We're not going to count them even if they are on the ballot. And we're going to do that because we have a Democrat Secretary of State. So we're going to file here. And we think, again, we're going to let politicians decide what other politicians they get to run against. I would think that's not what the Constitution thought, was that by political decision and which political parties are in charge, you could exclude people from the ballot. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-09-06 14:26:40 / 2023-09-06 14:47:57 / 21

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime