Special Counsel Seeking INDICTMENT for Hunter Biden

Today on Sekulow, the special counsel now seeking indictment for Hunter Biden. What does it mean? 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. All right, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. The 14th Amendment issue again heating up as it did while we were finishing out the broadcast yesterday. A lawsuit was filed in Colorado by a group called CREW out of Washington, D.C., and some Colorado residents against the Secretary of State there, but really trying to force a Democrat Secretary of State's hand to start this disqualification process under the 14th Amendment. We will get more into that as our research has continued at the ACLJ to push back against this ridiculous notion that Secretaries of States can willy-nilly decide on their own without judicial proceedings, without any finding that someone is not qualified to be on the ballot because they engaged in an insurrection in their view, in their opinion. And I mean, imagine the mess that makes not just for the citizens of that state or for the candidate, but for the citizens of other states who are voting for that individual. We had a lot of people say, well, if that state does it, isn't that affecting my vote and my state?

I think you're absolutely right. And that's why this constitutional provision is not self-executing on its own. It takes a court case.

It takes finding of this kind of guilt. And then this could be utilized. And there's even question about whether or not after there was amnesty granted, courts have gone kind of both ways on after there's widespread amnesty post the Civil War, is this clause even good? Well, and the other thing is that, first of all, then you got the question, the President's not technically an officer of the United States, he's the commander in chief. So it only applies to officers.

So that's number two in this lineup. But the Colorado case is interesting because what it has done is brought a lawsuit by CREW, that organization against the sitting secretary of state of Colorado, compelling the secretary of state to not include Donald Trump on the ballot that they allege all these facts from January 6th and say, they're the facts, you make that determination. Even though what's interesting here is the President has not been charged with insurrection.

No. And we've already had over 10,000 people, nearly 11,000 people cited on our petition on this issue. We're putting together a legal analysis for the ACLJ to all 50 states, to all secretaries of states to know that this is, again, whether they get sued, whether they get brought into court, or they're even flirting with this idea of doing this on their own, that this is improper. It is not the widespread accepted view of the reading of this provision of the constitution, which we're starting to get more research on. And when you see it was done during the Civil War, the only other time it was used, the person got convicted in court. And when that actually was vacated by the Supreme Court, guess what? That person ran again for Congress and was seated by Congress. So Congress looked to the court to decide if that person was impaired at all from actually being seated even though they were elected. So in that situation, again, I think you've got a little bit of precedent showing that Congress looks to a court holding on that matter.

It's not self-executing. It's not just up to a secretary of state or just a congressional committee's finding. So what we've done, as Jordan mentioned, is we are preparing a legal memo, which we got the first draft of yesterday.

It was really well done by our team. And then we are going to convert that memo as we continue the research. We're not quite there yet, probably be next week, to send a letter to all 50 secretary of states. And I'm also going to include the board of election supervisors, probably of some of these other, because some of the states are different.

So we'll figure out if in what state is it the secretary of state, is the board of election supervisors, whoever it is. We're going to send a letter to them and we'll file an amicus brief in that case out in Colorado. We've got about 10,000 signatures we just launched yesterday.

I really want to be able to go in to court with 100,000 names. So we encourage you to sign our petition. You could do that by simply going to aclj.org. That's aclj.org. You can sign the petition there.

I encourage you to do that today. Very important. This way we have a full representation.

I'd love to get all 50 states. And of course, if there was Trump news yesterday, there has to be Joe Biden news or Hunter Biden news built in, right, to try and cover up that. Well, now there's a news story about the special counsel. He's announcing, hey, I'm going to be looking for an indictment against Hunter Biden on this gun charge by the end of September. It's coming.

So what to make of this announcement's pretty bizarre, actually. We will take your calls and questions and we'll get you analysis on that on the broadcast. Support the work of the ACLJ at aclj.org. Sign the petition today. Let's get to 100,000. That's aclj.org. All right, welcome back to Cinco.

We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. Other story that broke yesterday, not just the 14th amendment, but all of a sudden now the special counsel, David Weiss out of Delaware says to expect an indictment of Hunter Biden before September 29th. There was a question about exactly what that indictment will be. And now it looks like it's specific to the firearm charge, which was one of the lesser, I mean, it's a serious charge, but one of the lesser charges when you have tax evasion charges that were potentially hanging out there. We haven't really gotten word or clarity on those yet, but we have gotten clarity in a memo that was, I guess it's court filing that was filed that he's reconvening, he's going to seek a grand jury to issue this indictment. He hasn't had it yet.

I've never heard of it. That's why we got Andy O'Connell in here, our senior counsel, who's a former prosecutor. I've never heard of this announcing I'm seeking, but I haven't gotten yet.

What is going on here? Well, that's a good question. I think we'd all like to know what's going on here. I think the court would like to know.

I think the people would like to know. You don't have a situation ever that I know of in which a prosecutor says, I'm going to indict and I'm going to indict by September 29th. Cause that's what he said in a status report to judge Norieka. I'm going to indict by September 29th at the earliest, because that's when the speedy trial act requires me to do that. And that the no action is required by the court.

Well, the problem that I have with that is who are you? You're the United States attorney. You're the attorney for the grand jury. You certainly have the right to sign the indictment, but the determination of whether or not there is going to be the return of an indictment. That is to say probable cause to find that a crime has been committed is with the grand jury, not with the prosecutor. You don't control the grand jury. Why did he do it? Because he obviously doesn't know what he's doing.

That's what my opinion is. You don't make an announcement that I'm going to indict somebody. You say, I'm going to present evidence to the grand jury, asking for the return of an indictment. They expect an indictment before September 29th. Their final lawyers have argued the prosecutors are barred from filing additional charges under an agreement that two sides previously reached on the gun case. So that's going to be an interesting dynamic. I can see the defense lawyer saying that we have already agreed that you can't indict on the gun charge. And they're going to probably file the charge, a motion to dismiss that if Weiss indicts are the grand jury indicts on the gun charge. I can see that coming from Abby Lowell.

Yes. Our friend, I need to say this, Abby Lowell, and he is a friend of mine and a friend of Andy's. He's worked with him very closely in representing President Trump. He represented Jared and Ivanka is probably, I'd say leading top three criminal defense lawyers in the United States.

And I put him number one on the list. He's a fantastic lawyer. He said, we expect a fair resolution of the sprawling five-year investigation into Mr. Biden that was based on the evidence and the law, not outside political pressure, and we'll do what is necessary on behalf of Mr. Biden to achieve just that.

Let me tell you something about Abby and you know him too, Jordan. He doesn't just say things. He's got a plan on if they do this, that he's going to go after it.

Yeah. I think even like Andy McCarthy said, this seems very bizarre. Don't think this is like a reawakening of David Weiss or that he's doing this for the right reasons, really was forced into doing this by a court. It looks like those tax charges have disappeared. They've been dismissed as of now. They have to bring those again, which brings up statute of limitations issue, which of course the defense would argue. And again, that failed plea deal was a big failure by the federal government. It wasn't just a tough move on the Hunter Biden team, but also put the special counsel because of this way too long of an investigation into basic tax. You didn't pay your taxes. They knew the amount. They knew the amount that he had paid back. And you filed to get a gun while you told everyone you were a drug addict.

So very basic. Like Andy McCarthy said, you could have gotten these indictments in a day years ago. I want to read what Andy McCarthy said, who's also a good friend of ours.

Never forget, they think we're idiots. I mean, this is what he wrote. That's the main takeaway from Wednesday's announcement by the faux special counsel. These are his words, David Weiss, that by months ends, he intends to indict Hunter Biden on a felony gun charge. The very same gun charge Weiss tried to make disappear just six weeks ago. He went to, by the way, David Weiss, his team in court said, yes, we believe this is a fair and full Andy resolution of the charge.

Yeah. And then he turns around and says, I'm going to indict him on the gun charge. First of all, you're not the grand jury, but where was he with a gun charge five years ago? How hard is it to indict or to get the grand jury to indict on a gun charge? All it is is filling out a federal form under section 922 of title 18, which says I'm a drug user.

And if you do, you can't have a gun. I could have indicted that in three days and have indicted gun charges before. It's not a complicated case. McCarthy says after five years, the Hunter gun case should be easily easiest, should be the easiest grand jury presentation, a one paragraph indictment in the annals of American prosecutions. Why is Weiss still talking about indicting the case when he could have easily indicted the case five years ago, if he had just spent a half hour in the grand jury and gotten the simple indictment, he wouldn't have to tell judge Noriega anything on Wednesday, the felony charge would have spoken for itself. The statute of limitations would no longer be an issue. They could have just set a trial date, but they did not.

Well, that's exactly what I said. You know, the, one of the easiest charges to prove is a gun charge, a felon in possession of a firearm or a drug user in possession of a firearm. Biden said to everybody that he was a drug user. He neglected to fill out a form that said that and yet he had possession of a firearm.

This is an easy thing to do. You call the ATF agent or the FBI agent in, you show him the documents or you ask him if there are documents, you ask him what the evidence is that he was a drug user. You present what evidence that he had a gun or that he said that he had a gun. And then you walk out and you give the grand jury the indictment.

So 10 minutes. I think where people are is that they usually, it seems like a charge like this, which is a fairly simple one, would be part of a much larger, like a tax, like, you know, multiple, you're getting hit with multiple counts. Is this even worth bringing a single charge like this? I mean, how, how serious, I guess it's a, I guess a felony, but most of it, they tried to settle this out. I would never have added this charge except to a longer indictment with evasion so that the jury could compromise on a charge if they wanted to. It's what we call a throwaway charge, but it should have been in there.

That's what it feels like. Say that again. It's a throwaway charge is what it is. It's not the substantive guts of the investigation. I would have indicted it, had the grand jury indicted on that. It provided that I had also had tax evasion and all the other dealings so that they, if they wanted to, could compromise on the gun charge or throw it out or say, we're going to give him something by not finding him guilty on the gun charge. But that's how you do prosecution.

He doesn't know what he's doing. The whole issue with these prosecutors running around, it is kind of made a joke of our entire legal system because it seems like whether it's the courts, the judges, federal, state, the prosecutors themselves, both in federal and state level, these are long-term prosecutors, people with a lot of experience. And it's like, they've never done a case before. Now, many of them they've done cases, but they just haven't done cases against Trump's or Biden's.

And they haven't been up against this kind of defense. I mean, it is a unique situation where you have both the former President of the United States under a multi-jurisdictional indictments for, and you've got the current sitting President of the United States who has a special counsel investigating him and a special counsel investigating his son. So what do you do in a situation like this?

Yes. If you're the prosecutor, you go ahead with the evidence. This is what Weitz's problem is. You had this ton and mountain of evidence that you've accumulated on tax evading charges. Then you had a gun charge that you could throw in. You indict, you go to the grand jury and you say, here's my evidence. You present the indictment and ask for the return of an indictment.

It's very simple. You put the gun charge in as a compromise charge so that the grand jury can either say, I'm going to no bill this or a trial jury, if you do true bill it, can say, I'm going to throw away the charge. But you do, you act, you don't wait till the statute of limitations has almost run and then give this memo to the district judge saying, I'm going to indict by September 29th because- Have you ever seen that?

No, never, never have seen that. How long did you do that? You were prosecuted by that? I was a prosecutor three years and nine years as an assistant district attorney and five years as an assistant United States attorney.

I know my prosecution pretty good. And this is like, they're making this stuff up as they go along. That's what it seems like to people. And I think to both sides, I was on a show earlier today, conservative host, and we said, this is what we've been arguing against with President Trump too, is that you wait too long. We don't think that you start bringing these charges against elected officials or their direct relatives because it appears like election influence. It does look like, I mean, I'll be honest on it. David Weiss did not have some come to Jesus moment where he decided, Hunter Biden, this Ukrainian deal is something I need to reinvestigate.

No. This is all politics. He got pressure because the judge threw out the plea deal. Then he had no charges and they got to have something with Hunter Biden because they got to have something that they can close this out with. Prediction, 60 days they come up with a plea agreement. Andy, that's what I think.

It's possible with Abby Lowell, you don't play games because he's a serious defense lawyer and he's going to find the holes in the case and there's plenty of them. Exactly right. All right. Thank you, Andy. We've got a legal memo that we have prepared on this 14th Amendment challenge.

We're going to get into that in the next segment of the broadcast. We are sending a letter to all 50 secretaries of state and you've represented secretaries of state. I do. This idea of suing them, which is what this group did in Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot is, you're shaking your head. It's a gutsy move. It's a very gutsy move, but I don't think one that it's going to be successful based on the memorandum that I've read and the experience that I have.

I really don't. So we're preparing a legal memorandum. We're going to be sending a letter to all 50 secretary of states and probably election supervisors too. And we're going to file an amicus brief in that Colorado case, but we need you to stand with us.

Jordan's going to let you know how, folks. I really want 100,000 signatures. I know it's a lot for a month of September.

It's not typically a huge month, but if we can get 100,000 signatures on this, I think we're at about 10,000 or so, maybe 12,000. Okay. It's growing since we've been on air. Yeah.

I've added a couple of thousands since we've been on the air. So go to ACLJ.org, sign that petition today. And listen, we don't live in a time where even there's common sense with the law. So even a straightforward analysis that shows something is wrong and that bringing these charges is wrong, you can't just accept that that's going to be accepted these days. You have to be ready to fight back on all this to make sure your vote is counted. Go to ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Here we are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. There's plenty of calls. I think people too, they really are upset over this idea that one state is going to bar decide, a secretary of state's going to decide someone can't be on the ballot. And then you vote for that person, your state, because your state said they can't be on the ballot. And this legal theory that's being proposed, and that's how it would work out under the way they proposed it, is that each states would be making these determinations as secretaries of state. But again, secretaries of state came while we were on the air.

We projected someone's going to do it and lo and behold, they did it. They did. They filed in Colorado, which is not a top swing state, but it's definitely a blue state. And they still are trying to, they sue the secretary of state to force them to take this position. But let's take your phone calls.

1-800-684-3110. Bill in Wyoming, I think he hits on the, really the main point of why this just seems so un-American to even file from these organizations. Hey Bill, welcome to Secular, you're on the air.

Yeah, thanks for letting me talk. This really upsets me. I mean, couldn't I sue the secretary of state for just preventing me from exercising my constitutional rights? I mean, I don't remember this kind of stuff when I was studying civics in junior high.

I pointed that out. It's coming from these legal scholars who are nearly 80 years old, most of them. Okay. They've been law professors at the top law schools in the country for 50 years. They've never written a law review article on this topic. They never even came to mind hypothetically. No. Hypothetically, they never said... Because really, other than one time during World War I... To remember I have a house.

Yeah. Other than that, the only other cases were the cases after the Civil War. But here's what's happened. Six voters filed a lawsuit yesterday seeking to keep former President Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment. And that's the one that says if you've engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The lawsuit was filed in a state district court in Denver with the help of CREW, that's the Citizens for Responsibility Ethics in Washington, demanding that the Colorado Secretary of State not print Mr. Trump's name on the Republican primary ballot. It also asked the court to rule that Mr. Trump is disqualified in order to end any uncertainties. They want two things. They want that court to adjudicate that he was involved in an insurrection and rebellion. A backup plan. And two, take him off the list.

Yeah. Where's the conviction, by the way? Where's the charge? First of all, where's the charge of insurrection, but where's the conviction for insurrection that would buy him from being a candidate for President of the United States? Where is due process in the United States of America? If all you can say is because I made a speech and because people are in the Democratic side are talking about insurrection, we're going to prevent a guy from being put on a ballot.

A former President of the United States from being put on a ballot for President of the United States. Absurd. Absurd. The Colorado Secretary of State loves this, by the way. They've endorsed the big suit of this lawsuit. They said, I look forward to the Colorado Court's substantive resolution of this issue.

So you see, they're not willing to put all of their money where their mouth is that this is totally self-executing. They still want a local court to find out. A district court to say, without trial. They just want the judge to declare it was insurrection.

Yes. They don't plead. They make facts out about insurrection, but there's no insurrection civil case. There's not a civil litigation for insurrection. There's a criminal statute on insurrection, which by the way, Jack Smith did not bring against Donald Trump or any of the other hundreds of defendants on the January 6th matter. No one has been charged with insurrection. But you've got two conservative law professors and you do, and they're well-respected.

And then here's the split you got. You got Mike Paulson, who I know, and Steven Calabresi, very well-respected saying, yep, self-executing, they could take them off. You shouldn't be on the ballot. Then you've got Mike McConnell, former judge at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, former Assistant Solicitor General of the United States.

Brilliant guy saying, no, no, no, no. First of all, the President's not even an officer of the United States. He's above all that. So it shouldn't even apply to him. And then secondly, they can't just be self-executing. There would have to be a charge of incitement and insurrection or rebellion and insurrection to be specific.

But they didn't do that. So we're taking your calls. Our phone lines lit up yesterday. Folks, every one of you we're talking to on the phones, make sure you're signing our petition because listen, we're going to talk to a lot of you on the phones today. And those that are watching, whether it's on social media or our radio stations or Sirius XM, aclj.org, sign this petition at aclj.org. Let's go to Joe in New York on Live Four. Hey, Joe, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Thank you for taking my question and God bless you all and your families. Thank you. My question is, if one or a few secretaries of state did try to keep Trump off the ballot, is there any way it could make it to the Supreme Court and be overturned?

Yes. I mean, look, in our petition, we say stop the left's disqualification plot because that's what it is. But let's say this court in Colorado were to say, Andy, that he's disqualified. We think it's self-executing. We don't even have to make a finding of insurrection. Or we think it was an insurrection and therefore we're going to do it. But insurrection is a federal charge, by the way, not a state charge.

So yeah, I think that the Supreme Court could get into it. But why are we at this point? I mean, that's, I think the biggest problem here is we've reached this point where there's, here's what's happened. They've indicted him four times and his poll numbers go up. They say the closest now person that looks like they're coming in second in the polling, we'll get to that in a minute, Jordan, is Nikki Haley, interestingly, but way behind. So now they go to this 14th Amendment and they've got that chatter going pretty aggressively.

Oh, yeah. I mean, right now that's all the news is the insurrection and we're going to get him off the ballot because he's an insurrectionist under the Constitution of the United States. An insurrectionist cannot be on the ballot and he's disqualified from being President. Who says that? Where has there been a charge of insurrection?

Well, let me tell you something, though, interesting fact. Today, after four weeks of not being on service, the grand jury in Washington met today. They started meeting today. They haven't been there in a month and they started meeting today, which you wonder then, because now that Jack Smith sees this kind of bubbling thing, does he say, okay, well, we'll just charge him with insurrection? Yeah. What do you think? That's possible.

I mean, he sees this going. It's a politicized grand jury. It's a politicized Department of Justice. It's a weaponized Democratic controlled Department of Justice. It's not the Justice Department that I was employed by. And here now the grand jury meets and they say, well, look, there's a move out there to get Trump off the ballot because he's an insurrectionist, but there's no charge.

How about let's make one? Well, let me tell you what Brad Raffensperger from Georgia just said. He said, I cannot, as Secretary of State, keep the former President off the 2024 Presidential ballot. Well, bravo, Brad. Yeah, finally on something. Yeah.

I mean, again, I don't know if this is heroic to say this. I think it's pretty straightforward that most secretary... The Colorado Secretary of State loves the fact that she's being sued. Oh, she wants to be.

Yes. And I think that you're going to see, because these are political actors, you're starting to see why there's some issues with all of this when you elect judges based off partisanship and you would elect secretaries of state on partisan, and they start playing partisan politics or even internal party politics with the positions they have. This is not what the founding fathers created the constitution to do. They didn't create it to cause constitutional crises. They created it to come with a framework that common sense would still understand that, again, you can't just go to a district court and say, just say he committed insurrection. Now, if you go through this federal court process and they do add that charge, well, I think that almost moots this issue out because it doesn't have to be self-executing anymore. I mean, they would take out this whole issue. So we'll see what Jack Smith is up to.

Well, even in the definition of insurrection, I don't think anything that Donald Trump is nothing even close to that. When you look at what has been charged in our past, in our history in the United States, we're going to continue to take your phone calls. We come back second half hour, the broadcast is coming up. We're going to take a lot of calls. We'll take it right off the top of the second half hour. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is also going to be joining us in the second half hour of the show.

You don't want to miss that. So we've got Senator Blackburn coming up and we'll be taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Now, over 12,000 people have signed the petition to stop the left's disqualification plot, to take your vote away, your choice away if it happens to be for Donald Trump. And that just happens to be this election cycle.

If this becomes the norm, they can do this to whatever leading candidate they want. All right, we've got to fight back. Sign the petition, ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Yeah, well, I mean, people don't like this idea of this being, their votes being taken away by out of control secretaries of state. I think the most reasonable secretaries of state should come out here and say, this is not by our authority to do. If you want to do it, adjudicate this through a court, you can go ahead and try that.

And again, go through all the appeals and process it there. Because what's interesting is that the same amendment that also promises due process is the amendment they're trying to say is you can self-execute and take someone's right away. Which they have taken... It's kind of a joke right there. It is. And the good thing I think about that is that people like Mike McConnell saying, it was very well-respected, conservative commentator and former judge saying, that's not the way it works.

But there's others on conservative saying it does. All right, we've got an announcement to make because it's always important to announce a win and especially for a student. So we have a free speech victory.

ACLJ steps in to defend a parental rights group. It's free speech after a mayor removed a flyer from the bulletin board. So last year, a group of parents and citizens in the city of Newberry Port, Massachusetts, formed an organization called Citizens for Responsible Education to address concerns regarding public schools' indoctrination and certain troubling instruction occurring in the schools. By the way, it's been a problem all over the country. In accordance with its mission, on October 20th of last year, they plan to host an educational forum titled, What is Social Emotional Learning?

Because people didn't even know what it really was. They posted flyers promoting the event on public bulletin boards, which you're allowed to do. The mayor of the town confirmed that he personally took down the flyers in the Newport Public Library because, quote, after reviewing their content, it was not aligned with the city of Newport's values of being an inclusive and welcoming community. Free speech means you're going to hear both sides of the issue. I mean, free speech doesn't mean a mayor can just say, hey, you know what, I don't like that position.

I'm going to remove it. It's called viewpoint discrimination. Which the newspaper bragged about doing that.

Yeah, bragged about it. Now, here's what's so important. Once we got involved, and we've argued more viewpoint discrimination cases, probably, than anybody in the country, not only did we get the flyers posted back, the meetings take place, but he acknowledged that, in fact, he was engaging unlawfully in viewpoint discrimination. Can I read what he wrote?

This is, I think, is worth it. On October 2022, I removed flyers from bulletin boards located in City Hall in the public library, advertising an upcoming educational event being held by a community organization. Citizens for Responsible Education is the name of the organization. Both the city's posting policy and my actions should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of the posting entity. The city is revising its posting policies applicable to the city bulletin boards to confirm that viewpoint discrimination plays no factor in regulating any content posted. The city of Newburgh and the mayor's office value the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, and so did the ACLJ, and we got a great victory there. Yeah, I mean, so, exactly, and I think, again, we want you to stand with us.

This is the idea. Again, you go to ACLJ.org slash help. If you think you need the ACLJ's legal assistance, that's all you got to do. You go to ACLJ.org slash help. This organization did the right thing.

Their flyers got pulled down. They go to ACLJ.org slash help, and we're able to get this resolved. Not just the flyers back up, but the idea that, again, as I say, when these individuals or these organizations decide to take a stand, they're not just protecting their rights for the future. It's all the other organizations, both religious, conservative, whatever viewpoint. You're protecting everybody's rights, and you're guaranteeing that the city, not only the mayor, apologizing for their actions, but an entire revision of their policy that they have realized all of a sudden after our lawsuit is unconstitutional.

So, stand with us. Support our work at ACLJ.org, but if you need assistance, you go to ACLJ.org slash help, an ACLJ attorney. We'll take a look at what you've got for them. If they need more information, they'll contact you, and if you want to decide to work with us, we'll do just that.

It doesn't cost you a thing. So, if you feel like your rights or the organization's rights have been violated, go to ACLJ.org slash help. We come back. We start taking your phone calls. At 1-800-684-3110 on this 14th Amendment issue, we've also got Senator Marsha Blackburn coming up on the show as well, so you don't want to miss that. Our petition is over 12,000.

We want to use the month to get it to 100,000. Go to ACLJ.org right now to protect your right and your vote. Sign that petition today at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. We're going to go right to the phones at 1-800-684-3110. Next segment, Marsha Blackburn's going to be joining us, so you don't want to miss Senator Blackburn on the broadcast as well. I'll tell you about some major issues with back to school, the immigration crisis, how that's coming home to kind of roost in all these major cities across the country, and how it's affecting whatever state, whatever city you live in as well.

So, we'll be talking about that with Senator Blackburn. We get back in the next segment of the broadcast. We'll take your calls. Now, let's go right in the order people have been holding on. Bruce in Colorado, online three. Hey, Bruce.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. The Secretary of State in Colorado has already had some partisan politics controversy, so I mean, I won't be surprised with what may happen, but what I was wanting to comment on is about, you know, the political perspective on this, and I'm wondering if this may backfire on them because, you know, as you've been mentioning, if Trump's not given a due process and an actual conviction for insurrection, and they take him off the ballot, then this is going to contradict, you know, in the final weeks of the last Presidential election, they were coming out, bringing the big names like Obama, and the media was chatting... So, listen, here's the thing. He hasn't been charged with insurrection. I mean, this is the problem they've got. The former President has not been charged with insurrection or aiding a betting in insurrection. So, there's no triggering mechanism there. So, the Secretary of State in Colorado, you're right, partisan, she's like welcoming the lawsuit.

Yeah, she's happy about big suits, which means they're gonna probably... I don't know if they... No defense. No defense. They're gonna leave it up to a district court judge in a state court to decide who gets to be on a Presidential ballot. Yeah, we need to... Let me just tell our team, we need to find out what the rules are in Colorado at the trial court level about filing. We normally don't do it at the trial court level, but I think here it's important to get a foothold in early. I would like to have the ACLJ do a brief on this, and that's why when we have this campaign going on right now for this petition, if we could say we're representing 100,000 people or more and 5,000 from Colorado, if that's where it is, that would be great.

So, go to ACLJ.org for that. But let's tell our team, we need to be looking at a brief in that case. All right, let's go back to the phone. Todd at Georgia on Line 6. Hey, Todd.

Hey, thank God for the ACLJ. My question is, with Weiss, I think he's been hiding the Hunter Biden laptop ever since he got a hold of it. And what if the grand jury decides not to indict Hunter, is this gonna be another part of the cover-up, like they covered up for Hillary's illegal service? What do you mean by he's hiding it? Well, he had it for years and then he did nothing with it.

Well, no, he hasn't. I mean, it's part of their evidence. So, it's in an... I mean, as far as I know, it's part of the evidence. But a lot of the charges have nothing to do with that laptop. This is the goofy part is, again, we're talking about the gun charge.

We're not really talking about anything that's come out. We're not talking about the WhatsApp messages about his father being there, the meetings, the pressure or the... No, that's not part of it.... $10 million from Ukraine, all of this. This is about what he wrote in his book. So, he said he was a drug addict. And that matched up with a time period where he applied for a firearm, which it says on there, you've got to mark the form if you're using drugs. And so, he admitted to it already, which again... And so, it is a federal crime. I'm not trying to play it down.

But of the charges he was even facing with the tax charges, this would have been the weakest thing. And that's all we've got an indication. I do get what you're saying is... Again, I think, Todd, what you're saying is this is not like breathing life into what David Weiss's plan has been doing. In fact, this just looks like a mess to me. Well, I think what Andy said is it's kind of unprecedented. It's covering... And they're up against a real defense lawyer.

I mean, a really good defense lawyer. Yep. All right. Let's go back to the phones. Henry in California, online one.

Hey, Henry. Hey, thanks for taking my call. And God bless you guys.

You're doing kingdom work. Thanks. A, I'm signing the petition as soon as I hang up the phone.

Great. B, I was glad to hear about this case that came where somebody got kicked off the ballot and then took it into court. And then they got put back on and won. Yeah, but that was... Let me tell you when that was, Henry. 1917.

And the only reason he got kicked... He was able to go to court was the Supreme Court dismissed the charge, the insurrection charge against him because he was really engaged in free speech activity. So they should have never brought it in the first place. There has not been another one. And I will say as of today, now the grand jury's back, but as of today, there is no insurrection charge. No.

And most of it... There was also a widespread amnesty given to most of individuals of the Civil War. Well, they had that whole amnesty plan in 1871. Yes. It didn't apply to the top, top leaders, but it applied...

Regular enlisted folks did see the federal elected office. So even then, they've altered... There was a major alteration of what this even means. And again, we're only having this debate because the liberals don't wanna have just a straightforward election. It does lead to the point is like, you're that afraid of Donald Trump politically that you won't just let us have a fair fight.

First, he has to win the Republican nomination. So that's amongst Republicans. Then he's gotta go through the general election, which you think you're so confident in beating him that you have to take him off the ballot. So just realize that when you're deciding, again, what parties to support. This is just the basics of just common sense in America. And also the idea that you're gonna let... When people qualify, they go through the regular qualifications to run for office, that you don't just get to disqualify because you don't like the way they talk.

That's really what all these cases are about. You don't like their personality. You don't like the way they talk. You'd rather them hide everything like Joe Biden. They try to hide everything that they're doing.

They don't like people who actually tell you what they think on their Twitter account or their ex-account, whatever you wanna call that. Now we're true social. Back to the phones. Let's go. We'll go to Joanne in Ohio on Line 5. Hey, Joanne. Hi, guys.

Thanks for all you do. I have... Actually, you guys just made me think of another question, but my original question was, is this a state by state thing? Does the Colorado Republican Party have something to say about who's on their ballot? This is a primary election. They're trying to get him removed from. Yeah.

No, absolutely. I think I would hope the Colorado Republican... Listen, Colorado has produced senators, Republican senators as recently as six years ago. So it's not like it's a totally blue state. It's moved in that direction. But the Colorado Republican Party needs to engage.

I'll tell you, we're gonna engage. I think this is a fundamental violation of the right to vote that affects everybody else, not just the people in Colorado. But we gotta see what the local rules are about filing briefs at the time of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, remember it might be. Because the law on this is... I mean, it's not clear because it's never been done. I mean, this is unchartered territory utilizing the 14th Amendment.

I mean, it's past bizarre. Yes. And usually political parties come up with their process. States have different rules. In some states, to vote in a primary, you have to choose a political party before you can even vote. So if you decide you're an independent, you don't get to vote in the Republican or Democrat Party. In other states, you just get to decide that day.

You can't vote in both, but you can vote in one. That's like a state like New Hampshire. So you could decide, ah, there's not really a contested Democrat primary, so I'm gonna vote in the Republican primary this time and try to sway it that way. So states have different rules on that. But typically, again, so do the political parties. The secretary of state job is really just to make sure that people are able to exercise their vote in the primary process, running a smooth election, not deciding which party gets to put what nominee on that ballot.

And again, if those are gonna be litigated, that kind of ballot access and those rules by the parties, that is very different than the 14th Amendment and trying to exclude someone entirely from the process. Let's go to Peter in Texas online too. Hey, Peter, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Thank you. Regarding the 14th Amendment and how the communists are organizing it in this situation, you already hinted towards the 1871 vote, but if you can speak to this, because I know you know this better than I do, but it's been a couple of decades. But if you read it clearly, it lists all high offices within state and federal government. Yes.

It doesn't ever mention the President. Correct. And I believe it also alludes to that this is not the state's position to ban them. The state would take it to the federal government. The federal government had to pass both houses of Congress to decide whether or not... That part's not clear on how it executes. I mean, there is a mechanism where the finding of the Senate and impeachment could do that, okay?

Yes. But as to the litigation, you're 100% correct. And also the President is not typically known as constitutionally as an officer of the United States. Those are the subordinates. So it wouldn't be the President and vice President, it'd be the cabinet members, it would be others. People like confirmed, unelected officials.

Yes. And not the President. I'd say you're right, unelected officials.

So I think that's a threshold one problem here they have. You're right. And they list which elected officials it would apply to too. So I mean, again, they say members of Congress.

They don't say President or vice President. Yeah. So I've gone to the ACLJ website to see kind of where we are right now. The petition is growing and I mean, we've added 4,000 signatures since we've been on the air. So, or probably 3,000.

But anyways, we're at 14,038 and it's growing quickly. Here's what I'd like everybody to do. We want to get as many signatures on the Stop the Left's Disqualification plot. Because in the brief we file, we want to be able to say we're representing 100,000 voters. And I want to be able to have representation, hopefully from all 50 states. This is a good way for us to engage this. So I encourage you to do that at ACLJ.org, easiest way for people to do it.

That's right. Go to ACLJ.org. We're trying to grow this petition. So we want you to also share with your friends and family. You share that petition. So you sign it very quickly. It takes about a minute of your time at ACLJ.org and share it with your friends and family.

Let's use this time, this month to make sure this petition grows loud and clear. These secretaries of states know that people in their state, their constituents understand. They don't believe it. They have given them the ability to decide on their own who to take, put on the ballot or exclude from the ballot when they meet all the other standards. That it's not up to them, that their job is to carry out a smooth election process for the constituents, regardless of what political party they're from. We come back Senator Marsha Blackburn.

All right, welcome back to SEC. We're joined by Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, a great friend of ours at the American Center for Law and Justice. Senator Blackburn, I want to jump right into it. We've got Mayor Eric Adams predicting that the migrant crisis could destroy, he used the word destroy New York City with the back to school starting today, the number of migrant children, I think it's up 20 or 30% who have registered to attend New York City public schools. Maybe it seems like some Democrats outside of Washington are starting to see the light on illegal immigration, but does the border crisis for the whole country, do you see Democrats really realizing how big of an issue this is in Washington? Well, they're going to have to admit with this immigration crisis, every town's a border town, every state is a border state. The lesson for some of these big blue cities that declared themselves to be sanctuary cities is that lo and behold, you know, you can't be everything to everybody coming across that southern border in this supposed compassionate approach of being a sanctuary city turns out not to be such a compassionate approach, especially when you look at what is happening to people that are paying the cartels and then making this journey. You know, it's interesting to me, Senator, and that is in the statement you made that every city now is a border city, every town is a border town because that's the reality of what's happening. I think about something that we've worked on for decades here at the ACLJ and that is sex trafficking.

We know that sex cartels bring in these young women mostly, some boys too, but mostly young women through Mexico and then disperse them along the expressway routes. So it makes every town in the country having to deal with this. You would think that in and of itself would be enough to stop it. We'll get into the terrorism sneaking over the border in a minute, but just that alone would be enough to take definitive action. One would think that it is and when you look at the high percentage of women and girls that have been physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually abused by the cartels as they make this trip and the fact that the cartels are global businesses.

Last year, they brought people from 176 different countries to our southern border for illegal entry into this country. Cartels are big international global concerns. They are making money, human trafficking now. It was a $500 million a year business in 2019.

It is now a $150 billion with a B, $150 billion a year business. Now, as Senator, we also have the concern, so we know the traffickers, we know that involves the cartels, the horrible issues, the right to the children, to the women involved in the trafficking, to the migrants involved with these cartels who pay these coyotes and pay this money and then end up in these cities and kind of don't know what to do or who they should rely on. They, of course, then end up relying on city and government services. But also the terror threat that it's been tough for this administration to want to admit that they've had to a couple of times that we've uncovered here at the ACLJ. And most recently it was this move that a known, someone who had been sympathetic to ISIS had been a smuggler of 120 Uzbek men who ended up claiming asylum and then being let go into the United States. I mean, they've got trial dates. They're supposed to show up at some point in time, but I mean, for goodness sakes, they show up and they've got connections to terrorism. And right now they're just waltzing around the United States of America. Well, that's exactly what they are doing. And think about it as this coming to your community, because right now the FBI is trying to find these people that have been let go. These are the ones they know of, but they've got friends and buddies and gang members and acquaintances or terrorist cell cohorts that have come across in the gotaways, the known and unknown gotaways, people that we do not know who they are.

And they've assumed another name and identity. And they are walking around, freely walking around this country. And it is of tremendous concern to me when you talk about the safety of our cities and how we're going to protect people. This is of tremendous concern. And it should be of concern to everyone. And it is why I say that southern border is a national security issue.

It is where our foreign policy and our domestic policy meet. I want our communities to be safe. I want our children and our families to be safe.

I want kids to be able to go to events and not wait and not worry about terrorists that are in their community. And we have to secure the southern border. I want parents to know that the flow of fentanyl in this country that is wreaking havoc on families, that is taking precious lives, I want them to know that something is going to be done about it. And that is going to stop being trafficked. I had one of our sheriffs in Tennessee tell me that now they just assume all the drugs they apprehend are laced with fentanyl, whether it's gummy bears, or it is marijuana or it is press bills. They assume that there is fentanyl in every bit of it.

And as we know, four tiny pieces the size of a grain of sand will kill you. You know, one of the other, going back to the terrorism issue, we filed a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security because they had apprehended two Yemeni individuals at the border. And then the Homeland Security got upset when Customs and Border Patrol announced publicly that they had in fact apprehended these two terrorists. They were on the terror watch list.

They made them take down the posting. We got all this internal communication. I've shared it with members of Congress that, you know, don't do this. And the FBI was very upset about this because it was cutting against the narrative of the Biden administration, that national security is not a border issue when clearly it is. Well, of course it is a national security issue. When, you know, we've talked about the human trafficking and the sex trafficking. We talked about the cartels being the people that are making money on this and the way they are global organizations. You look at how they have teamed up with China for all of these precursor chemicals to make the fentanyl. And then the cartel is the distributor. And you look at the increase in Chinese that are presenting for illegal entry at the southern border. And you have to say this is a national security risk. And the cartels are so bold and bolden because that border is wide open.

You know, go talk to any police chief, any sheriff. They will tell you the cartels are active in every state in this country. They have set up hubs that are distributing drugs that are kind of a spot where the gangs operate out of. You have the labor crews operating out of there.

You have the sex trafficking rings operating out of these cartel held hubs. Blackbird, we know how important this issue is to you and to the constituents and to not just the people of Tennessee, but to every one of us in the country, as you said. We're all dealing with this battle. Whatever city you live in, whatever state you're in, we're all having to fight this. So I appreciate everything you're doing to bring light to this and to try and get the attention of the other party to make sure they start actually implementing policies to prevent this. It's so important to the entire country.

It affects every single one of us. Senator, thanks for being with us. We really appreciate it. Happy to join you. Thank you.

All right, folks, let me tell you something. Getting Senator Blackburn's engagement on this is such a critical issue, representing everyone. That's why your support of the work of the ACLJ is so critical. Let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org to support the work of the ACLJ.