Battle to Stop Trump From Being "Disqualified" Heats Up

This is Logan Sekulow, the battle to stop Trump from being disqualified heats up. 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, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We've got a great show lined up for you today. You're going to hear from Rick Grenell. You're going to hear from Mike Pompeo. We discuss a lot of things happening in the world of the ACLJ, but mainly we're going to talk about that 14th Amendment issue that you have heard about over and over on our broadcast.

And there's a reason, because we believe it is one of the biggest threats to voters' rights, to Constitution in our existence. And we need you. We're trying to hit 100,000 people to sign our new petition at ACLJ.org. I'm going to get you the most updated number right now so I can tell you where we're at. Tell you how many of you need to join in so we can hit that goal of 100,000 people. We are currently sitting at over 96,000 signatures right now and growing. I need you to join in. Take us over 100,000.

We're marching to 100,000 today and we need your support. All you've got to do is go to ACLJ.org. This 14th Amendment case, we've discussed it. We filed a motion to dismiss all of these and to try to get them thrown out because essentially, Will, what it's saying, if you're not aware, it is saying that you do not, it is not 100% necessary to have President Trump on the ballot because they believe he is being disqualified for things he hasn't even been convicted of.

That's right. The left in their attempt with this, these lawsuits that they're going across the country with is to try to take President Trump off the ballot. But what it does is it goes further than that. That's why we think this is such a threat is because it takes the voters voice away. It takes your right to vote for the candidate of your choice away because they decide that something happened because they wish that Trump had done something that would disqualify him. Instead of letting the voters decide, letting them go to the ballot in the primary and pick their candidate for their party that they want to vote for in the general election.

That's right. We're fighting for your right to vote for who you want to vote for. We can only do this because of you.

So go to ACLJ.org and sign that petition. We want to get to 100,000. We're less than, let me listen, 4,000 this point away.

It is climbing rapidly. So I want to say I appreciate all of you who are joining us right now. I know many of you got an email this morning about it, so we are seeing those numbers grow and grow.

So please go to ACLJ.org. You can support the work financially if you have already signed the petition, but sign the petition. That's really what we're pushing for today. We obviously hear big fundraising days and we want those. We obviously appreciate all the support financially you can give, but we want to march towards 100,000.

We want to hit that today. So do that at ACLJ.org. Again, in our show, we're going to talk with our client, Oklahoma, who's going to give you a bit of a bigger view or more specific view, actually, of what's going on in their state with voters' rights. Yeah, that's right. The client in Oklahoma is actually the chair of the state party there as well as a state senator, but he's going to really give insight on why it matters to individual voters.

Because what's happening there is that the people filing these lawsuits to get President Trump off the ballot are trying to take away the individual voters' voice. Yeah, we're also going to divert a little bit, talk about what's going on in the Homeland Security situation, some disturbing news coming out of that. We're going to talk with Rick Grenell.

Obviously, you know Rick. He's on the show every week. He's going to be on the broadcast a little bit later. Followed up by Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, obviously, Mike Pompeo. He's going to be talking about Iran's threat at the U.N. Obviously, we just came off the U.N., so you're going to hear all about that. But again, as we head into our next segment, into the full hour, you're going to hear from my brother as well and our whole team.

You can find out more and you can sign that petition at ACLJ.org. Just since I've been talking to you right now, we've had three or four hundred of you already hop on. So it was at ninety six thousand two hundred ish. Now we're over ninety six thousand four hundred ish. So that's awesome. And maybe it's even grown since you've heard this.

You know, that's just what it is. I really appreciate it. I want you to do that today.

Go to ACLJ.org. Support the work. Make sure you're sharing all of our content. That's another great way beyond just financially supporting, signing petitions, sharing content.

That's my number one, number two things you can do to get involved. And obviously, pray for us. We appreciate that, too. We appreciate all the prayers and we now send out this sort of Sunday email you get that talks about how you can be praying for us. And look, we've seen some amazing things happen in just the last few weeks. We've seen some of the biggest days in the history of the ACLJ. And that is because of you. We get really appreciate it. And I'm going to encourage you one more time.

Head over to ACLJ.org. Not only you make a donation, not only check out the incredible free content, but I'm asking for one big thing today, and that is to sign that petition. You'll see it. It says stop the left's disqualification plot.

You should put in your name, your email address, your zip code. Boom. You're taken care of. I appreciate it. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow.

Welcome back. We're announcing today that we are filing in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma a case that involves the Oklahoma Republican Party's motion to intervene. And this is what's fascinating to me. This one's in federal court.

The one in Colorado is in state court. Joining us right now via, is it Skype, I guess? Yeah, via Skype, is the chairman of the Oklahoma GOP and also an Oklahoma state senator, Nathan Dom. Nathan, when you first got word of this, what was your initial reaction on this? Well, obviously we've seen that the left and Democrats are doing everything they can to use lawfare to try to keep President Trump off the ballot, to try to squelch people's First Amendment rights and free speech. And so it didn't surprise me at all, but I immediately started contacting people and then had somebody from ACLJ reach out and say that they were interested in it as well. And so we immediately started working on what we could do to protect people's right to vote in Oklahoma for the candidate that they desire to vote for. So let me ask this also.

Obviously, this is part of a trend we're seeing now. We've got the case in Colorado. We already have a trial date there, by the way.

Nathan, it's going to be tried on October 30th, starting October 30th. Your case, it's in federal court, so it's going to move differently because it is a federal court action and Colorado is a state court action. These are all destined for the Supreme Court of the United States. What's been the reaction of the Oklahoma GOP to this move? Oh, we've received a lot of support from the Republicans across the state in Oklahoma. They're tired of these leftist activist judges across the country that no one elected. They believe that just because they're enshrined in a black robe that they all of a sudden get to dictate how the rest of us live our lives, contrary to the Constitution, contrary to the beliefs of the majority of the people of Oklahoma, just because they are a judge. They think they can go contrary to the morality and the principles of the people of Oklahoma. So everyone was very excited to hear that we were getting actively involved in this.

Obviously, we didn't share a whole lot of the details of the specifics as we were working with the team at ACLJ to get it finalized, but we're excited to be able to officially announce that the lawsuit is being filed and that we are fighting to defend their rights. Well, and listen, we appreciate that you are working with us and we look forward to working with you, but you said something here very important, Nathan, I want to really emphasize. You serve as an Oklahoma state senator. How do you react in your capacity as senator to the idea that these left-wing groups would come in and say, okay, GOP of Oklahoma, you don't get to decide who your candidate is? Well, unfortunately, too many on the right, too many Republicans for far too long have said, you know, that's not the hill to die on. And because we haven't fought these battles, because we haven't engaged in the, quote unquote, culture war, because we wanted to be nice and not be perceived as whatever name the leftists are going to call us, whatever they're going to try and brand us with.

We've we've seeded hill after hill after hill. The left has taken over almost every area of society. I guess the one benefit to that is people are finally waking up to that aspect and understanding how much we have lost, how much ground we've lost, how much left has taken over. So I've been fighting these types of things for a long time, knowing how far the left is going to go with this. I lived overseas as a missionary and as a missionary child. My parents, I grew up in a formerly communist country in Eastern Europe. I know where the Marxists are trying to take us. That's why I'm willing to do everything I can to defend the Constitution and fight for the rights of the people. As a kid of a missionary that grew up in a country that has experienced totalitarian regimes, this case must be very personal to you.

Absolutely. This is the type of stuff that we've seen in these communist regimes with a straight out of the Marxist playbook to where they will use every political means possible to refuse to allow their opponents to have a voice, to allow people to have a vote. I mean, I believe it was Joseph Stalin that said something to the effect of it doesn't matter who you vote for, it matters who counts the votes. And in a lot of these communist countries, they'll say that you have the right to vote, but there's only ever one candidate on the ballot, and that's the communist party's nominee.

And that's what we're seeing with the left. Is your secretary of state there in Oklahoma Republican? Yes, but actually it's not our secretary of state that deals with the election stuff.

Is it your election of the elections? Yes, that person is appointed and serves at the pleasure. They also serve as the secretary of the Senate, so it's supposed to be a nonpartisan issue, but the gentleman that is there is a Republican. Okay, because what's interesting here for people to understand is this lawsuit has been brought by a guy who says he's a Republican running for President. He's a Texas resident. He's filed another lawsuit, like the Colorado suit.

He argues that the former President is ineligible to be President due to the 14th amendment, the disqualification clause that we've been talking about. He claims to be a Republican candidate for office, and I guess he's filed with the various state, and he's seeking to eliminate, quote, his rival from the chance to run for office. The lawsuit was brought against two parties, President Trump and the secretary of the Oklahoma State Election Board. So that's how they do it versus Colorado, where it's the secretary of state. Here's the state election board. Have there been any comments out of the secretary of the election board yet?

None that I've seen. Obviously, they're probably going to wait to see what happens in the courts as this goes throughout the process, but if I could just say something on the ridiculous claim on the 14th amendment. I mean, a plain reading of the 14th amendment, first of all, shows that the presidency isn't even, the President is not even mentioned in that.

It mentions Presidential electors and other positions, but it doesn't mention the President. And on top of all that, when they keep claiming insurrection, there is actually a federal statute on insurrection that no one has been charged with from January 6th, let alone President Trump hasn't been charged with it. Yes, in the court of public opinion with the media that now has control of that, they will convict someone of all kinds of crimes. They've done it time and time again. Nancy Pelosi talked about it. It's the whole smear package that they'll smear it.

They'll present it out there. The media will run with it. And then in everybody's minds that are gullible enough to believe the media, they believe that that is the case. What's interesting to me, Nathan, in this particular situation is you're right. The President's not an officer under that provision.

So under the article, the 14th amendment section three, the disqualification clause, he is not an officer. I said that the first day this case was discussed. And then Stephen Calabresi, who I respect a lot, very well respected conservative lawyer, well known, initially said, yes, he is. And then it's now changed his mind.

Others are going to start changing their mind too. And you're right. The implementing statute here, not the amendment, the statute is the insurrection act.

And the insurrection act is one of the only things they have not charged the former President with. As you said, no one else as well. Hey, we look forward to working with you, Nathan. Thanks for being on. We really appreciate it. Thank you for all you do. Glad to be a part of it. Thank you for helping. Thanks. So there you have it, Logan.

That's case number two in week two. Yeah, absolutely. We're going to keep it going and we need your support. Go to ACLJ.org right now to make your donation and support because obviously this takes a lot of time, takes a lot of effort, takes a lot of incredible members of our team to put together for these kind of cases. Well, look, I mean, the teamwork that's involved in this, we were talking, we had a meeting on this right after a radio meeting where there are 13, 14 of these filed right now. So we're trying to figure out which, there's some are going to be dismissed pretty handily, I think. There's others that are going to have to be litigated. So when they're in court, we're going to have to litigate them. So we're putting the teams together.

I understand it's stretching our resources, as you can imagine. We had a great matching moment and we raised probably an extra, what, half a million dollars? Yeah, it was a wild few days there where you guys really turned out. Yeah, we probably raised an extra $500,000, which is great because that's what that Colorado case is going to take. Yeah, when you turn up, we know what's important to you. And clearly this is something that was very important to our listeners, our viewers. We know how many lawyers are going to be involved on our side.

It's going to be a big team of lawyers. More than you'd like. Yeah, well, you heard part of my conversation this morning because, well, because now you've got Oklahoma and there's going to be two or three more and it's just going to be an ongoing process.

So that's why we fight like we do. Do you want to try to take this call before the break or do you want to wait? If you want to, we can. Let's go to Jason, Oklahoma on Line 1. You're on the air. Hey, Jason.

I just love the show. As the Marine Corps enlisted, we were taught that the President is an officer. He's the commanding officer, commander in chief. I would just say, you know, because there's going to be a lot of doubt on that statement.

I wouldn't even focus on that statement. I mean, I love... Let me explain something to you, Jason. I appreciate your service. He is not the commanding officer. He's the commander in chief. He is not an officer of the United States Army. He is constitutionally the commander in chief. He is specifically not an executive officer. The executive officers work for him as President.

So he is not subject to, the same thing would be true with the vice President, is not subject to this. And now the conservative scholars are coming around to realizing that. And obviously we're going to have to prove that in court and I appreciate your service, but I think this is where part of the fallacy of this litigation really is. Yeah, absolutely. Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Have your voice heard on the air today. If you have questions like he did, we'd love to take them.

We'd love to answer them for you. Again, 1-800-684-3110. I also want to say this, that as you look at a number of cases folding forward, moving forward, there are 14 of them right now. It is possible that we're going to see litigation in all 50 states. Some of those cases will be handled by direct intervention, as these two are. Others will be handled by amicus briefs, and that's another area where you come in. We need to have 100,000 signatures on that amicus brief. We want representation from all 50 states.

I don't know if we have that yet either. So we had the win in Colorado where they're letting us intervene. The Oklahoma case we're just filing. We've got a new blog up at ACLJ.org.

More possible than 13 is the fact. So we're fighting for your right to vote. We saw our first win, but that was a procedural win. We've got a real fight here. Go to ACLJ.org. Sign that petition. As I said, we want to get to 100,000.

This is why the ACLJ is working so hard to fight. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110 coming up in the next segment. So get in line right now.

A lot of you called in, but there are still some lines open. So as we're announcing, Oklahoma is the latest case we are filing a motion to intervene in. That one is in federal court.

Our motion to intervene in Colorado, which is in state court, was granted. I want to go to Harry Hutchinson first on this. Harry, we've got two of these. There's probably 13 or 14 we're looking at.

There may be 50. What are you seeing so far? Well, we're seeing a legal tsunami which is aimed at twisting the language of the Constitution for political purposes. So what we are witnessing is an act of pure political desperation because the left and some elite law professors even on the right, they fear the prospect of President Trump being, A, the nominee and secondarily being elected by the American people.

So they don't want to leave anything to chance. So they want to intervene now and they want to use the Constitution as a political weapon. And I think it's very, very important for our listeners and for us as an organization to fight back. All right.

Which we're doing. One's in state court, one's in federal court. But do you agree, Harry, this is ultimately going to the Supreme Court of the United States? I think that's precisely correct.

All right. So, Andy, we're looking at the strategy here. We saw Stephen Calabresi, a noted conservative scholar, change his position. He initially said Trump was subject to the 14th Amendment, Section 3's disqualification clause. He said, nope. As he studied it, he's not an officer. He spoke to his friend and friend of ours, Mike McCasey, former Attorney General under George W. Bush, and changed his view.

Yes. Judge McCasey, who was a U.S. District Judge before he became Attorney General, a very conservative, brilliant lawyer, known to us as opined that the President of the United States is not an officer of the United States and therefore is not subject to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And apparently Calabresi recast his position based upon Judge McCasey's view that he is not subject to that clause and the disqualification that that provides. Well, I think that's very admirable that Professor Calabresi has changed his opinion based upon Judge McCasey's very erudite opinion. And I think this is important. I think most law professors, however, are going to stick with a position that has been advocated by Baud and Paulson. I hope they don't.

I hope they see the reality of their ways. There's a separate oath in the Constitution that the President takes. The President is unique in the American system. He is the only person that is a branch of government.

Right. The unitary executive. We talked about this during the days that we represented President Trump. A unitary executive. He is the executive branch of government. He is not an officer of the United States. So therefore, he is not subject to the disqualification in addition to which, even if he was an officer, which he is not under the Constitution, he'd engage in an insurrection.

The idea that he engaged in what a dictionary definition in 1828 called an insurrection is contrary to anything. That's a matter of law. It's a matter of conviction. It's a matter of having a jury trial. And President Trump didn't do that. But these, as Harry Hutchison said, are desperate attempts by a political elite to keep him out of office again.

They can't stand the idea of Donald Trump being President again. It goes beyond that. Because even if you're against Trump or for Trump, the idea that an individual could come in and say that the 14th Amendment that disqualifies someone from public office can be implemented self-executing. In other words, there's not an underlying statute or there's been a conviction. And he hasn't even been charged with it, so there hasn't been.

Logan should send shockwaves to everybody. My question is, do the American people, and I think our members do, understand how significant of a threat to liberty this is? I don't know if the people on the other side care.

I mean, I think that's just the truth. It's whatever can be done to stop President Trump. It doesn't matter if laws are broken, if things are changed, or if it could really backfire on them on future elections. It doesn't matter because there's one goal, and that goal is to stop Trump regardless of how it impacts the constitutional freedoms of Americans. So I think that's the main thing. You have people on the other side of the aisle, if you will, who are not thinking logically about this. They don't care. It's all specifically focused on one person, one man, not about the standard that it could set. The same happened with impeachment. Yeah, you're right.

And the question, though, is going to become, I think, as this thing expands, and it already is. You've got 14 states. It goes to 50 states. Somewhere along the way, and I'm going to be an optimist, somewhere along the way, though, some state election official or secretary of state is going to say, yeah, I'm going to disqualify him. In fact, the secretary of state of Colorado, who's a defendant, opposed our intervention. If she really was a defendant and did not want to be compelled to do this, she would have welcomed the intervention. By the way, the court overruled that and said, we have the right to intervene.

But somewhere along the way, we're going to run into one, Harry. I think that is correct. And I think one of the things that we should keep in mind is that this is a concerted effort. And they are attempting to bring cases in virtually each and every jurisdiction in the United States in the hope that at least one secretary of state or one federal judge or one state court will intervene to block President Trump. And then that particular case may then move forward to a higher level, ultimately to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. And so I think we should keep in mind that there is not a legal case to be made here.

It is a political case, which they are then twisting into a legal case in order to preclude President Trump from running for office again. Let's go ahead and take a phone call. Let's go to Joe in New York on line three. Joe, welcome.

Thank you for taking my question. God bless you all and your families and the ACLU for everything you do. Could the Biden administration be held responsible for violating the 14th Amendment with the current Iran deal of $6 billion being released to Iran with the prisoner swap? No, because we don't believe that the President is an officer subject to the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause, and that would be preventing him from running for reelection. No, we don't – I don't, because it's good for the – if our position is it doesn't apply to President, it doesn't apply to any President. And that's the way it should be constitutionally, Andy.

Yes, that's correct. The way that you rectify what you see happening in Iran, money for these prisoners, is the election. It's the electoral process. Get him out of office. But you have to make sure candidates are on the ballot.

Yes, and you make sure that the candidate that is on the ballot is one that you want to road for and not some secretary of state making the decision for you as to who you can vote for. That's not the way we do it in the United States. My great fear in all this, Logan, is there's going to be someone along the way that's going to do this without litigation. They're just going to say, I think I have the authority, it's self-executing, I'm going to do it.

Now, whether or not they're going to do that or not, I don't know. But we're going to be involved in these as many as we can be involved in. And, folks, that is where you come in. We had the win in Colorado where a motion to intervene was granted, which means we're participating in this historic 14th Amendment case. Now we're representing the Oklahoma Republican Committee in a similar case. That one's in federal court. The left is trying to keep a conservative candidate that they don't want on the list.

We know who it is, Donald Trump. All the ballots, they're going to want to do that nationwide. We have a new blog up at ACLJ.org. There are right now 14 cases nationwide. We are hearing more are coming. We're fighting for your right to vote. We saw at least our procedural win.

But we can only do this because of you. So go to ACLJ.org, sign that petition, and support the work of the ACLJ as well. Remember, it's one thing that's very clear here. The left doesn't want to face Donald Trump at the ballot box.

That's become clear. So they want him off the ballot. Now they're using the 14th Amendment to try to do that.

So to keep this from happening, we are fighting. Reports now are 16 states. 16 states have lawsuits or legal action. We're taking action too. ACLJ.org.

That's ACLJ.org. 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, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We've got a great show lined up for you today. You're going to hear from Rick Grenell.

You're going to hear from Mike Pompeo. We're going to discuss a lot of things happening in the world of the ACLJ. But mainly we're going to talk about that 14th Amendment issue that you have heard about over and over on our broadcast.

And there's a reason because we believe it is one of the biggest threats to voters' rights, to the Constitution in our existence. And we need you. We're trying to hit 100,000 people to sign our new petition at ACLJ.org. I'm going to get you the most updated number right now so I can tell you where we're at. Tell you how many of you need to join in so we can hit that goal of 100,000 people. We are currently sitting at over 96,000. 96,200 signatures right now and growing. I need you to join in. Take us over 100,000.

We're marching to 100,000 today and we need your support. All you got to do is go to ACLJ.org. This 14th Amendment case, we've discussed it. We filed a motion to dismiss all of these and to try to get them thrown out because essentially, Will, what it's saying, if you're not aware, it is saying that you do not. It is not 100% necessary to have President Trump on the ballot because they believe he is being disqualified for things he hasn't even been convicted of. That's right. The left in their attempt with these lawsuits that they're going across the country with is to try to take President Trump off the ballot. But what it does is it goes further than that. That's why we think this is such a threat is because it takes the voters' voice away. It takes your right to vote for the candidate of your choice away because they decide that something happened, because they wish that Trump had done something that would disqualify him instead of letting the voters decide, letting them go to the ballot in the primary and pick their candidate for their party that they want to vote for in the general election.

That's right. We're fighting for your right to vote for who you want to vote for. We can only do this because of you.

So go to ACLJ.org and sign that petition. We want to get to 100,000. We're less than, let me listen, 4,000 at this point away.

It is climbing rapidly. So I want to say I appreciate all of you who are joining us right now. I know many of you got an email this morning about it.

So we are seeing those numbers grow and grow. So please go to ACLJ.org. You can support the work financially if you have already signed the petition. But sign the petition. That's really what we're pushing for today. We obviously hear big fundraising days and we want those. We obviously appreciate all the support financially you can give. But we want to march towards 100,000.

We want to hit that today. So do that at ACLJ.org. And in our show, we're going to talk with our client, Oklahoma, who's going to give you a bit of a bigger view or a more specific view, actually, of what's going on in their state with voters' rights.

Yeah, that's right. The client in Oklahoma is actually the chair of the state party there as well as a state senator. But he's going to really give insight on why it matters to individual voters because what's happening there is that the people filing these lawsuits to get President Trump off the ballot are trying to take away the individual voters' voice. Yeah, we're also going to divert a little bit, talk about what's going on in the Homeland Security situation, some disturbing news coming out of that. We're going to talk with Rick Grenell. Obviously, you know Rick is on the show every week. He's going to be on the broadcast a little bit later. Followed up by Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, obviously, Mike Pompeo. He's going to be talking about Iran's threat at the U.N. Obviously, we just came off the U.N., so you're going to hear all about that. But again, as we head into our next segment, into the full hour, you're going to hear from my brother as well and our whole team.

You can find out more, and you can sign that petition at ACLJ.org. Just since I've been talking to you right now, we've had three or four hundred of you already hop on. So was that 96,200-ish? Now we're over 96,400-ish. So that's awesome. And maybe it's even grown since you've heard this.

You know, that's just what it is. I really appreciate it. I want you to do that today.

Go to ACLJ.org, support the work. Make sure you're sharing all of our content. That's another great way, beyond just financially supporting, signing petitions, sharing content.

That's probably number one, number two things you can do to get involved. And obviously, pray for us. We appreciate that, too. We appreciate all the prayers. And we now send out this sort of Sunday email you get that talks about how you can be praying for us.

And look, we've seen some amazing things happen in just the last few weeks. We've seen some of the biggest days in the history of the ACLJ, and that is because of you. We really appreciate it.

And I'm going to encourage you, one more time, head over to ACLJ.org. Not only do you make a donation, not only check out the incredible free content, but I'm asking you for one big thing today, and that is to sign that petition. You'll see it. It says stop the left's disqualification plot.

You should put in your name, your email address, your zip code. Boom. You're taken care of. I appreciate it. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls, too.

We've got a final segment coming up at 1-800-684-3110, so a great time to get into your calls. We talk about a lot of topics. It's great to be joined now by former Secretary of State Advisor to the ACLJ, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. I got to see you in New York earlier this week while the U.N. General Assembly was going on. I want to ask him about something that happened at the U.N. General Assembly. Let's play it, Will. This is the President of Iran addressing the United Nations in New York.

Take a listen. But the Islamic Republic of Iran, through the use of all tools and capacities, in order to bring to justice the perpetrators, and all those who had a hand in this government-sanctioned act of terror, will not sit until that is done. The blood of the oppressed will not be forgotten, and the robes of the guilty will bring them to justice. Secretary Pompeo, I don't like to make a joke of this or to smile about some of this rhetoric that is actually used in the United States when we hear that, even in translation. But he's talking about you. He's talking about people like you in the Trump administration who they believe were responsible for making the call and suggesting to President Trump to take out Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, the Revolutionary Guard.

No, that's right. I must say, you and I were both there in New York. We were less than a mile from where he was uttering those words. The United States had just given him $6 billion. He then proceeded to threaten me and the others with our lives, all the while being protected by Secret Service from the United States of America. It is mind-numbling bad U.S. policy to have permitted each of those things to have happened. You know, as for him, this guy's a bad guy. He's known as the Butcher of Tehran. He killed thousands and thousands of Iranians. He was also responsible for the death of many American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the Middle East. He is a terrorist. So was General Soleimani, who we took a legitimate strike on, President Trump's direction. We did the right thing.

I am very confident that we saved American lives. And to allow him to come abuse the United Nations and abuse the United States in this way is truly tragic and bad policy. Not just me, not just the other government officials, but these folks are working to kill other Americans as well. And to be negotiating with them to give them space to create a nuclear weapons program is just ridiculous. And I feel like they love this time in New York, Secretary Pompeo, when they get the protection of the Secret Service, they get the protection of the United Nations, they get to get up. Even after the $6 billion, even after this deal made by the Biden administration, and spew their hate, and spew their terror, and spew their rhetoric, and know that here in the United States they will be protected. It's more dangerous, mostly for them, usually at home, than it is abroad in New York. And that's just the bottom line truth.

But there's this kind of interplay, and I want to ask you about that. Where does the U.S. have to kind of put their foot down with the U.N. and say this can't be a platform for this kind of rhetoric? Well, Jordan, look, it's a privilege that we have the U.N. here in the United States.

We have amazing freedoms, and I'm glad for that. But this guy broke the law. This guy is in violation of U.S. law, and we have every right.

The State Department had every right to deny him a visa to travel here. We don't have to let everyone in just because the U.N. is here. And so, you know, it was a mistake. It was a mistake to allow him to come do that.

I will say this, too. The United States didn't even put out a statement after this in a serious way, saying, no, what he said was outrageous and wrong. No one at the U.N. said he abused the platform that we provided him to threaten American officials.

They just sat there and took it, and it's kind of just a little bit of a joke. And then he'll go back to his country a hero and with more power than he had when he left there. Yeah, act like he's a tough guy by uttering these words. But as you remind people, what people in Iran won't see is that the reason he can utter those words with such confidence on that stage is because he's being protected by Americans. And being protected by U.N. staff so that nothing happens to him. And again, I would say it's much more dangerous for these people to be back when they are at home than when they are abroad.

But you did talk about the importance of not giving this up. We believe that, too, at the ACLJ. That's why we engage at the U.N., both in New York and in Geneva through our European Center for Law and Justice, too. We've been doing it for decades.

We feel like if you just say, I don't like this institution, we just give up on it, that the world is going to be a worse place and we're going to have less influence. So let's use all the influence we can. So if it's going to be right at home here in the United States and we're kind of reengaging in this post-COVID world where we're having meetings again and we're back together again, we need to use these opportunities for good.

You have this absolutely right. We have the ability. America's moral force in the world has the ability capacity when America is led properly to do precisely that, to shape the conversations at the United Nations. Look, it's the United Nations has all kinds of shortcomings. The ACLJ has absolutely made it better and has stayed engaged there at the International Criminal Court, all the other elements of the international space where America's leadership can matter and make lives better for every American. And, you know, people all across the world, we can't simply throw up our hands. We have to stay at it. And I regret only that this year we engaged at the UN, but we did so from a position of weakness. Yeah, it does feel that way when people see those kind of comments and they realize they say, how is this happening? He's threatening American blood at a stage right in America and being protected by Americans at the time.

I do want to go to something more positive. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel unveiled a vision for a new Middle East at the UN. And we know that the Biden administration has been pushing against this and these positive moves that were happening under the Trump administration as your time as secretary of state. But he announced the governments of India, Israel, the UAE and the United States, a new joint space venture. I mean, those sounds like that will play into a U.S. effort. I mean, it's there for the taking to create more peace in the Middle East.

I want to give the Biden administration credit. The agreements that were announced a couple of weeks back in India, connecting India and Europe through the Middle East and through Israel are really good things. But that's just an announcement.

That's just a press release. They now need to go execute against it. And the policies that the United States has put put in place have made that more difficult, not producing our own energy, not isolating the Iranian regime, not not being connected deeply to Israel, understanding its centrality to the region, calling the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, calling its leader a pariah. Those are things that make those kind of agreements really difficult to implement.

And so while the top line was good, everything else the Biden administration has done has made that even more difficult. We need to promote peace and prosperity in the Middle East for our own benefit. You can't do it while you're abandoning our friends and allies in the region. Yeah, I think people, too, on the issue with Ukraine, this is bubbling up with Congress and the funding where people are saying, listen, it's not that we don't think we're on the right side here, but they ask the administration, do you see what is like an end point for you?

And Kirby gets up and says, well, there's no U.S. troops involved, so we don't really need an end point. But when Americans see that it's hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, they do want an end point. Their inflation is up.

The gas prices are up. And that is directly related to what's happening in this war between Ukraine and Russia. It's affecting Europe's economy as well. So if we're going to fund it, I mean, we do want to see an end to it. It's not a good answer to say, well, we've kept U.S. troops out of it, but we're using your dollars and we don't need to give you an answer. It's important that U.S. troops aren't involved. That's absolutely true.

But it is completely insufficient. You have that right, Jordan. President Biden still now shoot a year and a half, almost two years on, still hasn't explained to the American people why it matters.

I believe that it does. I've articulated why I think it matters to every American that we help the Ukrainians win this and defeat Vladimir Putin. I know what the definition of that ought to look like. President Biden needs to articulate that and explain it. It is a lot of money that's being spent. We are leading the effort there. The Europeans need to do more.

I hope that they will. But in the end, I do believe this is the right thing. We simply have to explain what it is we're trying to achieve, how it is we intend to achieve it, and what that end point looks like exactly to say, gosh, we don't need an end point is a recipe for American failure. It's leadership. Secretary Pompeo, we appreciate your leadership and your support, your work with us here at the ACLJ. It was good to see you this week in New York and last week in Tennessee.

We talked about a lot of this in New York. You've been there, you've lived there too, and again, we've done a lot of work there at the ACLJ for years now through the U.N. And there are times when you feel like the U.S. has got a great standing. Doesn't mean everybody loves you, by the way.

We have a great standing. But you feel like you're the tough guy when you walk in. You're respected.

Sometimes hated, but respected. And there are times when you feel like the world's kind of laughing at you. And I will tell you, this time felt a little bit more like that. You know, again, New York is not the city that it once was. Maybe just a few years ago, the mayor of New York during the U.N. is saying that New York is going to crumble and crash because too many migrant children are going to school there. And literally, he's saying on TV, that's going to destroy New York. While we are hosting the entire world, New York public schools are failing.

Yeah, the center of the world is supposed to be New York City. And if it's falling apart, look, we're not talking about now, we're talking about years past COVID lockdowns, those kind of things. Sure, did it ever fully recover from that? Absolutely not. Still has not.

But we're not talking about policies that are even directly related to that, that are causing some crisis in that amazing city. Give us a call. We are going to take as many calls as we can in this last segment, and we actually have quite a few open lines. We've got five open lines. So if you want to call right now, this is a perfect time to get on the air. You can ask about any of the topics we brought up today.

Or if you have something else, anything from this week, we'd love to hear from you. 1-800-684-3110. Let me too say to you on our fight to make sure we're protecting your right to vote, we have another announcement we've signed on with the West Virginia GOP to defend the right to vote for West Virginians. There's another state, I just can't quite announce it today on the radio show, maybe this afternoon, if not early next week. That would make it four states, four different kinds of courts we're engaged in to protect your right to vote. While this broadcast is going on, ACLJ attorneys are working in Colorado as we speak in a hearing there to protect your right to vote. And it is the left working with Republican elites in Washington, D.C. who want to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. That's their choice this time. They don't want you to be able to choose Donald Trump. We're protecting your right to make that decision.

Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We are joined by Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy, Rick Grenell. Rick, our topic today we are really talking about this morning. When you thought Secretary Marrakis couldn't make any worse decisions, we get the news that the recently announced Homeland Intelligence Experts Group, which doesn't sound scary at all, will include obviously former CIA Director John Brennan, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

A lot of the classics here. How concerned are you about this new move coming from the DHS? Look, I don't think that these individuals should be added to any boards.

I think their clearances should be taken away. Let's remember they interfered in the 2020 election. They manipulated the election by pretending like there was a false, fake Russian laptop that was duping people into looking at information that somehow said that the Bidens were getting money and that Hunter Biden was a drug addict. Turned out they were wrong.

The laptop was real. But we should never excuse the fact that they and 49 others, 51 total intelligence officials, three weeks before the 2020 election tried to dupe the American people by saying, don't look at this. Don't look at this laptop because it's not true. Don't consider it for your vote.

The Bidens are not in cahoots in any way. All of this information on the laptop is Russian disinformation. That's exactly what they're saying.

And I'll finish with this. Logan, when they said that, when they said that lie, when they used their position of intelligence gatherers of we know more than you and we've looked behind the curtain. So you should trust us.

This is a fake laptop. This is classic Russian disinformation. When they said that, the one country that did applaud was China, because that's exactly the Beijing line.

Look over there at Russia while the Chinese are literally creating a crisis of epic proportions for the American people. Rick, both Brennan and Clapper interfered in the last two Presidential elections the United States had, the 2016 election with the Russia hoax and then the 2020 election when they signed that letter. Does the timing of this appointment in this panel seem suspect to you at all? That Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security all of a sudden needs this Homeland Intelligence experts group with these members right in the middle of the primary.

Yeah. I mean, look, this was an admittance from Mayorkas that he's hanging on by a thread. The politics of this means that he was very nervous about getting indicted. And so what he has to do is surround himself with a whole bunch of partisan Democrats so that when Republicans come after him, he can say, look, they're just coming at me because of politics. So it's a classic move in Washington. Unfortunately, Will, what really makes me angry is that the fourth estate, the media that we're supposed to trust, they're totally in the bag for these propagandists.

They want the ruling party to win. And so the media are not going to push back. And what that means is that other cabinet officials, other Democrats are going to up the ante. Next time they're in trouble, they're going to do the same thing.

It's going to get worse because there's no pushback from the media. Yeah. I want to read this. This is from Secretary Mayorkas. This is a statement he made. He said, the security of the American people depends on our capacity to collect, generate and disseminate actionable intelligence to our federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, campus and private sector partners.

And I have a question for you, Rick. What does that tell you about the goal of this panel, especially when you start hearing words like campus and private sector partners? That's got a little bit alarming.

Yeah, very alarming. I hate the private sector partners for the intelligence community. First of all, if you do have partnerships, you shouldn't talk about it.

That's the first. And second of all, we should all be suspect of partnerships with the Intel community because it's gotten out of hand. We used to traditionally be able to have partners that stuck to just the goals of providing actionable intelligence. But now we have this whole partisan, you know, brand from Fortune 500 companies.

And then you add in their campuses, universities. Very, very troubling. And I don't really love hearing those words, Will, thrown in there when you hear, I mean, obviously it's almost up for interpretation.

But if we can interpret it the way we think it means, that's not good. Well, and we know the moves that they made just months ago with the Disinformation Governance Board, where they were trying to get involved with the speech of Americans. And now you have former spy chiefs that Department of Homeland Security is putting on this intelligence experts group. It begs the question, do you think this will be used as an excuse to further spy on Americans? We know that they do spy on Americans. We have FOIA requests out about that trying to get to the bottom of that. But, Rick, do you think that this is cover for more bad action by this department? Yeah, it's totally cover for them. And they're using the reputation of former spy officials, former intelligence officials. And that's what's sad to me. I mean, look, you know, this is all a swampy Washington, D.C. strategy.

I, as a former acting director of national intelligence, came to the Tennessee-based ACLJ. One of the reasons I love the ACLJ is that not only do we do good work, but we're not located in the swamp. We don't have people who live, breathe, have their kids go to school, go to church with. All of the bureaucrats who depend on a big Washington, D.C. with a big budget. One of the things that I keep saying is we've got to stop asking those people who live in Washington, D.C. to ever advocate for making their city smaller with a smaller budget. They're never going to do it.

They want it to win. It would be like me saying, shouldn't we make Nashville less popular and less powerful? You guys there in Nashville will be like, hey, no, we love Nashville. Right.

I think that that's a good analogy. As we've seen, obviously we have a presence. We're always going to have a presence in Washington. We're going to have a presence all over the country. So make sure that's clear.

Obviously, we have our offices in D.C. But you are right in the fact that mentally, where your leadership is, where we're talking about things, the perspective we're coming from, especially when you – we kind of go back to that campus word. One of the biggest things that's scary, I think, for the Democrats coming up and the more liberal left, the more hardcore liberal left, is that from what I've seen in my personal life and my friends who have kids that are high school age, coming out of high school now, is they are not the generation of what just came up.

They are now the antithesis of that. When you have songs like You're Richmond, You're the Richmond, you look at the people that are there. I watched a video last night and you see that those are mostly 17-year-olds that are there, 17 to 20 college age kids. You go, what's happening in this country? And it is a rebuke of what they had to grow up in.

And that obviously happens. The pendulum swings. It swung in the 60s, swung in the 70s to disco.

80s came back roaring with Reagan. This happens back and forth and they're scared. And what they're going to be able to do is if they can actually have the right to go into these campuses and drop sort of the move in society before it gets going.

I mean, look, we all know this. Everybody knows college age kids or parents of college age kids. And it is a crisis on our campus where a conservative voice, a conservative viewpoint, a conservative speaker is literally either thrown off the stage or not even allowed to be on the stage. And when I went to school, it was supposed to be a time where you listen to all sorts of different points of view and that the university experience was broad welcoming of a whole bunch of different ideas and you explored the different ideas. Nowadays, if you're not woke, you're literally not allowed to speak on campus. It's outrageous. And the university should be held to account here.

Go to ACLJ.org. Thank you all for chiming in today. I appreciate all the calls. I love hearing from you guys. We'll be back tomorrow with more on Sekulow.

Again, ACLJ.org. Talk to you tomorrow.