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

BREAKING: ACLJ & Oklahoma GOP Join Forces in 2024 Ballot Fight

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
September 19, 2023 1:12 pm

BREAKING: ACLJ & Oklahoma GOP Join Forces in 2024 Ballot Fight

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1062 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

September 19, 2023 1:12 pm

The ACLJ now represents the Oklahoma GOP to stop the twisting of the 14th Amendment to keep conservatives from having the choice to vote for Donald Trump in 2024. The Deep State election interference must end. The Oklahoma Republican Party wants to protect ballot access after a recent lawsuit claimed Trump is ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot. We stand ready to defend your constitutional right to vote for the candidate of your choice. The Sekulow team discusses our efforts to stop the legal system from targeting conservatives as well as other political news. Also, ACLJ Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy Ric Grenell joins to discuss President Joe Biden’s disastrous hostage deal with Iran.


This is Jay Sekulow. We've got breaking news. The ACLJ and the Oklahoma GOP joined forces in a 2024 ballot fight in court, 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, Jay Sekulow. Today we are filing at the U.S. District Court, and if we have it, let's put it up on a screen. This is the Oklahoma Republican Party's motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, which is the civil procedure rule you utilize to engage the case.

It is exactly the same thing there. We're representing the Oklahoma Republican Committee, a very similar case to the Colorado case, basically the same legal arguments. Differential is, in Oklahoma, it's actually in federal court.

In Colorado, it's in the state court system. So, what the left's doing here, Logan, is looking at 13 states nationwide. That's how many there are right now. And they're really doing everything they can to keep Trump off the ballot. But it goes beyond that. It goes out to the folks having the right to vote. It goes out to the folks having a choice of who they want on the ballot. And the groups that are fighting this, groups that are really motivated to keep not only Donald Trump off the ballot, but to create the legal. Look, all of this is costing money.

All of this is costing time. And it becomes a distraction to some of the candidates. So, that's what's going on right now on that. Yeah, I think it'd be helpful also to explain, you can do that in the next segment or this segment, exactly how this works in terms of when you see a headline that we have right now, breaking ACLJ and Oklahoma GOP joined forces. What does that mean? Why does the Oklahoma GOP get involved?

Like, what is the good, the bad, and the ugly of sort of what all happens here? Well, the GOP of the state, and here it's Oklahoma and Colorado, obviously it's Colorado, they have to get involved because they're the ones who put up the candidates. So, when a candidate qualifies under the party's rules, remember it's the local party that controls the candidacy on getting on a ballot. Their right to have the candidates that they have certified as the valid candidates, and there could be 10 of them.

They certify that to the state, and the state then has to put it up. Now, what they're saying here is, no, you cannot put up Trump because of the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause, that's Clause 3, because as an officer of the United States, he violated his oath. Well, first of all, a President, I'm going to get into this in the next segment, is not an officer.

And by the way, we got early on that, the very first day this came out, because we know a lot about that because we represented the President. So, we know what roles the President is playing. The President is not an officer of the United States. He's the chief, he's the commanding officer of the United States. He's not an executive officer in that sense.

He's not a department head. So, the law doesn't even apply, their insurrection statute doesn't even apply to a President, or for that matter, a vice President. Stephen Calabresi, noted constitutional conservative scholar, someone I have a lot of respect for, was promoting an article by Mike Paulson, who I also have a lot of respect for.

And the truth is, okay, truth is, Calabresi yesterday said, I got it wrong. He said that he spoke to Attorney General McCasey, and McCasey agreed with the position we were advocating and said, nope, the President is not subject to that. So, they don't even have the underlying statute to support this. But nevertheless, we're now in two federal court cases, one federal, one state, one going to trial in the end of October, the other one, no trial date yet.

But there are 13 of them that we're looking at, and folks, that's where you come in. We've got 75,000 people on our petition right now. Clearly, the left does not want to have Donald Trump as a nominee. To do this, they are taking a gross interpretation, constitutionally bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

I think they're going to try to move in all 50 states. Sign our petition at That's If you can support the work of the ACLJ when you're there, that's great, too. We're at 75,000. We really want to get to 100,000. Back with more in a moment.

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, OK, 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 having 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 a Republican? Yes, but actually it's not our secretary of state that deals with the election stuff.

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 it'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 in 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 6, 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 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 memories 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, 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, and they're saying, stretching our resources, as you can imagine. We had a great matching moment last week, and we raised probably an extra, what, half a million dollars?

Yeah, it was a wild few days there where we just 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. And 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.

Hello, 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. Let me explain something to you, Jason, and 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've got – give me the exact number.

Well, I think it's like 74 – 77,000. So we are 23,000 short, and we want representation from all 50 states. I don't know if we have that yet either. So we had the win in Colorado yesterday where they're letting us intervene. The Oklahoma case we're just filing. We've got a new blog up at

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

We're about 23,000 away. 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 yesterday. 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. So which we're doing. One's in state court, one's in federal court. But do you agree, Harry, this is ultimately going in 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. Last night 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 where there's been a conviction. Right. 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, is that 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.

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.

You're on the air. Thank you for taking my question. God bless you all and your families and the ACLU for everything you do.

Thank you. Could the Biden administration be held responsible for violating the 14th Amendment? Would the current Iran deal of $6 billion being released to Iran, would 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 erode 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. Yesterday, 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, off the ballots. They're going to want to do that nationwide. We have a new blog up at There are right now 14 cases nationwide. We are hearing more are coming. We're fighting for your right to vote.

And yesterday we saw at least our procedural win. But we can only do this because of you. So go to Sign that petition.

We're about 23,000 away from getting to the 100,000 we need. 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.

That's Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever. This is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey everybody, we've got breaking news and that is another case on this election matter. This one in Oklahoma in federal court. Now in Colorado we are in the state court system. What that means is that, and by the way that case is going to trial October 30th through November 3rd could go longer.

There'll be some motions before. We're in that case. Our motion to intervene was granted. The new case is in Oklahoma. It, interestingly, Andy, has been filed, which it could be, in federal court.

That is correct. So it's going to go through the federal system, which means the district court, 10th Circuit, and ultimately the Supreme Court. So we have two cases that are tracking, one already set with a trial.

Right. The one in the United States District Court in Oklahoma before one of the federal district judges there. Just starting, we have now entered a battle on behalf of the Oklahoma Republican Party to intervene as we did in Colorado in that case. And I trust that the federal judge is going to permit us under Rule 24 to intervene in that case on behalf of the Oklahoma GOP and to litigate the case that has been brought by this person who wants to do the same thing that is being done in Oklahoma. And that's to prevent President Trump from being on the ballot. And that, of course, is something that should not ever be allowed to happen in this country. We never allow somebody to unilaterally decide who you can vote for by saying they're not going to be on the ballot. So now we have two fronts we're fighting on, Colorado and now in the federal district court in Oklahoma. But the constitutional significance of this, using the Disqualification Clause, which was last used in 1918 during World War I, to use that now in this kind of context seems to me, Harry, to be a constitutional stretch, but it raises very serious constitutional issues.

Absolutely. So the left and many elite law professors have launched an effort, they claim, to save democracy. How do you save democracy, according to the left?

First, you must destroy it. And so one of the things that they're doing is they're trying to prevent President Trump from actually appearing on the ballot, meaning that voters would be deprived of the right to vote potentially for the candidate of their choice. And nothing could be more of an attack on democracy than this particular left wing tactic. And so I think all Americans should be up in arms, not necessarily because they favor Donald Trump, but because this particular effort is designed to shrink democracy. It is designed to create a faux democracy or performative democracy, not an actual democracy. So the people of the United States should have the right to choose their own President.

The left disagrees. So the complicating factor here, Logan, is right now there looks like 16 states have issues, 13 that involve litigation. I mean, it is conceivable that this, and by the way, that now includes North Carolina. So it's conceivable that this spreads through the entire country. And you're talking about a very short window.

What is the window? The window is this has to be resolved before the ballots are printed or set up for the computer for the primaries. So the latest would be the end of the year?

I would think you'd have to, I mean, maybe they could go into January the first. The first primary is when? First, the caucuses don't will, does the caucus does not have a ballot, do they? Yeah, they do. They do that circle ballot.

They do. Yeah. Yeah. I think if, if Iowa is in it, I don't know if they've filed against Iowa yet.

We need to take a look, but if I was in it, you would have to have it. Yeah. Resolved before the ballots are printed. But the other ones are in February and March.

I mean, it's, I think between now and the end of the year, this is our life. All right. We'll keep you updated on that, but we do have a lot more content to cover. So join us right now. You can also call in. We have a full bank of calls right now. Maybe one open line 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. We're also going to be joined by Rick Grinnell coming up in the next segment. And following that, we're going to take as many calls as we possibly can.

So if you ever want to be on the air, this is a great time to call. 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at We've got a lot going on right now, and we could use your support. Go to to sign up our newest petition, because we are only 25,000 away from that. We're trying to get up to 100,000. Yeah, 23,000 away, actually. So we only need 22,000.

Less than 25,000. We'll say that. Back with more. Well, there's more than the electoral politics going on, although I will ask Rick about that in a moment. Right now the U.N. General Assembly is in session.

Jordan and our team from the ACLJ, including Rick, are up at the U.N. right now. The big news, of course, Rick, is the Iran hostages with a huge price tag. What's your reaction to all of this? Less safe in America. It makes the Europeans less safe. It makes everyone less safe. When you give a $6 billion ransom, and I believe that this was ransom money in order to get back Americans, it really changes the dynamics for every single person who travels overseas.

You're raising the stakes on the price of someone's head. Now, we can talk about those warnings, and at the same time, Jay, be very happy that some Americans are back home. This is certainly cause to celebrate the fact that these individuals are back home in America.

However, I think the price that was paid for them really encourages bad behavior in the future. You know, we represented Saeed Abedini and his family when they were held captive in Iran, and I remember, and he was thrilled when he got out, finally was in prison, which is notoriously horrible. But, CC, I remember this. The first thing he said to me, Rick, you'll appreciate, that was when I got on the phone, because they weren't having news access. They didn't know what was going on in negotiations. He thought he was negotiated out like in a regular hostage negotiation. He finds out it was $19 billion given in cash pallets from the Obama administration to the Iranian government, which he said, his reaction was, why in the world did you do that?

That's exactly what he said. It was the first conversation I had with him, and that was the first thing he said. Right, and he was shocked that it was money that was paid. They didn't know. They were sitting on a plane, I think. They were actually waiting for that transaction to take place before their plane would take off. So, again, it does make every single, just like Rick said, every single U.S. citizen traveling abroad now becomes a potential hostage, you know, for extracting money from the United States. Rick, does it also put a real-now price tag on Americans that are held captive in other countries as well?

Look, it's crazy, but yes, it does. It raises the stakes. And look, I've been involved in multiple negotiations during the Obama administration for individuals in Iran who were released outside of the U.S. government through different types of negotiations. And so these are very difficult circumstances.

Jay, as you know, you've been intimately involved. Sometimes it's beneficial to have the U.S. government directly negotiating, and other times it is not. The families of these individuals, the friends and family, need to be able to be very nimble on when they negotiate, when they don't, when they call in the U.S. government, and when they don't. The message that I have for families is never let the U.S. government tell you what to do.

These are your family members, and you should be negotiating hard and not playing the little government game that they want you to. CC has handled actually a lot of these for the ACLJ, and the countries include China, includes Iran, includes Turkey. The list can go on.

India, Pakistan. So we've handled these. And I think what Rick says is absolutely right.

Absolutely. There are times where we want to talk about the issue. There are times where we don't want to talk about the issue to protect the families and to protect the person who's in prison in these countries. There are times where we want the United States government to intervene and the State Department to help us.

And there are times where we want them to be silent. And you just have to be, just like Rick said, actively and engaged with the people on the ground, with the families, and with the person that's actually being held to negotiate and find out what is the best way to go. And it's more, Rick, than just the negotiations. There's a whole process that goes into it. Yeah, there's an entire process. Some of it is diplomatic. Some of it may be media.

You know, I'm close to the Levinson family, Sarah Levinson. And I think that they would tell you that they made more progress when they didn't quite take instructions from the United States. You certainly have to use the U.S. government to your benefit. And I say that as somebody who's on the outside. When I'm on the inside, of course, it's a different story when you're fighting for the government and for America. But the one lesson that I have learned is that families who want their loved ones back need to be nimble and free of U.S. government entanglement. Logan, we've learned also, Rick mentioned the media, we have done major, major media campaigns. I think of Anarkani, Sadid Abedini, and others. Yeah, absolutely.

That's one of our huge wings here at the ACLJ. And you may not kind of put the pieces together sometimes when you're watching this. But obviously, if you're watching this, you know there has to be a crew that's involved to get this on the air. Whether that is through radio, whether that's through TV, whether that is through all of our social media platforms, there's a huge crew having to do that. There's a big media operation happening behind the scenes and you don't necessarily get to see it. But like I always say, I wish I could turn around the camera so you could see it because there are dozens of people just alone working on this broadcast right now that you're watching. And then plus all of our additional media, all of our social media content, everything has to come out and all of that matters. It all matters to get people's eyeballs. You know, again, we don't just throw everything behind a paywall.

We make sure that our stuff is seen and can be seen wherever it can because a lot of times it is life and death. China not making an appearance or Xi not making an appearance at the UN at this point. Rick, what's your take on that?

I know you and Jordan are going to be meeting on a lot of these issues later. I mean, let's let's be clear. Russia's not here. China's not here. The UK isn't here.

France isn't here. This is a total snub of Joe Biden. The permanent members of the Security Council decided not to come. And, you know, Joe Biden is having a real hard time leading on the world stage.

Then they're giving for not coming, Rick, because this is you said it is a huge snub. Yeah, look, I think that they're calculating that the Biden administration is completely weak and irrelevant and there won't be consequences for not coming. There won't be consequences for not coordinating with Americans. I mean, look at the policy of the Balkans that I know really well. The Europeans are in charge. It's a total disaster.

And the U.S. government is left to, you know, fumble and and look foolish because there's no U.S. government leadership. All right. We're going to be taking questions on the issue of what we're going to talk about changing gears here on this 14th Amendment challenge to keep Donald Trump off the election. If you're on the phone lines now, hang on the lines. Number of you are going to keep lines open as well at 1-800-684-3110. That's 800-684-3110. We'll get to your calls in the next segment, but go ahead and call in if you have any questions on what's going on in your state.

Maybe 1-800-684-3110. Rick, we have since we talked, we have our motion to intervene in the Colorado case has been granted. So we are litigating that case. We are filing today in the that's in state court in Colorado. In Oklahoma, it's in federal court action. So we are filing our motion to intervene this afternoon.

I'm reviewing it now. In fact, we can put it on the screen for people to see it. This is what we're filing in the Oklahoma of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

There are 13 others. So this attempt to keep Donald Trump off the ballot is for real. I mean, it's so outrageous. This is what dictators do is they they say you're not qualified to run for office, so they throw people off the ballot. We've called this out in the last 10 or 15 years when we've seen it in other countries.

I'm thinking Pakistan. There are times when the courts or the political system or the dictator decides to kick their opponent off the ballot. So you didn't qualify or because of your past, you're not qualified to run. These are the moments where the State Department usually stands up and calls it out. But I can guarantee you, Anthony Blinken is not going to call out Joe Biden. Anthony Blinken has already demonstrated that he knows how to manipulate an election for Joe Biden. I actually think, Rick, that this is the most significant constitutional attack on the right to vote that we have seen in U.S. history where, you know, government bureaucrats or a judge, for that matter, thinks that they can keep a qualified nominee off a ballot.

Under the 14th Amendment, Section 3's Disqualification Clause, which is for insurrection of officers of which the President is not one, nor is the vice President, for that matter. And by the way, Steve Calabresi, after we started talking about this, changed his view on this. But the fact is, when you look at what has happened here, the idea that administrators are, you know, the secretary of state, for instance, in Colorado, Rick, fought our intervention, even though she's a defendant. You'd think she'd want additional ammo coming in, so to speak. Oh, no, she didn't want it. The judge let us do it.

But that tells you where she was going. It's political manipulation through and through. It's so obvious. And thank God we have ACLJ to fight it.

Our team is fantastic. The lawyers are on this. And we've got to stand up. If you're listening to this broadcast, you have a voice. You have to speak out. If you have the ability to send money, you have to send us some money to be able to fight these in court.

These are expensive endeavors. But you cannot just sit back and just watch. Pray. Share on social media.

Give where you can. There's a whole bunch of things that you can be doing, but you've got to use your voice. We appreciate it. We're going to hear more from you in the next couple of days. I know Jordan's going to be meeting with you and the team this afternoon and this evening.

Thanks so much for being with us. Folks, as Rick just said, and he's absolutely correct, your support on this is vital. It's critical. We raised enough money to handle the Colorado case, Logan. I think that's pretty fair.

And it was a great response. Now we've got Oklahoma. We'll work on that probably next month, getting the funding for that. We're not doing that right now. Unless you are so moved to support the work of the ACLJ, we encourage you to do it. We also need you to sign on to that petition on this issue. And here's why. I want $100,000 because some of these cases are going to be handled by amicus briefs. I'd like to be $100,000 from all 50 states.

That's right. We'll be taking your phone calls coming up in the next segment. 1-800-684-3110. Great time to call. We'll get to you as many as we can. Be right back.

Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take your phone calls here in just a second. We also have comments coming in from YouTube and from Rumble and Facebook.

We have one from YouTube. This question I can just get to real quick. You can answer this. It said, would a ruling from federal court in Oklahoma supersede a state court ruling in Colorado? No, because elections are uniquely state-based. So the states determine their election laws. Now, it would help as far as precedentially.

You'd say, hey, wait a minute. Another federal court has ruled a different way. But no, these are going to have to be handled state by state until we get it up to CC, the Supreme Court of the United States, where we will get a ruling that would affect the entire country. Yeah, and that's the important thing. But these battles are going to have to be fought. And that's another thing. You know, attacking Trump, they're doing this on, you said, 13 more states that we're going to be filing in.

He has to defend in each one of these. And so it's a distraction and really effectively stops him from being able to even campaign, let alone the fact that they're trying to keep him off the ballot. They're going after him every single way that they can. And this affects everybody who wants to be a candidate. This is not just about Trump. This is about the right to have free elections. And if people qualify and are otherwise qualified, they should be on the ballot if they meet the qualifications and not, you know, come up with some convoluted constitutional theory that was last used in 1918 in a situation not remotely like this and that the Supreme Court said they couldn't do.

The one case that's been decided, they said, no, you have to seat the individual. They had the right to be there. All right, let's take a call. Let's first go to Harry in West Virginia, watch it on

Great place to watch. Harry, you're on the air. Hi, Harry. Hello.

Thanks for taking the call. My comment is Professor Hutchinson and Jay both mentioned that you're going to be probably going to the Supreme Court. The issue is, I think that gives the liberals and the elitists a collateral issue. They know they're going to lose. But as soon as they lose, then they reignite the fight to try to pack the court because look at what those people that believe in the Constitution are doing.

But you know what the thing is, Harry, on that? And here's the thing. I think they could try to pack the court, which, by the way, you would not get through the House of Representatives right now, so that won't happen. And it would have to be the House and the Senate.

But you know what? I don't know if there's a justice in the United States that would think this is correct, including the liberal justices. That's how confident I am in the ultimate outcome of this case. It makes no constitutional sense that the 14th Amendment, Section 3's Disqualification Clause is self-executing by some local bureaucrat or local state election official. I mean, it makes no sense that you're going to interfere with an election that way and that any Supreme Court justice would find that to be acceptable.

Having said that, there has not been a decision on it, so this will be the case of first impression. Yeah, and the consequences, like you said, they are very far-reaching. This, again, is not about whether you like Trump or don't like Trump. This is about, just exactly like you said, one person deciding, meh, I don't think somebody's qualified to be on a ballot, and so we're totally keeping them off. This goes to our fundamental right of being able to vote for who we want to vote for.

And they're trying to keep people off the ballot preemptively, which is wrong, and I agree with you that the Supreme Court, not one justice, conservative or liberal, will find that it is right. Alright, let's continue on and take some more calls. Nathan's calling in New York, watching on Rumble. You're on the air. Hi, Nathan.

Hey, good afternoon. I just had a quick question. Sure. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but they're claiming for this lawsuit, basically, that there was an insurrection. Now, my understanding is, even though I don't believe that, that's a federal crime.

Correct. So how do they even have standing to bring this up in a state court when J6 didn't happen in Colorado, it wasn't aimed at any Colorado politician. How could they then say, well, we're going to bring this to a state court? They can't. Well, their theory is that you don't have to have an adjudication of an insurrection for there to be one for disqualification purposes.

That's absurd. The implementing statute for the 14th Amendment Section 3 is the Insurrection Act. Trump's been indicted for a lot of things. One of the things he has not been indicted for, though, however, has been insurrection, either causing one or aiding and abetting an insurrection. So the insurrection charge is not even on the table. So then what these states are trying to do and these plaintiffs are trying to do is say, well, it doesn't matter. If we think there are facts that support an insurrection, we can either get a local court to decide that or who needs a local court?

We'll decide it ourselves. And that is unconstitutional. And that interferes with the constitutional right to vote. And that's why this case is of such huge constitutional magnitude. The biggest election case in U.S. history may be tried October 30th through November 3rd in Denver, Colorado.

Yeah, it is absolutely ridiculous that, again, they just try whatever plot and ploy they can do to keep, again, this is after Trump. But this is for any person who's running from, if this goes through, it would affect anybody who wants to run for an office. And it's just on the decision of somebody, hmm, an insurrection, I think, yeah, that he's committed it. Like you said, it doesn't have to be adjudicated.

It doesn't have to come from a court that he has committed an insurrection. It's just somebody's opinion of that. And it's ridiculous. And it has to be stopped. Well, it could be in 14 states.

It could be in 50 by the time the week is over. All right, we'll try to get as many of these calls as we can. Eric in Florida on YouTube. Eric, you're up. How are we doing, sir?

Great, go ahead. My question is that how come there hasn't been a habeas corpus 2254 filed for President Trump in the Florida case to start the tumbling of all the cases? Because it's logical, it's instantaneous, you know, within three days he'd have a hearing. Well, habeas corpus has produced the body, remember, right? Okay, a habeas corpus proceeding has produced the body. In other words, someone's incarcerated, you get them out, you file a hate petition for habeas corpus. This is not really suitable for a habeas petition. These cases have to be litigated in state or federal court and the indictments have to be defended in the jurisdictions where they're brought unless there's a change of venue.

So that really doesn't apply in this kind of situation. Let's try to grab one more. Becky in Florida.

You're on, Becky. Hi. My question was kind of two things, but on the state deal, are they using taxpayer money to do this? And like the DOJ thing with Jack Smith, can Congress defund that since they're using the state?

Well, on the state level, of course the state, you know, they were technically sued there by this Republican candidate to try to keep Trump off, but he's trying to force the election official to not certify him for being placed on the ballot. So sure, I'm sure there's taxpayer dollars being used. On the federal level, there's not support in the House. I'll just be honest, there's not the support in the House of Representatives to do that, to defund it.

I mean, it's that simple. Could they defund it? Sure, they could defund it, but they're not going to get that through the Senate. But it originates in the House, and if they don't originate in the House, yeah, there's no funding, but it ain't going to happen. I mean, I just think we've got to be, it's like this impeachment of Biden. I just don't see it.

I mean, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think you should cheap an impeachment either, but I just don't see it. You've got a four or five Republican majority. You barely got control. Yep. All right. Well, that's going to do it for our calls for today. We appreciate everyone who called in and commented as well.

I will be taking more tomorrow, so make sure you obviously tune into that. But you obviously want to support the work of the ACLJ. You're hearing the important work that we've been doing here, and it continues to grow each and every minute.

As soon as we're done with this broadcast, we'll go into a working lunch and continue on. Yeah, so yesterday we had a win in Colorado in our historic 14th Amendment case there by the motion for intervention to be granted. Now we're representing the Oklahoma Republican Party. That one's in federal court. We know what the left's trying to do. A new blog's up at Thirteen state cases right now nationwide. We're fighting for your right to vote, and yesterday, as I said, we saw the first at least ability to get in the case and fight it out. We encourage you to go to and sign that petition. Look, when things become clear is that the left does not want to support Trump on the ballot box.

But you know what? That's not their choice. That's the people's choice. They need this bizarre interpretation of the 14th Amendment to get their work done. So to fight to keep not only Trump on the ballot, but the people that qualify to be on the ballot, it may have to take place in a 50-state fight. Folks, I encourage you to go to It's why the ACLJ is working so hard to gain constitutional high ground in both Colorado and Oklahoma. Those cases are up first. Go to for that. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-10-28 22:25:28 / 2023-10-28 22:47:02 / 22

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