Another Gag Order for Trump? “They Want to Take My Freedom”

Today on Sekulow, another gag order for Trump.

Trump responds they want to take my freedom. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. The latest filing by Jack Smith. An attempt to silence a candidate for President of the United States and former President of the United States, Donald Trump. To anyone who might be a witness, he can't make remarks about. So he can't defend himself in the court of public opinion as he campaigns. So you realize they want to almost make it impossible for him to get up there and explain why he believes he's innocent and not guilty of these crimes.

They just want him to shut up. The question is, of course, they call it narrow. But it's broad when, again, it's potential witnesses. So people you might not even know of right now that you can't criticize or say anything critical about. I mean, in the game of politics, unfortunately, in this year, in 2023 and 2024, the game of politics is pretty nasty when it comes to rhetoric. I mean, that's to say the least. So you got the political rhetoric on one side.

But let me tell you what else you have. We call an indictment on the type that Jack Smith has issued speaking indictments because it doesn't just give barebone discussions. It lays out this entire scenario. And then they make all these motions in court. And at the same time, they want to be able to issue these indictments, the speaking indictments, and then not allow the former President of the United States to say anything to defend himself while he's running for President of the United States.

So if you're talking about election interference in the classic sense of what election interference would mean, which is putting your thumb on the scale in some way, this is a classic case of it. I mean, the idea that they can have these speaking indictments accusing the Presidents of all kind of things and then not let him speak is ridiculous. Yeah, but he can't talk regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility, and this is what I love, of perspective.

How does that even get enforced? How does he even speak without being concerned that he's going to be hit with another charge or contempt of court? And I think that's the test here. Because this judge, she would do it.

I think that's right. I mean, if she— She would contempt her. I would not—well, number one, I don't think there's any question she would. Okay, so let's put that out of the— You'd be questioning that. Yeah, don't even question that. But that's number one. Number two, I think this is the reality, and I think we just need to be prepared for it.

And the lawyers are going to come back on a pure First Amendment challenge to this saying you can't do this. So I think that you have to realize, though, the situation that's starting to develop here. You are now into campaign season.

Is it fair to say that? Oh, absolutely. Okay, we're in campaign season. His first trial is in March, right? Yes. Two days before Super Tuesday. That's the schedule right now. I think it's one day before.

Yeah. March 5th. Well, he's got to be preparing. So let's say he prepares a couple days before. He's going to be on the campaign trail.

They prepare him for a couple of days. Then, if you look in May, you have the Florida documents case going to trial. Right. Fawnee Willis wants her case tried at least in January.

She wanted to try it October 23rd. The judge in the full and superior court said no. By the way, Jeff Clark, the former DOJ official, is in federal court this morning on this removal order.

I'm not so sure removing it's the right approach to, by the way. I tend to lead to keeping it in the state court. But if you look at how it lines up, from before Super Tuesday through the election, he's in court. Yeah. And they don't want to call that election interference.

No, I mean, it's absolutely election interference. And every time it seems like something about, you know, Hunter Biden comes out, then you get these moves. Exactly.

Any time. Oh, then we announce that there's going to be a gag order or, you know, some other kind of salacious news. It's so obvious, again, this coordination between the Department of Justice, Special Counsel, and even these local DAs. We're taking your calls on this, 1-800-684-3110. We have updates to you as well on those challenges in the states to try to remove President Trump from the ballot.

So you don't even get to choose whether or not, if you're a Republican voter, you want to vote for President Trump in the primary to make him your party's nominee. We'll take calls up on that. We're also going to update you on that. There's important hearing going on right now as we speak in Colorado. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on the air. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. It's also UN Week in New York, and our team from ACLJ and ACLJ Action is on it. I'll give you a little taste of what they're going to be up to there.

Welcome back to Stankula. We are taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. So yet again, another attempt, this time by Special Counsel Jack Smith, trying more election interference by the Department of Justice. I want to make it clear because he reports to them, and they have authority to, again, they're not independent councils, and they've got no problem with the fact they want to shut up the leading Republican candidate for the entire primary season.

In another case, they're trying to take him off ballots for the primary. And then they want it to anybody who might be a perspective witness who testifies, he can no longer speak about. So he can't defend himself in the court of public opinion as a public official. Yeah, and what they're doing, though, but they issue what's called a speaking indictment, which lays out all these facts, and then basically says to Trump, oh, and you don't get to defend yourself against – publicly against a speaking indictment, which the public has access to. And describe what a speaking indictment is for people. A speaking indictment is really where the government sets out the whole story in painstakingly detail in the 90 or 100-page accusation, in which they go on and on in great details, call him a racketeer, call him a thief, call him a liar, say he did this, say he did that, incited riots, and did all sorts of horrible and terrible things to undermine the democracy. And it goes on and on in pages and pages as opposed to a simple indictment like X did commit the offense of murder by taking a knife to summon and killing him with malice of forethought, end of story. So what the speaking indictment does, like a speaking objection, it's a speech. It's a big speech, and they now don't want the President to respond to any of this because they're afraid he may catch someone who might someday be a witness.

Well, if that person is – here's what President Trump says, and he's a witness, cross-examine him about that. Was he affected by that? Did it change his testimony? Did it scare him?

Did it intimidate him? If he's a potential juror, ask him a question. Does your – what you heard the President say, does it any way affect the ability that you have to give a free verdict in the case? But it doesn't implicate the – it does implicate the First Amendment, and it should be allowed for the President to make whatever statements he wants to in defense of himself in or out of court.

So let's talk about what's going on right now today as we're on the air live, okay? In federal court in Atlanta, Jeff Clark, former DOJ official, is seeking removal of the case from the state court system to the federal court system. That hearing is going on right now. By the way, I'm not convinced that's the best strategy. I think I would stick with the superior court system.

That's just my view. At the same time, right now, we are in court. Our lawyers, Mike Melito, who is representing the interests of the ACLJ, our affiliate out there, is in a hearing today in Colorado in the historic 14th Amendment case where they're trying to remove Trump from the ballot. So in one case, you got Jack Smith at the same time trying to say, hey, we don't want him talking about this, and the same time they're trying to get him removed from the ballot out in Colorado. We represent the Colorado Republican Committee to defend the Constitution and protect the integrity of our elections.

Let me tell you what we need. We've got a petition that's up that's at 71,000 votes, and we need to get 100,000 because some of these cases we're going to directly intervene in, others we're going to file amicus briefs because we're not going to be able to intervene. For those amicus briefs, we want to be able to say, Jordan, that we have 100,000 members that have signed up. So go to ACLJ.org, and these petitions are very important. On this matter, the reason why we're at that hearing in Colorado specifically is because that petition made its way to the desk of the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party and said, you know what, I need to contact the ACLJ. We need legal representation in this case out of Colorado.

He happened to be a former client a long time ago of the ACLJ. So your petitions don't only matter going to the officials. In this case, those who oversee the elections in most states, that's the secretary of state, going to those 50 secretaries of states. That's important. But it also reminds people who are still going to say, this is impacting our members as a Republican Party.

Is there a group out there that could help us? And then this comes across their desk because of those of you that signed that petition. So we can play multiple roles in defending our rights across the country. So sign the petition.

It doesn't cost a thing. And then share it with your friends and family so we can get that 100,000 number. Do it today at ACLJ.org. Let's go ahead and start taking phone calls early because we're opening up our phone lines at 1-800-684-3110. That's 800-684-3110. Let's go to Judy in California on Line 1. Hey, Judy. Yes, hello.

Hi. I just want to correct something that the Democrats have been lying about and what it is is one word. President Trump told his people on January 6th to go down to the Capitol peacefully. They have deleted that word and that's very important. Well, they deleted it because it doesn't fit the narrative of what they're trying to say. And what they're also trying to say through the January 6th grand jury is that he, by speaking, incited that action, Andy. That's part of this claim. But what's important to understand here, Judy, is they have not charged him with insurrection, which would be the basis upon which the case were in court right this minute in Colorado. Our lawyers are out there literally right now. Will, do we have an update on that?

Yes, check the chat. Okay. Oh, we'd won. That was quick. All right, so okay, so let's double check this. I want to make sure. Yeah, because that doesn't sound correct.

Citing efficiency. Here's what we know so far. Let me tell you what, let's go back, pull it back first.

This is live radio, you can tell, folks. So we have a motion that we filed to intervene in the case in Colorado representing the Colorado GOP. Everybody consented.

It's yes and full. There was just a verbal caveat by the judge that if there's things that are duplicate, she'll make sure she handles that. So we get the discovery, we get the oral intervention. So yes, Judge Wallace says that she will grant the motion to intervene, wants to avoid duplicity in the process between Trump and the Colorado Republican Party.

Yeah, and we do too, but that means we're fully in. That's very big news, a very big win that the American Center for Law and Justice has been granted intervention status for our client. And the client here is the Colorado GOP to engage this case standing.

This was a big, you thought this would happen. Yeah, I thought it would happen and it's a big win and the judge did the right thing. The Colorado Republican Committee has a absolutely vested right to be in here in this case, to be heard fully in this case. The judge can manage it by saying if there's duplicitous stuff between Trump and between the Colorado Party, she will manage that. But she did the right thing by allowing the Colorado Party to be fully in the case as a party and I think that's a very good omen of things to come. This is a judge who said I have inherent control over managing my docket, like don't tell me I can't handle this. Well, I saw that Friday when she issued that order Friday saying to the Secretary of State, hey, everybody's consented to the ACLJ's motion to intervene on behalf of the Colorado GOP, but you haven't.

You need to tell me in writing why because what's your problem? And they came back and said, well, we'll go for this limited intervention and she said, no, no, no, I'm granting full intervention, avoid duplicity. By the way, they do that with any multiple defendant case. I mean, that's part of it. Absolutely.

You do the depositions, you do them together, you don't do them separately. It's that kind of thing. So, listen, this is a big win. This is... It's something we can utilize too moving forward because we're not ready today to announce, but we're going to be active in more of these. This is not going to be the only... Yeah, these cases are all destined for the Supreme Court of the United States, too. We need to be clear here. Whatever happens in Colorado, even the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Colorado Supreme Court, that is not the end of this.

Now, I need to say a huge thank you. We did a three-day matching moment, which allowed us to raise the money necessary to litigate this case in Colorado. Are we going to have other matching moments? Yes, because we may be having a situation... Can we name the state yet or do you want to hold back? We'll hold back on the state, but it looks like as early as when, Jordan? Tonight or tomorrow morning.

Okay, so tonight or tomorrow morning, we may be in another state on the same thing. And, Andy, this idea of utilizing the 14th Amendment to destroy a Presidential candidate or a Presidential party from getting their candidates put forward is ridiculous. Yeah, this is, again, the weaponization of the Department of Justice, the politicization of the Department of Justice. We're going to take the Constitution of the United States. We're going to say that the President is an insurrectionist.

Where did you get that from? I have an 1828 dictionary definition that says insurrection is thus and so, and that's it. It's self-executing. I can decide whether he's on the ballot or not simply because the dictionary definition says insurrection is thus and so. Well, that's not the case. By the way, secretaries of states have started coming out, including Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, saying, I can't do that.

I got to give him credit for saying that. And I think in New Hampshire as well... Yeah, they said the same thing. Can't do it. We don't have the authority to do it. But I think we'll be in 13 or 14 states. This is going to be huge litigation for the next four or five months, up until, I would say, the midterm, the primaries. There's going to be a host of states where you're going to get judges who are saying, we're not even going to hear this. People need to understand how many lawyers, Jordan, we have involved in this. Yeah, I mean, you have to get specific attorneys in Colorado, because it's a state court case there, so we have that.

They have their team. And then we've got our legal team here, which is probably four or five people who have been working on this one almost full time to make sure that we got the intervention correct, knowing that this intervention would be important for the future cases. You know, you're not always going to be representing the state party. In some cases, it might be an individual.

In some cases, it might be another group. But again, this kind of sets a stage for us to be able to take this and say, we intervened here. This one is one of the most substantive, because it appears like it is going to trial. And so this one we really want to be engaged in, because if it does go all the way through court, it sets precedent for the country. But they're filing these in states across the country, and we're actually going through a process right now of targeting another three or four that are in red states and another three or four that are in the blue states. All right, we're going to stay live for our social media feeds, because I want to talk to you directly, but we've got that hearing just concluded in Colorado.

We have a great win. The motion to intervene has been granted, so we will be in that case in full. Your support of the ACLJ is critical. ACLJ.org. We have a petition up.

On this issue of the 14th Amendment and the disqualification, go to ACLJ.org. Social media folks, stay with us right now. All right, welcome back to Second Hill. We're taking your phone calls too. So we got the intervention in Colorado. That is a full intervention to intervene in that case to protect all the rights of those members of the Colorado Republican Party. But remember, this is a case that appears like it's going to trial, not a quick motion to dismiss.

You never know. But if it does, the course it would be on is to the United States Supreme Court ultimately. So through the Colorado system, then when you get passed to the Colorado Supreme Court, you can appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then, as we look at that, we put a team together on that. We're tracking the other 13 cases that have been filed now. One got dismissed very quickly out of Florida. But what we're looking at is, okay, we've got the team.

We now have got an intervention here. We've got another one that's going to be filed likely either tonight or tomorrow. It's definitely going to be filed, so we're going to be active in another state.

And then say kind of look at the map, because that's what this group is doing and these individuals. And let's pick and choose a few more that are going to be tough, that look like they could go through trials. They're going to be in more hostile states to Donald Trump. And then let's pick a few that are going to be in more friendly states. And then so, again, kind of have this multiprong legal effort approach to ultimately dip this in the bun and make it a kind of historically a moment that did not last long that we thought that we are going to let individuals start taking people off primary ballots before you get to vote.

And even if you do vote, write them in, they won't count your vote, because they don't like the way that person talks. And I think that's right. And we are up against when you talk about the financial resources. These are really good law firms with a lot of money. Not just liberal groups, but also the kind of elite rhino republicans in D.C. who don't want Donald Trump coming back. And they don't really want Donald Trump coming back. They don't want you in the political process. These are republicans I'm talking about. I've heard them say it before.

They say that, of course, behind closed doors. They don't want you in the process at all, but they especially don't want Donald Trump or anyone like him in the future. So this is their way, they think, of getting you out of politics disinterested. And then people like him in the future deciding, I'm not going to even run.

I'm not even going to go through this process. So we're not just fighting big liberal groups. We're fighting those establishment republicans who don't like the fact that Donald Trump says, you know what? I can recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I can make deals in the Middle East. And you saw, because of, again, this lack of leadership just over the weekend, Saudi Arabia calling off peace talks with Israel. That's because the Biden administration let everything that was accomplished under the Abraham Accords, and that was right on the edge, just totally, just kind of flowing away.

Anything that has Trump's fingerprints on it, they don't want to have anything to do with. All right, we're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110, 800-684-3110. If you are just joining us, we were in court this morning at 10 o'clock Central Time, 11 o'clock Central Time, 10 o'clock Mountain Time.

And we just got the order. Our lawyers were successful. The hearing is still going on.

Here's what they now say. The petitioner's lawyer is arguing why the hearing in five-day rule applies here and requires an expediting proceeding to go forward. So it is conceivable, and we'll find out shortly, that we may be, if the five-day rule applies, Andy, that means we could literally be on an expedited schedule. We could be in trial in a week. We could be, and we could be in the Colorado Supreme Court, and after that in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yeah, I mean, this thing could move Jordan a lightning speed. How would they do that with discovery? They just say, they have dates. They say all discovery has to be exchanged by, you know, next week. Expedited discovery. So five days of ish is what we're talking about here with some – Yeah. Well, I mean, it's definitely – we knew it was going to be on an expedited track because it has to be.

Yeah, well, it is. I mean, clearly it's an expedited track, but I think the thing that we have to look out for here is, folks, let me tell you what you got to do. We've got our Supreme Court team already on this because there's no – if it's not this case, it's going to be another one.

We may have a whole series of them going up there. And this idea that you could take the 14th Amendment and disqualify a candidate without a trial on the charge of insurrection is absurd. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of like we talked about the DA – you talked about weaponized DAs. Now it could be weaponized district courts potentially. Yeah, weaponized secretaries of state. Yeah.

Secretaries of state. Yeah, that's what they've done here. I love this judge.

I mean, I think she's going to be good. I have inherent control over managing my docket, and I will grant this motion and manage my docket to avoid duplication. It's pretty tough. In other words – Pretty direct. That's a pretty positive ruling. Talking about positive rulings, let me briefly mention here. We had a case involving – we get these all the time, these senior housing where Bible studies are being banned, and I'm happy to report that we have a success in one. We – but at the same time that we have a success in one, if you get our emails, you got an email this morning saying we're back in – back fighting now for another one.

This one, I believe, is in Texas, and we are fighting that one out. So while we're handling these huge issues of big importance as it relates to elections, don't forget that the ACLJ team is making sure that a Bible study for the senior center can go forward. And that email is out on that. By the way, if you don't get your emails, you should sign up for those.

Good way for you to stay engaged. You see, again, that senior housing complex informed the residents of that complex, including our client, that their Bible study shut down. They can't use the community room, which has been open for other meetings, other groups forever, for as long as they know, as long as they remember. But they were told, no more Bible study here. And we've seen this – we've already seen this one before at another senior living center.

But I get this idea of your group can't use – you can't meet to study the Bible. That's still happening in the United States of America. Unreal. Good news is we're getting it – we got one resolved. We will get this one resolved, too. Let's go back to the phones.

800-684-3110. Big news if you're just joining us. Motion to intervene granted. Hearing's still going on.

Our team is keeping giving us updates. Hey, if you've not signed on our petition about this whole disqualification of the former President and how that's going, I need it to get to 100,000. Because some states we are going to get direct intervention. Some states it's going to be an amicus brief. And in that amicus brief, it would be very – it is very important to say 100,000 people from all 50 states.

Because those are 50,000 – 100,000 people saying, hey, you're affecting my right to vote, too. So go to ACLJ.org and sign on to that petition. Let's take another call, Jordan. Yeah, back to the phones. We go – let's go to Laura in California online, too. Hey, Laura. Thanks for taking my call.

Sure. Today is the first day that I've heard you mention ACLJ.org so much. That was what I was going to say. I would have liked to hear that more in previous shows. And maybe there have been and I just haven't heard them. But I am so glad to hear you say that so that we can get more people.

Because I wasn't sure. Just signing a petition is good enough? Should we call the White House?

Not yet. It's really not a White House call. You know, calling your state legislatures may be the approach. What we want to do, if we can get to 100,000 – even if we don't, but I believe we will – get to 100,000, we're going to use that as a reference point in the briefs. I do say ACLJ.org a lot, by the way. But it's quick.

It's like in 10 seconds. We've got so much stuff that we have to cover. But I will tell you – and there's great information there. You should also, Laura, sign up for our social media as well. Where do you listen to the broadcast, Laura? Is it KKLA, Cliff?

Yeah, okay. KKLA in California. Yeah, Salem Station. Great station.

Powerful station. So we're thrilled with that. Yeah, but so, look, I don't think we're at the call – the Congressman called the Senators yet.

But Jordan's kind of making a – It's to be Secretary of State. Yeah. And again – We're in court there, though. So I don't know if – it's going to be decided in court. Yes.

I mean, but – and again – She could have backed down, though. Where these petitions are important is that they're getting onto the desk of people who say, you know what? I'm going to call the ACLJ so I get involved in this and we get this handled correctly. So support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org and sign that petition, defending your right to vote. ACLJ.org. It doesn't cost a thing. Share that petition with your friends and family. That's how it's going to get to 100,000. You signing it and then sharing it so another three or four people sign it as well.

ACLJ.org. Be right back. Second half hour of the broadcast. Let's sing it tonight. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right.

Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-68431. Tim, we have an update if you're just joining us on the broadcast. And again, give us a minute here if you've been listening already.

But for people who may have just turned it on or are just now watching it on the various places, you can watch the broadcast online. That we have been granted that intervener status in the case out of Colorado where you have CREW, an organization – big organization working with individual clients they have in Colorado to remove President Trump from the primary ballot. So they don't even want – you know, the idea that Republicans in the primary – the system in Colorado is the only people that can vote in a Republican primary are registered Republicans and independents. If you're a Democrat, you can't vote in that party. Some states you can choose even up to that day. But of course what is important here is that now not only is President Trump being defended in court through his campaign, but the state party who has a huge interest in this, not just in one election cycle, but in election cycles moving forward. Do state secretaries of state on their own just have the ability to say, I think this person committed this act under Article 14th Amendment so I can take them off the ballot?

Even if people try to write them in, I'm not going to count their votes, and that's legal in the United States of America. So we have been granted status to – again, I guess the three main things – argue to get – able to present oral argument, to get the evidence, to also get discovery as well. So this is a briefing throughout the trial. So it's very important, and it kind of sets the stage this will not be the only state we're engaging this. We're already on to a second state, not going to name it yet until we've actually filed, but that'll be happening either tonight or tomorrow.

And then we have a plan to enter into more states as well. All right, we just got some news as well. We're getting this live from the courthouse where our lawyers are in court right now. It looks like that five-day rule she's saying doesn't apply here, that she's going to make this an expedited proceeding, but she's going to shoot down the five-day timeline.

Sounds like it'll be more expedited than normal, but not just this in five days everything has to go. Look, the constitutional issues here are significant. She's doing the right thing by slowing it down a little bit. A little bit, by the way, is just that.

It's a little bit. There's a lot that's going to happen. And what you have to understand in a case like this – this is a big move, folks – I mean, our team – hands off to our team. I want to hands off to our team in Washington, D.C., that put this together. Hands off to our media team who's been able to monitor this while we're on live.

Hats off to our team out in Colorado headed by Mike Melito, and hats off to our donors that allowed us to do this. And I said there's going to be another one coming up. We are looking at, Andy, probably the most historic precedent-incentive case on the 14th Amendment Section 3 in U.S. history.

Well, I think when I heard this that I concluded that as well. We are looking at a case in which somebody is trying to tell you that the Constitution precludes you from voting for someone. That's really what they're saying. The Constitution, which is what we have held sacred since it was ratified, is now condemning you to not being able to vote somebody for somebody because of some dictionary definition that the politicized Department of Justice and the state actors are saying precludes that person from being on the ballot. I'll tell you one thing Americans don't like. Don't ever tell me I can't vote for somebody, and that's what ultimately is going to happen.

You can tell me a lot of things, but don't tell me I can't vote for somebody who is otherwise qualified to hold the presidency, and President Trump is. Yeah, I mean, folks, this is, again, it's not going to be the only state. We know that. I think there's going to be multiple states. They're all going to be a little different. Some are going to be in more hostile states to Republicans and Donald Trump. Some are going to be in states that are more friendly. And, again, we've already got the second one ready to go. So we'll be making that announcement probably tomorrow on this broadcast, as long as things stay on track there.

And it's because of your support. Again, we're able to, you really did meet that matching moment, and we're able to then think about how to take this strategy and make sure in every state that's necessary that we need to get involved. We can get involved as the ACLJ, representing you and your right to vote.

Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org, and I encourage you to get that petition signed on this matter. We want to get to $100,000. We're going to get there by you signing it and getting three or four more friends of yours to sign it as well. So share it. It doesn't cost a thing to sign it.

It doesn't cost anything to share it on your fees. And let's get to $100,000. Be right back. Welcome back to Cinco. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We've been talking a lot about your rights, your right to vote, your First Amendment rights as well. We do have a win when it comes to your free speech rights on Facebook.

We had a series of issues with Facebook and some of the other social media platforms on what's called censoring or shadow banning, whatever you want to call it. Craig Parshall is a senior counsel and special counsel of counsel to the ACLJ who heads up this project for us. And Craig, this has been a serious problem, this whole, you know, you say pro-life, they take you down, you do a particular act, you're off. Tell us about this particular case and what we did here and the outcome.

Yeah. First of all, the Oversight Board is created by Facebook, now called META, a number of years ago when they were criticized because of the vast number of conservative and pro-life and other views that they were censoring simply because they discriminated against those opinions. By the way, in 2023, Jay, the first quarter of that year, they took down a third of a million posts by their own admission that they had to then retract because they were mistaken or wrong or not in accordance with their policies.

So that's a back story. In this case, they took a look at a pro-life post by a U.S. citizen, and that's going to be important in a minute when we discuss the ramifications of this, a U.S. citizen was simply posting a message about the illogic and moral bankruptcy of the pro-abortion position that says we're compassionate about the mother and the child. Because if the child is going to be unwanted, well, in the words of this pro-life poster, let's just kill it. And really, that's what they're saying. That's the illogic and the moral bankruptcy of their position. Well, the machine learning computer systems in META and Facebook caught the word kill, and they immediately said this is a suspect and likely to be censored post. They then pitched it to a human moderator who looks at the content and they made the same mistake. They said, oh, you can't use the word kill even metaphorically, even rhetorically about the pro-life movement. So they took it down.

Now, they also took down two other pro-abortion uses of the word kill in a metaphorical or political sense. And only until then did the oversight board decide that they're going to take a look at this. Now, by the way, the oversight board is a global board, international. It is comprised of media pundits and former federal judges and some technology experts. We don't know who weighs in on which case, so we don't know who ruled in this case.

So they ruled the right way. I'm holding it up in my hand just so people have it. And we have it on the screen? Yeah, let's go ahead and put it up on the screen. So this is the brief that Craig filed on behalf of the ACLJ. Can we go ahead and put that up? And that brief is called Public Comments of the American Center for Law and Justice Regarding U.S. Social Media Posts Discussing Abortion. So we put this up, Craig, and basically you're in a proceeding at that point. And we don't know who the judges are, but we do know that we prevailed. Yeah.

Look, we made a couple of simple positions. Number one, stick to your rules. Don't violate them. And the oversight board said, yeah, they violated them. Number two, make sure your rules are clear that the use of some words in a rhetorical or a pedagogical political debate ought to be allowed. If you really mean incitement to violence, that's one thing.

But you have to read it in context. They agreed with both of those two points. Our third point, they couldn't agree with for reasons having to do with the way in which the oversight board was created. We said the First Amendment ought to be applied to American citizens expression.

And this was an American pro-life user of Facebook. They said, now we'll use the international law. Now, they came out with the right decision.

They reversed Facebook and said, no, you did the wrong thing. From now on, as we had argued, you have to read things in context. Don't leave it to the computer systems or artificial intelligence.

Have human moderators and make them explain why they decided to take something down in the first place. And then make sure your rules take into account the context in which the words are being used. So they agreed with this and all of that. But the third point, use American constitutional principles when you're talking about American users they didn't agree with, they've never agreed with.

Because when they were created by Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, he required in their charter that they only apply international law. Came out with a good result, but you can't always guarantee that that will be the case. Well, Craig, thanks for your hard work on this. It's great news, a great victory, and I'm sure there will be more of these ahead, folks. But we've got a whole team doing digital media litigation and a great result.

Thanks, Craig. I want to go right back to our 14th Amendment issue. I need to say again, if you're just joining us, our motion to intervene, which has been argued this morning in court in Colorado, our team is there, has been granted. And by the way, in yesterday's prayer request email, on Sundays we send out a prayer request email. This is what we said, we just filed a brand new historic case against the abuse of the 14th Amendment that is threatening the integrity of our elections.

The Constitution secures our basic liberties as Americans and we must guard them. As Christians in America, it's our sacred duty to vote as we play a significant role in choosing leaders who will govern wisely and honorably, and our voice is in jeopardy. Please pray that our lawyers are successful in defending the constitutional right to vote of all Americans.

And today that motion, that was yesterday, and today that motion to intervene has been granted. Let's go to the phones. All right, 1-800-684-3110 to join us on the air. We'll go first to Ann in North Carolina on Line 1. Ann, thanks for holding on. Hi, Ann.

Yes, hi guys. I'm a supporter of ACLJ for years and you keep fighting the God fight. But President Trump, I just want to say, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain to continue to fight for the right to run for President.

I mean, he doesn't need the horror he's going through. That's how much he loves the USA. And this election interference is a crime against not just President Trump, but any other conservatives ahead, you know. And I'm just so sad and mad, but I'm proud of ACLJ for your stance.

I appreciate this. I said, look, you got four indictments. That was not enough to stop his candidacy.

So then what did they do? And by the way, those trials start unraveling or start taking place in March, right before Super Tuesday, all the way through the election. That's an attempt to interfere with the election.

Then you've got now 13 states where there's either litigation or motions pending to remove the President, President Trump, from the ballot, even if he's the nominee or not even put him on the ballot for the primary because of a self-executing 14th Amendment. This looks like, acts like, and smells like, Andy, election interference. It is election interference. And it's interference with the right of the American electorate and American citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice.

If their party qualifies a candidate and that candidate is qualified under the Constitution of the United States, no secretary of state, no judge, no magistrate should say you can't vote for that candidate. And that is exactly what we are fighting for here. And we've made a tremendous first step in Colorado to get before the judge to intervene in that case and to tell the secretary of state, who is very partisan in her attitude, that you've got to comply with what the law is with respect to putting candidates on the ballot. Let's go back to the phones. Kate in Colorado on Line 4. Hey, Kate.

Hi there. Thank you so much for taking my call and my comment is this. If what Trump is doing is undermining the integrity of a case or a situation, or in this case every institution that is saying he shouldn't be undermining, then let him do so because it appears that it will be the only thing, one of the only things that will make the biggest change of all. Like the last caller said, he has everything to lose and he is going for broke.

Let him go. We need him to go. Regardless of what happens, we've got to have this leader at least speaking out for us.

And I am glad he is. Okay, so you're in Colorado where we were granted just moments ago a motion to intervene in the trial on behalf of the Colorado GOP, the party, the Republican Party of Colorado, in the case as an attempted removal of the President, a former President, from the ballot. And Jordan, that would have meant the ballot for the primary.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, so this again, it's absurd about the general election as well, but this even wanted to tell Republicans who you get to vote for in a Republican primary. And that even if you wrote up that name in, they would not count it as Secretary of State. So again, it's important for this election, and every Presidential election is extremely important, but also the precedent that this can set moving forward, which is why it's, of course, the immediate interest is Donald Trump. The long-term interest are these individuals in state parties who are going to be voting in elections in the future, who want to be able to pick and choose who their nominees are without worrying about, well, we've got a Democrat Secretary of State, so they're going to take this person off the ballot. Whoever's the greatest threat to the Democrat, we're going to take them off the ballot. Whoever's the most popular Republican will come up with a reason why there's not going to be a trial. We're just going to say, not in our state. And you only need about a handful of states, and it's impossible to win the primary. It also would be impossible, if you weren't talking about the primary, the general election, to win the general election. So again, these have short-term consequences, this election cycle, but long-term consequences as well for all future elections and how the 14th Amendment can be used.

There's no doubt about it, folks. We've got a petition up, and then I want to get up to 100,000 signatures. We're at, I'll give you the exact, but it's around 71,000 signatures so far.

This is on this 14th Amendment. Some of these cases are going to be done by amicus briefs, and there we will have to, it'd be very important to say how many people are standing with us on this. Please go to ACLJ.org. Support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice with your donations.

Respond to our email that's out today, but also ACLJ.org to sign on to that petition. All right, last segment of the broadcast coming up, we're taking your calls. Keep those phone lines open at 1-800-684-3110.

You can talk about any of these topics we mentioned. 800-684-3110. Back with more in a moment. All right, welcome back to St. Keala. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

People have been hanging on the line. Let's go to Georgeann in Virginia on Line 5. Hey, Georgeann. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. Last week, Jordan, I think I heard you say when you were talking about Colorado, and you guys had attorneys going out there, and then you mentioned that there were other states.

Yes. They're filing, they're going to follow suit. Excuse me. And I believe I heard you say Virginia. And because Michigan is in there, Pennsylvania.

Okay, anyways. There's two voters from Hampton Roads, which is the North, we all live there, Norfolk, Virginia Beach area, that are joining the effort to take former President Donald Trump off the ballot in 2024. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. So that case has been filed.

So we're looking at that one as a potential intervention with either the GOP of Virginia or an amicus, depending on where that case goes. But go ahead, Georgeann. Well, that was my question.

Oh, I've got the court case number, and I've got their address. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay.

Well, praise God that you're on top of it. The other thing that I want to thank you for is I'm old, I can't figure out how to donate online, but the office here in Virginia Beach. Did they help you out?

Yes, they did. Thank you, Jesus. All right, thank you. We appreciate that.

They do a great job up there for us in our offices in Virginia Beach. So, Jordan, there are 13 or 14 of these right now. I mean, there's more coming every day, it looks like. Yeah, there's 13, a potential three more.

So I think that number will continue to grow. Each place we look, and we put a team on that over the weekend to start looking more deeply into what we might not have been contacted about yet to say, okay, what's the issue there? Is it a group that's sued there? Is it individuals that sued there? Who is stepping in to defend?

Is it smart? So do we need to contact it? So we're going through that process as we speak. We want to make sure right out of the bat at this case in Colorado, because this is not just brought by individuals, but by a big liberal organization, D.C., with big resources behind it, that we were in that case. So now we are fully in that case with the intervention granted. And we are probably announcing another state tomorrow.

And I imagine we'll be announcing, you know, six or seven more of those as we go along the way. You know, some of these are in district court, Andy, the federal court. Some of them are filed in state courts. The law is going to be the same, though, because it's all going to be based on the Constitution. That's correct. Whatever the Constitution the United States provides, whether it's in federal court or in state court, the judge is going to apply a federal law to this? Yes.

That's correct. All right, back to the phones as we go. D. in California, Odd Life 3.

Hey, D. Yeah, thank you for taking my call. Unfortunately, I hear California is also jumping on board with Colorado and other states. And they're also doing something which concerns me, as I'm planning to leave the state, and I'm wondering if the fact that the Democrats are pushing to charge those of us planning on leaving the state, when we leave the state, to do an exit tax on us on anything we made in California in everything up to 10 years. Is that not unconstitutional? I think exit taxes are unconstitutional. This idea that they can post hoc justify a tax because you've decided to leave impacts your interstate commerce right. The right to interstate commerce.

They tried that in the 1870s and 80s where they would tax you to go to a different state, and the courts consistently struck that down. By the way, cruel lawyers, the lawyers are right now arguing that they want to be done in the district court in October so it can move through the appellate court system, so they want an October trial. President Trump's lawyers are arguing that that's outrageous and unfair, saying it's an unprecedented constitutional question with more than 100 accusations. If the hearing is granted, they want it in November. The judge acknowledges that they will need at least five days for the hearing. So this case is going to be – I think what's going to happen in Colorado is – and we'll take our call. I think, Andy, it's being tried in October, it looks like. It's going to be tried in October. I think that's right. You've got a judge who's going to take control. I like that.

I like the fact that she's controlling her docket and doing that and not letting anyone run over her. But I think we're going to be in the Supreme Court in the United States by the end of the year. Yeah.

I really do, Jordan. I mean, it has to be adjudicated. I mean, it's got to go – you've got – It's big. Big, folks. Because people start winning, and then you lose on one.

You win in one court, lose as you move up, and then win again. And so it's got to be answered for the country, this process or this attempt. And that then would put to bed all these other attempts as well. Let's go ahead and take another call. Yep. Back to the phones. We'll go to Colleen in Maine online too. Hey, Colleen. Hi, Carl. Hi. I thank you, first of all, for taking my call.

Sure. Second of all, I want to thank you guys for everything that you're doing to stand up for us as American citizens who have had our rights violated deeply. And it will continue to do so if people don't start standing up for their rights. It takes more than just a handful of people. And I hope and pray that people will start to go ahead and make – and I hate to say this – start suing the individuals that are making all the false accusations against Trump and or anyone else that decides to run for election. It's not right.

It is – it's unbelievable. And we as a – But right now what we have is we've got to stay on top of this 14th Amendment litigation. And here's why, Colleen. If we don't, and that candidate is not on the ballot, he is not then going to be a nominee. Whether he is – and that's if you're for Trump or against Trump, the reality is you want to have the broadest base of impact here. And what they're trying to do, Andy, is limit your choice. That's the thing that bothers me the most is that they are telling us, the Democrats, the elite Republicans, those who don't like President Trump, those who don't like people who talk out, they're trying to tell you who you can and who you can't vote for.

It's outrageous. I've got an ingenious way. I'll go to the 14th Amendment. I'll say he's an insurrectionist. I'll go to the Secretary of State. I'll keep him off the ballot. That's not going to work.

I'm telling you, it's not going to work. Let's go to Sharon in Maryland on Line 5. Hey, Sharon. Hey, Sharon.

You're on the air. Thank you. I would like to have my voice heard as well. I'm a Democrat, have been for 45 years, but I need you to know that it isn't just Republicans that are outraged at this point. I am so tired of hearing our elected officials say that they're speaking for the American people. I'm hoping that my elected senators are listening to this.

They don't realize that this is going to affect them down ballots. We have been gaslit. We did not bargain for what this President has brought to play in our lives. So starting with the electric vehicles that they're shoving down our throat, we keep hearing how they're going after the President's son. But yet I've watched as they've gone after the ex-President in horror. This is not who we are, and I'm a Democrat.

If the people want to put him up front and they're going to elect him, that is what democracy is all about. You know what I'd like to see happen? I'd like to see all these indictments against Hunter Biden go away. I'd like to see all this legal action indictments against Trump go away. And let's just duke it out the old-fashioned way in an election without all of this drama surrounding it on both sides. I mean, if I was President Biden, I'd pardon everybody and say, let's just have an election. That's not going to be very popular, but that's how I'd do it, because that's what's at stake here.

But instead, they're trying to pervert the Constitution, contort the Constitution to say, oh, 14th Amendment, Section 3, you're out, even though nobody's been charged with insurrection. Folks, we are really needing your signature, because I suspect we're announcing another case tomorrow. I need to get that petition up to — what are we at right now, Will? I need to get it up to 100,000. I think we're right around 72,000 right now. So we've got 28,000 to go.

Go to aclj.org, aclj.org. We're except for November 6th, so it's not going to be October. It's going to be November. We've got the hearing date.

It will be November 6th. I think the judge realized it's a lot of serious issues. There's going to be discovery.

It's quick. It's got to get done before people vote. But again, so far, they're not getting what they want.

They're not getting what they want. November 6th is going to be a big date. Preparation will start now, and then also November is a big month for us at the ACLJ, so we'll have plenty to talk about. That's for sure. We'll talk to you tomorrow, everybody.