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

13 Lawsuits Filed to Remove Trump from Ballot

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
September 14, 2023 1:17 pm

13 Lawsuits Filed to Remove Trump from Ballot

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1061 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

September 14, 2023 1:17 pm

Yesterday we told you about our new case to defend the constitutional voting rights of all Americans. We are representing the Colorado Republican Committee in their fight to preserve voting rights for citizens in Colorado. Lawsuits and legal actions are being filed in more and more states using the novel theory that the 14th Amendment "disqualifies" President Trump from running in the 2024 presidential election. There is ongoing litigation in 13 states already as this threat to your right to vote for the candidate of your choice continues. The ACLJ will be ready to fight back – we are willing to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. On today's show the Sekulow team discusses the ACLJ's legal efforts to ensure all Americans have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Also, Senator Bill Hagerty (TN) and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo join to discuss other political news.


Today on Sekulow, 13 lawsuits filed to kick President Trump off the ballot. With more expected, Secretary Pompeo is in the studio with us. Hey, welcome to Sekulow, folks.

We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. You know we're in a matching moment right now and the lawsuits being filed across the country, staggering. We are up to 13 legal actions that have been filed in different states to try and remove President Trump from the ballot.

Some are being filed by organizations, some by individuals. Only one so far out of the 13 has been dismissed from and rejected by a federal court. That happened in Florida.

But that doesn't mean those individuals are done. They're trying different strategies in these states. And now you see when you start putting together, you know, 13 states, there's three additional states where the lawsuits have not yet been filed. But the Secretaries of State or the Attorney General in the appropriate way, happened in New Hampshire, got the biggest news on that, said we're not taking Donald Trump off the ballot if he complies. And they said, here's how you comply in New Hampshire.

You write this $1,000 check, you do this, you get on the ballot. But we don't count them as being sued yet, but the group plans to sue. So we could look at actually seeing 15 lawsuits, maybe an appeal from the one dismissal. And so folks, you start putting those together.

They're just looking for one. Because one would impact all of the blue states. All those Secretaries of States would follow what that one would do.

And so it's so important. You know we're engaged right now in the intervention process in Colorado, on behalf of the Colorado Republican Party. We're working with other states.

Every state is different. So how we approach it legally as the ACLJ is going to be unique. But our resources, we were talking about it late last night, putting more and more team members on this on like a full-time basis. Because, Dad, this is one where it's great to have all these legal discussions and memos and things like that, but if one of these cases starts moving and they aren't just dismissed, the fast track is to the U.S. Supreme Court. I really want people to understand that this is one that in a couple of months could be before the United States Supreme Court and the biggest case on really elections and the 14th Amendment and the ballot.

So the way it works is this. So let's take Colorado as an example. Our lawyers are in Colorado in court right this moment.

I mean literally as we're on the air. So we may get a report during it. The proceeding could go longer, so we'll see. That case will move very quickly because it's not so much a question of fact as it is a question of law. So you've got to go through the Colorado system. So you've got the trial court, the intermediate appellate court, which is the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court.

That will move very quickly. Then it will go to, let's say they ruled against our position and they say President Trump can't be on the ballot. We would take an emergency stay to the circuit justice of the Supreme Court.

That's Justice Gorsuch. He can grant the stay, deny the stay, or refer it to the court. I would expect he would grant the stay pending disposition with the court. Then it would go to the nine justices, the remaining eight.

They would grant cert, and I don't think there's any question about that, especially if we were on the losing side. Once they grant cert, the case will then be expedited. I have done expedited cases, folks, that literally go in a matter of weeks. So this is very fast-moving litigation. And now we did an analysis. Will and his team put together an analysis. You're looking at 15, 16 states right now. There's going to be more.

There will be some that will fall out because there will be some dismissals, some that will gain traction. We've got a team together. We are doing a matching moment because obviously this was not anything any of us anticipated. So we're only doing it for today, tomorrow, and the last day is going to be Friday. So we want to encourage you to defend the constitutional right to vote.

It is that simple and straightforward. You go to We're in a matching moment., any amount you donate will be matched. And obviously we're deploying resources in our offices in Washington, our offices in other parts of the country, and our lawyers out in Colorado. So we're in this defend the constitutional right to vote in our matching moment.

That's what we're talking about here. Your support's critical., any amount you donate, we're getting a matching gift. We had a great day yesterday. We want that same momentum going today. for that matching moment. Later in the broadcast, Mike Pompeo will be with us in-studio. Welcome back to Sec Hill.

We are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. You know we're involved in Colorado. I'm not going to name the other states yet that we're already working with, but we are working with more states, as you can imagine.

And let me tell you, they're all a little different. Even if you're working with a state party in one state, one state, the state party may actually have a less of a good standing argument than maybe an individual who's a member of the state party has. So, I mean, all the research going through, but I want to make sure you know if this is going on in your state.

So let me just tell you quickly. You know about Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire. The Attorney General and Secretary of State said no to this idea, but there is a lawsuit coming. Michigan, Oklahoma, which again, a lawsuit has been filed.

California, Connecticut, Florida. Now the judge there did dismiss this on standing, but another group could come in to try. That's the first one that has been dismissed from a federal court.

That doesn't mean it's over there, though, 100%. Maine, Massachusetts, I mean, you listen, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. If that lawsuit hasn't been filed in three of those, they are planned to be filed.

So we're looking at 16 states total, 12 right now with active litigation, one that got tossed out of court. I mean, and again, so the effort to remove President Trump is very serious, and it is not just being coordinated by the left or these kind of outsider write-in candidates. There are major Republican attorneys in Washington, D.C. assisting this effort. I know them by name. I know them personally. They are the D.C. elites.

They don't like this. They're even working with some of those other Republican campaigns with the left. So you have to be very careful in these situations to realize who is up trying to remove President Trump. Well, the other thing that is… This is the Tritz Washington. Yeah, no, this is the Washington establishment.

But what you have is a total interference. Wait a minute. A great comment came in and said, you know, this was on YouTube, under the Georgia legal theory, how are these lawyers not guilty of insurrection by filing lawsuits, right, or interfering with the right to vote? So Fannie Willis could, you know, indict them?

I mean, this is absurd. But what you have to understand is this fundamentally goes to putting Donald Trump aside, your right as a citizen in your state to vote for the candidate of your choice that qualifies. So if the candidate qualifies, they should be on the ballot unless they are found guilty in a court of law of insurrection and rebellion under the Insurrection Act, which nobody has been charged with. That would be a different story. But that's not what's taking place here, Andy. And you look at the nature and scope of it.

We talked about one case in Colorado yesterday where our lawyers are in court right now versus now 15 other states. Yeah, I mean, the rule should be qualification for office by a major political party, such as the Republican or Democratic Party, should permit you to be on the ballot. You don't have disqualification by dictionary definition. That's what they're trying to do here. Someone pulled a dictionary out and says, oh, it says insurrection is thus and so.

This is from 1828. Therefore, because it says insurrection, I deem that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist and therefore he can't be on the ballot. That's not the way it works in the United States of America.

Qualifications through political parties, the right to choose, the right to vote for the candidate of your choice, the right to select somebody who you believe ought to be in office, not because someone has read a dictionary definition and sells the Constitution to self-executing. That's not how it works. All right. We're taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. We've opened up the phone lines early, so 800-684-3110. Let's go right to the phones.

Yep. Michael in California, online one. Hey, Michael, welcome to the show.

Hi. So I have two questions. The first one is why can't President Trump simply hopscotch this since it's all constitutional issues and go straight to the Supreme Court? Let me answer that one first and then we'll go back to your second one because the court doesn't have what's called original jurisdiction in these matters. The court is a court of review. There are limited cases where they do have jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, a state against a state. And in some ways at the state courts, because once it's adjudicated by a state Supreme Court, you can go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, you will go directly to the Supreme Court, but it's going to have to go through the state court process or the federal court process with the federal court. Now, Michael, it's also going to move very, very quickly.

So these are going to be, I mean, this whole thing's over with by March. Yeah, or else the people filing would have no chance of getting what they want. Yeah, and Michael, you had a second question, so go ahead.

Hope that helped on the first. My question is, what do you do about, I don't know the exact language, but it would seem to me that the judges in most of these cases are really the problem because, like, I live in Los Angeles and I forget about it. But the judges seem to be on the corrupt side. I mean, this judge in these communities... Well, it depends on the judge. I don't want to go accusing judges only because I got to appear before these judges. So it's not a good practice to accuse these judges of anything you're going to appear before. Look, part of it's the luck of the draw. It depends on the judge. Andy and I were talking about it yesterday.

They used to call it the wheel. Explain that to people, how that works in the federal system, Andy, how a judge is selected, because people don't know. Basically, a lawsuit is filed, and the clerk of the United States District Court, or in some cases in the state court, simply puts the name of the lawsuit into the computer and pushes a button, and the computer randomly selects who the judge is going to be. It used to be that there was a wheel, and they literally spun the wheel, and the wheel picked the judge. So it is a random selection process.

There are certain rules that if cases are related, or they arise on the same facts, or they were assigned to a prior judge, that you can't go judge shopping, but generally it's the luck of the draw. But let me tell you what's going on here, folks. This is a coordinated effort to impact your right to vote. Whether you're for Trump or not for Trump, it really doesn't matter, because if they can do this to Trump, they can do it to anybody.

But the other thing is, even if it's not your state, effectively it's a nullification of your vote, because all you have to do, as Jordan said, is you pull off in a couple of states, and all of a sudden the election is over. Or do they try to do this after the primaries, too? Do they try to take a second run at this? In other words, as the litigation moves forward in the district court against President Trump, do they try to amend it?

Or let me give you another one. What if Jack Smith comes and decides to amend what's called supersede the indictment and add an insurrection charge? Then what happens? So we have got to be ready for every single legal contingency. We were texting back and forth and emailing back and forth last night until midnight working on this. Our lawyers are in Colorado right this moment on a case, on the Colorado case, right now. So our lawyers are engaged, and this is really where we need your help. We sent out an email today, and it says, let me read the first slide. Your fundamental right to vote for the candidate of your choice is in jeopardy, and we face a critical midnight deadline to defend the Constitution.

And each day, we're doing this for three days. So here's what I want to encourage you to say, or to do. Folks, we have got to be prepared for what I think will be a multi-jurisdiction, well it already is, a multi-jurisdiction battle. Go to

We're in a matching moment. That's, and defend the constitutional right to vote. We've got thousands of you watching right now. We've got millions of you listening right now.

Go to and participate. What's great about you, our donors, is when this happens, we don't have to think at all about the resources issue. We know that if there's been a constitutional wrong that needs to be righted, and we need to go into Colorado and represent the Colorado Republican Party in this case, we can do it because we have the resources.

But let me tell you something. This goes to 16, 17, 18 different places. We need more resources, and this is why we have the matching moment. So we are ready to go, because I never want our team to have to think, do we have the resources to file when you know it's something that's so important to file in? I mean, it literally is protecting your right to vote wherever you are, because even if one of these states did it, it's weakening your vote in another state. You all picked up on that immediately when we just announced all this was going to be happening earlier in the week. So your support during this matching moment ensures that the ACLJ has the resources to fight this out in as many states that would want us to come in and fight it out.

And we are talking to more as we speak, and we'll of course announce them as we finalize those decisions. But each state is very different. So what we will need for one state is different than another state. So the resources are so important because, let me just underscore it again, when we know it's such a serious challenge to your constitutional rights, I don't want our team to have to think, well, this is going to cost too much to do. And the reason why we don't have to think that way at the ACLJ is because of your financial support.

And right now, during this matching moment, you can double the impact of your donation. And this is literally about Washington elites trying to cancel you out, saying you don't have the choice. You can't decide to vote for Donald Trump. You don't even have the option because they're scared Donald Trump will win if you do. So this is an attempt again to try and erase Donald Trump from the political process.

And I reminded our team this last night. You know, when their weapons of mass destruction weren't found, and with all the stuff that happened with some of the torture of Gitmo and these other places, if this theory was alive that day, do you think the Democrats would have used this on George W. Bush? They would have. Now, Donald Trump is an easier boogeyman for them, but they'd be setting a precedent to basically be able to remove whoever the leading Republican is as long as they want. This is, again, taking away your right to choose who you want as a major party candidate to potentially be President.

That's why your support is so critical. And look, this litigation, as I said, we're preparing for it. I was on the phone with some of my colleagues from when we represented President Trump at the Supreme Court.

I was on the phone with them yesterday. We're all thinking the same thing. So, folks, we've got to be prepared. We've got to be ready. We're in this matching moment.

It's going to be today and tomorrow, and that's it., Your gift will be doubled. Go there now. Back with more in a moment. Welcome back to Sec Hill again.

I want to remind you, this matching moment, it is so important. As I said, we were involved in Colorado, but there are 15 more states here at play. One early victory out of Florida was dismissed out of federal court, but that does not mean they won't try another way of getting at this. I don't think one loss at a district court is going to stop them from trying other ideas.

So I went through the list. Maybe I'll go through it again in the second half hour, but 16 states, 13 lawsuits so far, three with planned — an additional three with planned lawsuits. And then out of those 16, we've seen one already adjudicated and thrown out of court. So still 12 active lawsuits as we speak right now, but, I mean, that is changing.

By the moment we're off the air, another one gets filed. So I wanted to remind you, this is a coordinated effort coming outside of Washington, D.C., elites, both Democrats primarily, but also plenty of Republicans. They're using some of the top Republican lawyers in the country to come up with these plans and where to file. They are smart guys, so it is a serious opposition. And by the way, the lawyers representing CREW are smart lawyers, too. I don't want to — don't sell these lawyers short because they're not.

Let me just say this. We filed initially in federal court in Colorado because that's where the case was. Then it got moved to state court. Our lawyers just came out of a procedural hearing that just took place, I mean, literally three minutes ago, finished up. So now we're filing another pleading, Andy, in the state court process, basically the same thing. That's right. It's basically the same pleading, but it deals with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24 and Rule 57 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

And it is essentially identical to what we filed in the United States District Court, but we have to file now in Colorado since the case has been sent back there. All right. Our director of policy has joined us, Harry Hutchison.

Harry, I want to talk to you about this. So, you know, I'm looking at this from a policy perspective, and here's the policy. It's really — you're talking about election interference. This sure looks like it because it's interfering with the people's right to choose or not choose that particular candidate. It happens to be Donald Trump in these lawsuits.

It couldn't be anybody. Absolutely. So in the 1990s, Christopher Lash wrote a book called The Revolt of the Elites, and he anticipated precisely this moment. And so what we are looking at with this attack, this coordinated attack launched against Donald Trump, is an attack really on the fundamental right of each and every American to vote. In essence, the elites have launched an attack and an effort to basically save our democracy by first destroying it. And so at the end of the day, what is essential for everyone to remember, whether you support Trump or you oppose Trump, is that at the end of the day, the American people should have the fundamental right to decide Donald Trump's fitness for office. And so prior to this particular effort being launched, what did we have? We had a series of criminal indictments. Right. Those criminal indictments strengthen rather than weaken Trump's popularity. I think that's a very big, that's a big point.

Go ahead. So enraged by Trump's rising popularity, they have now turned to the 1828 dictionary definition of an insurrection. And if you think about it, this is an absurd effort. In essence, they are claiming that Donald Trump launched an insurrection and a rebellion against his own presidency, because on January the 6th, when the riots took place, who was President of the United States? It was Donald J. Trump. So in essence, these law professors, these states are claiming that Donald Trump launched a rebellion against himself. This is stupidity on steroids. I'll tell you, the thing he's said here, and I think people need to understand this, is I do think it was, the thought was among those elites was that the indictments alone would have taken him down and would have reduced his electability.

Instead, it had the exact opposite effect because people that didn't even necessarily support Trump said, boy, this is one indictment, okay, maybe it's serious. Four, it looks like a pile on. Five, outrageous. Now, it's now just being reported that Mark Meadows, this is how fast these cases are moving, in the Georgia case, has dismissed his appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, trying to transfer the case to federal court. So this is, all of these cases are separate but interrelated, and folks, this is where, if you want to have fair elections and you want to have a democratic process, support the work of the ACLJs because we're involved in all of these., our matching moment for today, very important that we hit this goal because we have got, Jordan was on the phone last night or texting back and forth with Ben Sisney from our office, and Jordan, you said it, you said, I know this is going to get overwhelming, there's so many of these. We're trying to figure out, you know, you've got Don Parsons working on it today too, trying to figure out the teams to handle all of these because there's so many of them moving. I was talking to one of the moms of our current, one of our newest legal hires last night and saying he came in at the right time because it's one of those unique moments where sometimes you come into the ACLJ as a new young lawyer and it's kind of the similar ACLJ cases. Oh, Garrett, yeah. But occasionally we've had these lawyers come in and right in the middle they're starting out their legal career and boom, you're talking about a case that's fast tracked to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Two new hires, Garrett and Nathan, both of them are end up working on a case that's destined for the Supreme Court. We've got calls coming in, let's take those as well. Yeah, let's go right to the phones. Linda in Georgia on line three.

Hey, Linda. Hey, I just wanted to say this first of all. I am so upset with the state of Georgia, I wish I never lived here. It is disgusting what they are doing to Trump, number one. Number two, they should not be doing it. But these rules, I would like to know how we the people do not have the right to say what we want and all these people are making decisions for on behalf of us, which is not right. Well, that's exactly what this lawsuit is about. By the way, the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, said he has no authority to remove Donald Trump from the – and he's done a lot of work with the Secretary of State's office.

They have no – he's acknowledged that – no authority to do what they're trying to get him to do under the 14th Amendment. No, that's right. Linda, don't say you're not proud to be in Georgia because I'm a Georgian and I'm proud of it. Secretary Raffensperger did the right thing. On this one.

On this thing. You know, he may have other problems, but on this one, he said, I am the Secretary of State. I do what the political parties certify to me. I don't have the right to decide who is or who is not on the ballot. So Brad Raffensperger did the right thing on this. There's a little breaking news legally, too, on President Trump. Former President Trump will not head to trial next month alongside two of his co-defendants in the Georgia case. Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McCaffie granted the motions for Kenneth Cheesebro and Cindy Powell to sever their cases from Trump and 16 other co-defendants. Yes. And that's – by the way, McCaffie's decision is absolutely right.

It would be uncontrollable. And I – I'm telling you, I almost would stay in the state court system. I think you've got a judge like his young guy. But he understands process. He understands process. He knows what's at stake here. You've got to get it right.

But all of this is playing. And we're going to keep our team here. Folks, let me encourage you, support the work of the ACLJ in this matching moment.

You get the scope and nature of what we're dealing with right now. What I was going to ask you is when you see a couple of these start being severed off, you would imagine that more of these individuals would probably file this way, too. I think that's going to be right, Jordan. I don't see you're going to see a trial with, say, 16 – 15 or 16 people. Or 10 other people with him. I think it's going to be Trump probably by himself if he wants. I think it'll be – they'll try to group some of these others together that make sense.

I will tell you this. I think that indictment is ridiculous. The application of RICO there is ridiculous. We're looking at that.

We're on that as well. But, folks – You know, because it's what they want to do is make it like a war crimes tribunal. No, they want to make it that the lawyers are afraid to do their job. So that we look at the case and say, hey, do we want to get into that case in Colorado or are they going to say we're involved in election interference?

I mean, this is how absurd it is. But, folks, that's where you come in. Because these folks need us and we need you. matching moment. Defend the constitutional right to vote.

Go to right now. Support our work. We encourage you to do it.

If you're watching on our social media, share it with your friends. We're going to keep the phone lines open. 1-800-684-3110.

We want to know what you think about this. 800-684-3110 again. for the matching moment. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right, welcome back to Sekulow. A lot to talk about with these 14th Amendment challenges. They are starting out – of course, we're involved in Colorado. We are likely going to be involved in other states.

We'll announce those when we can. But, you know, we're up to 16 states with activity. 13 have had lawsuits filed. One got dismissed early in Florida.

But that will be the end there. But there's been one positive move. And then in three of those 16 states, the lawsuits just haven't been filed yet. But you did have good decisions come out of the Secretaries of States and Attorney Generals. So in those three, at least the states will certainly be actually fighting back, unlike Colorado, where their Secretary of State said she already believes he's committed insurrection.

So as long as the court tells her he has, she'll take him off the ballot. Yeah. I want to take Julie's call from California. Julie, welcome to the broadcast.

You're on the air. Hey, Jay and Jordan and everyone. First of all, I am just so furious that these people have the hubris and this gall to do this. And I'm really, really happy to contribute to ACLJ right now.

I'm so happy you have your three day challenge. Thank you. My question is, when you talk about Washington elites, could you be more specific about who these people are and how they are accomplishing all this? Who are they in Washington or all over the country?

They are. But they're Republicans and Democrats, Harry. Well, the Washington elites are comprised largely of individuals that have gone to elite and selective institutions, and they believe that they are entitled to rule. And so many of these elites are blinded by the Trump derangement syndrome. And so they demand that the people submit to their analysis the way snakes are drawn irresistibly to an open fire. And so they support the tyranny of the few rather than the democracy favored by the people. So they basically see themselves as separate and distinct from the common folk. They have more in common with individuals in Paris, in Rome, and in London than with people in East Palestine, Ohio. Yeah, and you see them in the academies and in the academics. There's judges, there's legal groups, and as Jordan said, you've got Republicans and Democrats here.

But the thing that we have to do, Andy, is focus like a laser beam on the law here. That's right. Because what's being denied is the right of citizens to pick the candidate of their choice.

That's right. No secretary of state has the right to make a decision as to who should be on the ballot once the political party has qualified the candidate and that candidate meets the constitutional requirements to be on the ballot. Period.

The end. That is not a prerogative of a secretary of state. A secretary of state is a ministerial official.

If the political party and the Constitution qualifies you, you're on the ballot, like it or not. A secretary of state does not have the authority to negate that by a dictionary definition of what an insurrection is. I got a dictionary that says it's not an insurrection. You got a dictionary that says it is.

How stupid that we're going to quibble over a dictionary definition of a law that went into effect because of the Civil War. You know, folks, we'll continue to take your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Joining us in the next segment of the broadcast is Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee. And then we will be joined in studio by our colleague, former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. But with us, Secretary Pompeo, we'll take your calls and questions on this.

So you can hang on. A lot to talk about. We do want to update you on some of this horrendous international news as well coming out of Iran. So Senator Hagerty is going to be doing that for us as well and how Congress can try and respond.

But again, 1-800-684-3110. I just want to remind you all, folks, you know we're at the tip of the spear on this at the ACLJ. And we've got the people. We need the resources. Because some of these states, we've got to bring on additional attorneys, obviously because you're operating in state court. And so you're using… Fortunately, we have a great network.

Yep. And we have a great network, but you're using additional resources. And we want to make sure no client has to think about the resource issue. We want to make sure our attorneys don't have to think about the resource issue because you, our donors, are making sure we have the resources, the money necessary to fight these battles out. We launched a Matching Moment right now where your donation will be doubled.

So donate today. Be part of the Matching Moment, Welcome back to Sec Hill. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We're joined by a great friend of the ACLJ, a great friend of ours, Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee. And Senator Hagerty, I want to jump back right into some major issues facing the country right now. This Iran deal, and we've been an organization involved in getting people unlawfully detained, even facing the death penalty, released in Iran.

So we've been part of this before. But in this situation, Senator Hagerty, it's kind of a draw dropping to the American people what was done by the Biden administration. Well, Jordan, I think you and your father, Jay, are going to be busier now than ever before because the Biden administration has put north of a billion dollars per head price tag on any American that the Iranians can secure. They just made us into bargaining chips more than ever before.

When you see the rationale that they put forward, I frankly think certainly this is not, you know, when they talk about humanitarian purposes, money is fungible. And as you were just saying earlier, this will be used for whatever they want to use, including their, you know, their role as the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. People will die because of this. And Americans are more vulnerable because of this.

But here's what else I'm worried about. The Biden administration has been negotiating in secret with the Iranians for two and a half years. They have refused at every turn to give us any type of visibility in what they're doing. I put legislation on the floor to try to force the Biden administration to bring it to the Senate. Any treaty, any deal like this should be required to come before the United States Congress.

It should have to have our approval. What this looks to me like is a six billion dollar down payment on a nuclear deal with Iran. And we saw with the Biden administration, you know, the Biden administration is willing to do anything to get the Iranians to the table. They are so they're so mad that President Trump called the JCPOA a bad deal. And it was.

And the fact that he walked away from it was the right thing to do. I worked hard when I was ambassador to Japan to get the Japanese to stop buying Iranian crude oil. Those are secondary sanctions, the ones that bite the most. We really were having an impact shutting off their revenue stream. We were shutting off their fuel to fund terrorism. And we had him at a point where I think we really could have negotiated a deal that would have made sense, would have shut down the terrorism and would have shut down that path to a nuclear weapon. Now, what the Biden administration is doing is handing over the keys to the Iranians to destabilize the Middle East. You know, Senator, this is Jay, and we have negotiated a lot of prisoners that have been taken in custody in other countries. We had that with Turkey and we had it in two of them in Iran.

So we've been through this process. And what I am so concerned about and I think this affects the international world. So there's global implications is, as you said, when you give the Iranians six billion, nine billion, 15 billion dollars. First of all, the whole Iran nuclear program, of course, they're trying to build a bomb.

We all know that the Europeans are being naive. And so is the Biden administration thinks the otherwise, but it's 15 billion dollars for them to, you know, kill more Israelis, kill more American soldiers, kill other innocents. I mean, this is what they do. And the Biden administration wants to steal so badly, they're willing to sell us out here. And to me, this is where policy matters. And this policy is atrocious. Well, selling the nation out seems to be just the prototypical Biden approach. You look at what Biden did when he was vice President.

This is all coming out right now. They've identified 20 million dollars of funding that's come into the Bidens from foreign interests. You know, again, the media, the mainstream media is trying to tell people to look the other way.

There's nothing here, but we know the big guy is. And that is that is yet another example of their willingness at a personal level to sell us out. So why would they hesitate to sell us out as a nation? This is about the vanity of the former Obama officials that want that deal back. They couldn't stand the fact that President Trump called it for what it was. You know, it's interesting they put forward our former Biden administration official, former Secretary Lew is now their nominee to be or is going to be their nominee to be.

I understand it. The ambassador to Israel, he's the one that came and told the Jewish community that there would be, you know, that the JCPOA, the so-called Iran deal, that would be the type of situation where they would have immediate, you know, surprise inspections would be allowed by the IEA and by the Americans. Totally not true.

Right. I mean, they misrepresented that deal and they pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public and slammed it through. It's a disgrace.

President Trump was right to pull out of it. And the fact that they're doing this right now, I think, is really violating every intent of the United States Senate. Another issue you're right on the front edge of and front lines of, just a couple of days ago, you sent a letter to your colleagues in the United States Senate about this legislation to fund ICE.

And tell our listeners, because this is really shocking, this language they have slipped in in the proposed legislation. It's page 51 of the proposed legislation about how that ICE funding, which people would assume would be going to, you know, immigration and customs enforcement like law enforcement, how it could potentially be used by the executive branch in the Biden administration. Well, I think we know that the far left wants to defund ICE. They've articulated that goal for some time. And the far left controls the Biden administration.

What we're seeing is the typical playbook. They manufacture a crisis. In this case, it's the government shutdown. And so they put forward the they put forward their version of a continuing resolution to keep the government open while we continue to process this up here. We don't have enough time to process all the appropriations bills because Joe Biden wouldn't talk to Speaker McCarthy for 74 days.

Anyway, we are where we are in terms of the crisis. That's what they need then to slam something like this through. And what it allows the Biden administration to do is, in essence, defund ICE because it allows them to completely change their mission. This is this would allow them to change the eight point two billion dollar budget from using it for law enforcement, for deporting people that are here illegally, deporting criminals. They could change that in its entirety and convert ICE into a resettlement agency. I mean, it's it's unreal to make it a humanitarian group.

I mean, this is this is it's like they're not trained to do. Let me change gears for a moment here. There is a series of lawsuits now in 14 states where the attempt to keep the former President off the ballot. And I've said publicly and we are litigating on behalf of the Colorado Republican Party right now in Colorado.

Lawyers just got out of court within the hour for the first hearing. And, Senator, the idea and I said, I don't care if you're for Trump, against Trump, it doesn't matter. The idea that a candidate that qualifies could be removed by a self-executing ruling, basically, that the 14th Amendment Article three's disqualification clause, which has been used one time since 1872, which was in 1918 to keep Trump off the ballot, should be an outrage to every American that is concerned about the right to vote in election interference. It's I've never seen anything like this.

We've geared up for it, but I wanted to get your reaction. You know, it's election interference of the highest order. It's misusing the Constitution. The American public can make their own decisions in voting. We don't need these officials, these faceless bureaucrats, you know, deploying some sort of obscure legal theory, trying to keep people off the ballot so we don't even have a choice. I mean, this was used to not allow Confederate officers. I mean, come on, this is how old and dated this is. It has nothing to do with the current situation.

1871 to be exact. You know, it's unbelievable. Senator, as always, we appreciate the great work you're doing for the people of Tennessee, but really for everybody across the nation, keep up the great work and we enjoy working with you. Thanks for coming on the broadcast. Thank you so much.

All the best. Thanks, Senator. We're going to go right to phones 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Bobby in New York online too. Hey, Bobby.

Hi, from Niagara Falls on the American side near Buffalo. My question is, if this is probably going to have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and if it does, will this whole thing be dropped and Trump will be back on the ballot in all states? Are the odds pretty good for that or not so good for that? So, look, I think I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court is not going to, depending on how the case gets up there, that the Supreme Court's not going to say the 14th Amendment is self-executing, he was uncharged with insurrection or rebellion, and then a state official can say, we're knocking off a duly qualified candidate. I think you should win 9-0. You probably won't win 9-0, but you should, we will win the case. We are prepping everything, Bobby, for a Supreme Court run here.

Make no mistake about it. That's what this is all about. And I do think, just don't get confused, because there is one individual who has filed directly with the Supreme Court. That would be dismissed. That would, I imagine, is going to be dismissed on standings, so don't take that as a sign that the Supreme Court wouldn't take the right case on this. I think that, again, they care very much about the process of how the case gets there, and if your case doesn't get there the right way and you're just filing, I'm not even sure the theory of that person, how they think they can just go and file at the Supreme Court individually, so you might see a dismissal from the Supreme Court early. That is not on the merits, and I don't, it's not going to impact these cases that, if they ultimately make their way through an entire court system, and we talk about that, usually that's a long time.

In this case, we're talking a couple of months. Yeah, so I think, look, we're going to fight this out aggressively. Folks, here's what we need you to do.

We've got a matching moment because we have got quite a moment here, alright? Unbelievable moment, and I've never seen anything like this in my 43 years of practicing law. We want to defend the constitutional right to vote. That's your right and my vote.

We want to defend the constitutional right to vote, and I don't need a secretary of state taking off a duly qualified candidate, whether you're voting for that candidate or not. And it's outrageous, and now it's at least 15 states. It'll end up being more, folks, guaranteed. Go to You could donate today.

Any amount you donate right now, we're getting a match for. It's only going to be for a few days because we're going to have to move on, but the cases are going to be, we've got to get fully staffed for this. We brought in outside lawyers, obviously, because it's in state courts. So go to Have your voice heard on this.

It's that important. Any amount you donate, we get a matching gift for. Something else, you can sign that petition. I think we're at about $56,000 or so. I want to get that up as close to $100,000 as we can in the next 30 days. So that's very important also so we can start talking to members of Congress and state legislatures about, hey, hundreds of thousands of people are upset about this.

So go to Your gift is double. Matching moment today. Welcome back to Sekulow.

You see him all the time on our broadcast, but this time in the studio with us. Our colleague, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is here in the studio with us to talk about all these issues facing the country right now. Some wild issues. We're on the tip of the spear on this 14th Amendment issue, trying to decide before you get to decide who is even on the ballot. If you tried to write them in, it would be excluded by the state secretary of states. It started out in one state, but now we see action in 16 states.

Mike, I want to get to your, and we were chatting before we went on here. I have never seen an effort like this in 43 years of practicing law. And in history, it's never happened like this. And there's been some very contentious campaigns, but we're in the primary season. And the left is moving so aggressive, four indictments against the former President, his poll numbers go up. So they said, well, that's not working. So what do we do now?

Come up with some convoluted 1871 theory of insurrection and saying, well, it doesn't have to be decided by the court because the one thing he hasn't been charged with, of all the things he's been charged with, has been insurrection. So you look at this, but it's horrible for the American people. It's terrible. And Jay, sadly, you're right. They have grabbed a hold of this in a way that is almost certain to get worse. I don't know that we can predict precisely what will happen next, but they are so determined, so focused. And those of us who are conservatives, conservative believers should remember this. We should remember because this is certainly about President Trump in particular, but this is about our ideas more broadly.

This is about the things we believe about America, the reason they are so vicious, so determined, the reason they're doing these crazy things, right? They wanted to pack the Supreme Court. They're not going to try and disqualify an American citizen from running for President of the United States under a crackpot theory on the 14th Amendment that is somehow self-executing, whatever they actually think that means. This is a determined effort, the likes of which we haven't seen, and it's something we're all going to have to work our tails off to make sure doesn't become the dominant political force in America. Well, you know, you just said something, working our tails off on this, and the truth of the matter is, Mr. Secretary, we've deployed lawyers in Colorado. We've got our team in Washington, and you've worked with them before, and we've got our—our Supreme Court team is already looking at all these because that's where it's going to end up going, and they're going to move very quickly. But what's fascinating about this is the effort, if you take away the Donald Trump portion of this and just look at what they're trying to do, should you be able to interpret an amendment to the Constitution that has a—and there's a statute that implements it, and that is the Insurrection Act, which no one's been charged with here in any of these cases.

And then you've got scholars, so-called—and some of them are, I mean, are recognized legal scholars—saying, oh, yeah, but it self-executes because they read some definition of insurrection from a dictionary in 1827. This is what they're doing, and it's getting—unfortunately, who knows what the court in Colorado is going to do? I assume it's going to be a bad decision, and we're going to have to take it up. I can't imagine we're going to get a good decision out of Colorado.

No, it could easily be. But I want to second that motion. It's easy to get frustrated.

It's easy to just decide, you know what, I'm going to go do something. This is going to take thoughtful, determined, strategic response, places like the ACLJ, the work that is done here. It's going to take capable people in lots of places who say, no, this is worth fighting for. This is something we're going to engage in. We are not going to let them roll us. But if we all become discouraged or aren't prepared to do the things we need to do, they'll prevail, and that is really bad for our kids and grandkids here in America.

It sure is. Yeah, I mean, that's what my concern is always—Secretary Pompeo is looking forward. It's kind of, like, easy for them to make Donald Trump this boogeyman figure in these cases.

In fact, we're even seeing it in one of the cases we've involved. They really want to keep it that way. They don't even make it about Republicans.

They want to make it just about him. But I think back at—under this kind of theory, they could have excluded George W. Bush for maybe what happened during the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. Wouldn't that be enough to say, OK, we can exclude from the ballot or improper treatment of some of the detainees, things like that?

So that right now it's Donald Trump, but in the future for the next vote, it's like whoever they think is the leading opposition, they'll try to come up with a reason to disqualify him before we even get a chance to vote. We've seen this. We know this playbook. I will say it is different this time in its intensity and the scope and scale of what we're doing.

But the playbook we've seen before. We will win by destroying whoever it is that's on the other side. You know, now they hold up President George Bush as, gosh, he was this great, wonderful guy. Well, I wanted him impeached. Remember, remember the history. Today they hold up Mitt Romney. Remember when he was running, they came after him.

I agree this is unique with respect to President Trump and different, but we shouldn't think for a moment this is not something we're going to have to stay at. Obviously, you had a huge role in that administration. You were Secretary of State. You were the director of the CIA. You all operated under your administration in a way that we had not seen in our lifetime. And the accomplishments became self-evident. And you look at the Abraham Accords as just one example.

But there's, I can give you many, many others. Was the disruptiveness of Washington's establishment so nervous by the way you all went about it? That they just had this, even some Republicans, that they just had this visceral pullback?

What do you think it is? I think they fear that we're right. And I think they fear that if we are given four more years to go work at this project that we can take down the project that they had built up, this establishment progressive left project that they had built up over decades. We had begun to bring back America to its constitutional norms, to the institutional frameworks that they often despise. And so you see it with what this governor's doing in New Mexico, right? You just see them ignore these historical institutional norms and the Constitution because it's about power for them. And I think they so fear that with four more years or eight more years of conservative leadership in Washington, D.C., that the project that they have built over the last 25 or 30 years is at risk. I think that, Jordan, is I think what Mike says exactly right. So they're looking at this in a historical perspective too. But it's also a loss of power and influence.

That's right. I mean, and this idea that if you get back in there for another four years and you got the right Congress, I mean, you can really start maybe reforming some of these laws on bureaucrats and make it easy to remove bureaucrats who are, you know, not following the orders of the duly elected, whether it's the President, his orders, and then his cabinet. And then they actually fight against it inside. And yet it's impossible to remove these officials.

You can kind of move them around, but you can't get them out the door. And so they've now lined up with like official Washington. And I think that's the kind of reform that's necessary. If you're going to drain the swamp, you've got to be able to easily remove these bad actors who are so entrenched in all these combinations. Well, I was going to ask you that because you dealt with them, and I did too in the White House. But the swamp is for real.

I mean, when we say deep state, it's not we're not like kidding. It's for real. No, I lived it. I suffered from it. In fact, the American people suffer from it every day.

It's not about my suffering. It's about theirs. They tried to undermine the things we were doing. They tried to just slow roll the things that we were doing, all the tools that bureaucrats can use to say we're going to ride this out or change it. We saw it is deeply ingrained. And one of the worst things about it, Jay and Jordan, was it's definitely a left of center. It's definitely partisan, but it is deeply establishment. And when you come to break these norms, whether it was the breaking of the norms saying we're just not going to let the Palestinians continue to hold us up or the norms around promoting and hiring of people and the fact that we wanted to use merit, not some other silly concept of how one gets promoted.

Those things begin to undermine their project, and they can't tolerate it. All right, folks, as always, we appreciate you. Secretary Pompeo joined us today on the broadcast, as you do each week on the show. But folks, we're in that matching moment right now because we know a number of these cases. We're already involved in Colorado, but there are 16 being filed and working with other states and individuals right now. So we need your support. We want to make sure that none of these clients have to think about resources, none of our attorneys have to think about resources, and we're going to fight to make sure you have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice and kind of put this to rest. This doesn't interfere for elections in the future. Support the work of the ACLJ. Be part of this matching moment. Donate today at That's We'll talk to you tomorrow.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-10-28 21:20:20 / 2023-10-28 21:41:55 / 22

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