In a surprising move, the Supreme Court liquor investigation heats up, keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments. For call one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero.
And now, your host Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow Friday, folks. We made it here, November sixth. Will Haynes in studio, where we join a little bit later on by Mike Pompeo. It's going to be a pretty packed show, but we do have time for your phone calls at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten.
And covering sort of a breaking news item that's happening right now that doesn't necessarily have to directly tie to the elections. Thank God we have something else we can talk about, but it does tie into maybe election-related issues, and that was. That the Justice Department has stepped up the criminal inquiry. Currently on the Supreme Court leak over the Dobbs decision. Remember the decision that overturned Roe v.ersus Wade.
So again, this happened. If you don't remember, just a quick refresher. Just a few months before that decision was made public, a working draft that was largely similar to what ended up being the finished product was leaked by the press. We don't know who leaked it, how it got there. That has been always something, though there have been suspicions.
That has been something that has been talked. About for the last few years now, of how this happened, this massive breach of confidence that would have happened within the largely protected Supreme Court of the United States—one of the most—it's very rare.
Now we're hearing them, you know, show up on press. But those times, even a couple years ago, before all of this started happening, you never heard from Supreme Court justices. It was a bit secretive, a bit quiet and private. But then, of course, this draft leaked, which then ended up in death threats. Firebomb threats to these homes.
Of the Supreme Court justices that were more on the conservative side of this, and we all know how things have played out over the last few years.
Now, my thoughts that they had largely closed the issue, and we were never going to find out. But now it seems like things are ramping up. That's right.
So there was an internal inquiry at the Supreme Court. They they have their own police force, they have security, things of that nature,s and they they looked into it in the court, but no public leaker was ever identified. What we're hearing now is. That the DOJ, and this is being led by U.S. Attorney for Washington, Janine Piro, is is conducting and pursuing a criminal investigation into the leak.
But this is where it gets interesting because one, they they aren't even publicly saying, which is normal. But what crimes could be pursued or were potentially broken here?
Now there are several that could be relevant that have a five-year statute of Limitations. twenty Twenty twenty two is when this happened. You would be approaching a statute of limitations as we are now towards the end of twenty twenty six. You're looking at running up on that soon, but at the same time. It does raise some constitutional issues here, because the Department of Justice, being a part of the executive branch, which investigates crime and brings charges, would be bringing a charge about something that happened in another branch of government's own house, as it were.
And if that could even raise questions about, you know, at the end of the day, if it was charged in federal court and it was appealed up. The Supreme Court could potentially hear an appeal of something that was a crime against them internally. There's a lot of questions here, a lot of interesting angles to examine. We're going to get into that, but it's as even the Supreme Court has come back into focus in light of the midterms, because of if there are replacements on the courts and things of that nature. It's interesting when you think of it being a federal law; you think it would, in fact, be a federal crime.
But is it more just a five? Terrible offense, I guess, if you will, breaking, like I said, the confidence of your workplace. Beyond that, what do you think? What do you think it should be? What should be the if they do identify the leaker?
What are the consequences legally? And then what are the consequences? I guess you'd say morally, the fact that this was got out there and, of course, caused havoc and death threats to Supreme Court justices and everything that's played out over the last few years. One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Wrapping up your Friday strong.
Be a part of the organization today. I'm going to ask you. Not only to be a part and help us wrap up this week strong, but to stand strong. I know this week, look, you've taken a few bruises, you got knocked down, but it's time to stand strong and have your donations doubled as well. Because look, we know again, it's a tough time.
We're going to continue fighting. You know what? We had our couple days, shake it off, dust your shoulders off, and let's go to aclj.org. I like everyone see everyone doing the dust your shoulders off in the in the control room. I like it.
I like it. Go to aclj. dot org right now. Be part of the organization if you can. All donations are matched and doubled today.
A lot of you watching right now, not a lot of you calling. We got some phone lines open one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Again, Mike Pompeo's going to be joining us in a little bit here, talking about this new kind of bizarre twist.
Something we kind of thought was over, which was the Supreme Court leak of the Dobbs decision a couple years ago. We never found out who it was, never got a final result, but we do know some of the consequences of the action. I think we need to remember. This was just a few months ago. Here's Amy Coney Barrett talking to the House Appropriations Committee about what happened due to that leak, just a few months before the actual decision was handed out.
They have required me to my children to think about and see things that children should not have to see or think about. One example is when threats to my life were particularly intense a few years ago, around the time of the Dobbs leak, my security detail sent me home with a bulletproof vest, and I carried it into my house, put it into my bedroom, dropped it down on a table, turned around, and my 12 year old son was standing in the doorway of my bedroom, and he wanted to know what it. Was and why I had it, and I didn't know how to respond because maybe I lack imagination. But I didn't expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one.
So when you hear that, that that's something that was before the the House and the Senate when they had these these appropriations hearings and talking about the need for security of the Supreme Court. And when you start to think about that of the institutions of the United States and how important they are, and how much trust has been degraded across the institutions of the United States, but things like this, this leaker that we spent a lot of time on, that was so unprecedented. That that caused a lot of havoc around a Supreme Court decision that we knew was going to be chaotic as as it was anyways. Whenever there's a controversial opinion, a lot of people have a lot of things to say about it. But the entire purpose, it felt like, of leaking that early before it came out was try to intimidate the court to change their mind.
Yeah, which they can do, by the way. You know, it's not like once that they've locked it in until it's until it's published. It's all still kind of though. They've already voted. They.
Change their vote. It happened originally when Roe versus Wade was decided, so it's not uncommon that what is uncommon, almost never, is that for it to leak and that be the push. The push is usually internally. It's usually the justices and their teams trying to work out a final decision and a final law. It's not usually public opinion, and of course, then threatening behavior.
As we know, Chuck Schumer, who I know we'll get into a little bit later, the Chuck Schumer, obviously. Decided to unleash that whirlwind.
Well, that's right. And you saw even before that leak, you saw politicians, Chuck Schumer, going forward and making these veiled threats of like, "You will rue the day," and and once again. This is a position that is confirmed and then serves in in time of good behavior. It is a lifetime appointment until that individual decides to step down from that position on the court.
So there is no political consequence, and should be no political consequence for our justice system as at any time. But when you saw these threats from politicians, and then you saw this leak, what did you immediately see happen? You saw individuals trying to get into the homes of Brett Kavanaugh to do what? To assassinate. To assassinate the Supreme Court justice, and as Amy Coney Barrett was talking about there, and she was sitting next to Elena Kagan when they when they have these, they're not super often, but a lot of times throughout history you'll have kind of a more conservative jurist and a more liberal jurist come together before these appropriations committees to talk about these issues.
They're not normally heated. They're not normally politically charged. That's why they often don't make a lot of news. This one did. Because it was something so novel of how much the threats to the justices have degraded in the multiple years since then.
It's not like this was a moment, a flash in the pan, and then people just got over it and it went back to relative normalcy. It became a a now a persistent threat against an entirely independent body of our government. Let's talk about that branch of government. Let's talk about that a little bit. I think we can look at the timeline here.
Some of the talk of why this investigation may be heating up is also statute of limitations that may be coming into play here. As we are approaching, by the way, it may feel like this just happened, but I'm going to play you this clip from Chuck Schumer, and then give you a bit of a history lesson of where we were in the world when this happened. Go ahead, Chuck Schumer. And again, this was him talking about the Supreme Court justices and the decision power that was happening right around then. I want to tell you, Gorsuch.
I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Yeah. Again, so that was Chuck Schumer, which of course we know what led to it.
And again, I want you to remember that that day. Was March fourth, or I'm sorry, yes, March fourth of 2020. What happened about ten days later? The world shut down for a number of years. People got stuck inside.
COVID happened. We were already threatened with it then, but that's when the shutdown happened, was in mid March of twenty twenty. Chaos started to ensue in the streets. The riots started happening. We had the George Floyd, a situation that happened just a few months later.
The bubble up was beginning then, and yes, it has been six and a half years. Since then, does it feel like that to anyone? No, because time has moved in a rapid pace since then. It has moved in a very strange way since the since March of 2020. None of that feels like it was distant memories.
That was six years ago. Was six over six and a half years ago. Was that clip? If you probably asked me right now, when did the Dobbs decision get over? I probably said three years, and it's double that—six years.
So you got to remember, the world kind of took a big turn at that point, and we've never fully recovered. We're still dealing with the fallout—not necessarily of just the lockdowns, of just what became the most chaotic year of anyone's lives, and then, of course, the fallout from then, and really the change in our mental state. When it comes to the way we treat our political rivals, and of course this is just the bubble up. This was the beginning. We know what led after this: assassination attempts, the assassination of Charlie Kirk last year, all of the things that have had happened, threats that we've all received much more than ever for being pretty benign, for being pretty down the middle in terms of us always being honest with you.
Always talking to you, but that's not how it is.
So you know what? Do I am I excited somewhat that there is still this interest that they want to step up this inquiry and see if there is something criminal that happened? Yeah, because we can start to really look at a few things that really started skewing this country further and further apart, and and this is one of them for sure. Will, well, and I mean, I'm just reading through this report that they're looking at into criminal investigation into who the leaker is, and what makes this so different because, unfortunately, for the past decade or more at this point, leakers have become so. Prevalent in Washington D.C., that it really is really catastrophic to what's going on to the way that our government is working.
And you think back to all the things that James Comey did; he set up a mechanism to leak information to the press, and so yeah, it became so normalized that in some ways it shouldn't have been shocking that this happened at the Supreme Court. But it felt like it was insulated from the nastiness of the politics.
Now, not when it comes to the confirmations. And what people have to say about their decisions, but you remember back to like people on the team who were the best friends of the court. Like known best friends were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Scalia. Two polar opposite judicial philosophies were best friends, and they were known to vacation together because they were colleagues and they understood what the importance of their constitutional role was. And that usually was the fact, also with clerks of the court.
Everyone was very cordial, professional, almost to the point. Of uncomfortably professional. If you ever went to the Supreme Court, where you were, there was never a time where you felt truly like you know chill when you were going to visit the Supreme Court of the United States because there was a formality to it, and there was a formality to the team and a formality to the staff that worked there. And I'm talking about the staff from security when you checked in all the way up to the justices themselves. There was a bit of secrecy.
There was a bit of quiet there. It did not feel like when you were visiting the Capitol or you were visiting any of the other locations. In Washington D.C., any of the other attractions, if you will, it was its own entity that had a bit more self-respect, and because of that, it was on purpose to show the respect of the law, the respect of the Constitution, the institution itself was saying, "We are taking our jobs in roles very seriously." Now, it has been a place because of that that has gotten flack over the years of its so secretive, etc. But that's by design. That is because of showing we preserve the interest of the Constitution and the law, and in taking that seriousness forward, that solemnity, that that sacredness of the Constitution was on display in the way that the Supreme Court operated, and so that's why it was such an egregious violation of trust when this leaker went forward.
But now we're looking at this, and I think it does. It is going to raise so many more questions about the separation of powers if the Department of Justice even has the ability to bring charges.
Now, remember, this wasn't a classified document leak, which there are numerous laws on the books about.
Now, could it be stealing of government documents? Stealing of yes, there are pathways, but it's still so unclear what a charge could even be in this case. It feels like it should be federally illegal. You know, it smells of it, if you will. Phone lines are open at one eight hundred.
It does ring true a federal crime. Phone lines are open for you. We are going to come back in just a moment, and I want to take some calls. One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. Mike Pompeo is also going to be joining us in the next segment.
If you wanted to dip your toe back into the midterms, we'll do that with Secretary Pompeo about the fallout, what it could look like coming up.
So again, if you're still feeling those, feeling that pain, we'll let you relive it a little bit in the next segment, and then we're going to get back to it. And if you thought the Chuck Schumer Yeah, was strong. Had a lot to say back in 2020. There's some people coming for him. You're not gonna guess who it is.
We're right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open, and we're going to take a lot of calls in the back half because we have Secretary Pompeo on now.
So we're going to have an open back half for you to have any point of this discussion. If you like what you hear with Secretary Pompeo, or you want to talk about any of the other talking points that we've had today or throughout the week, I know some of you still licking the wounds. Understandably, give me a call one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Secretary Pompeo though is joining us, and we'll can think of another voice that would be good to hear when you have these sort of uncertain. Times, if you will, that's right.
Well, when we look at what happened this midterm election, a lot of the exit polling was saying it had to do with foreign policy. Why people changed their vote, so or decided to vote differently, whether or not polls are and exit polls are truly what what people was on people's mind, or if they're representative across the country. But the Iran war is something that came up very often, and what we saw is almost an immediate. Internal fighting amongst Republicans, as typically happens in the fallout after some sort of political loss, where you have the vice President saying, "Look, it's it's because of the war that we lost," but then you have other people saying, "Well, you're not looking at the data fully." It's not just that the war was happening; it's that it was the back and forth between diplomatic angle, the ceasefire, and almost the uncertainty that happened. Mr.
Secretary, as we look at at this and how the the midterms played out, how much do you think one that that that actually is what was a vote, a decisive voting reason the the Iran war, and do you think it was because of indecision? Think it was because it existed in the first place. Just kind of looking back, I wanted to get your opinion on this.
Well, it's great to be with you. Look, it's hard to know. This was a pretty resounding defeat for Republicans all across the country. Indeed, in my home state, we elected a Democrat governor and a Democrat senator for the first time since 1932. But we'll get back up off the floor.
I'm convinced of it because we're right in the end. Our principles, our policies, are the the right ones for America. You know, as for the the war, wars are never popular. One of the things I'm most proud of is that we didn't engage in any war. First, first Trump term, but Iran brought this on themselves, and and while undoubtedly the the war is today polls poorly, you know it's almost axiomatic that people vote their pocketbook, not wars, right, not foreign policy, and I think that's probably going to prove true when the data comes out.
We'll see. People were very concerned about this idea that gasoline prices are too high. That is in part because of the conflict, because President Trump wasn't able. To bring this to a conclusion before the election, and so I think that all—all in that mix, many things. It's a broader set of causes for this defeat.
We need to do the analysis and then remind ourselves about the things that the ACL, the ACLJ stands for, right? These deep conservative principles that it stood for for so long. They'll serve our party and America well.
Well, into that point as well, we can we can quibble about data and what were people's voting things. For the rest of time, and people will. That is what people do. But I think the important question here is obviously when you start to look at it. One, I mean, we still firmly believe that taking it to the Iranian regime that has.
Caused so much death and destruction of Americans for generations that it is the right move, and regardless of the political fallout that may have happened. But I also think looking forward, now that the President, the executive branch, which is the the author and the branch that conducts foreign policy, now has this very different brand of check in in the Congress. You you already see individuals. That are are saying, hey, maybe Chuck Schumer shouldn't be the leader of the Senate. And those are the incoming senators that have a very different view of American foreign policy, a very different view of American national security.
Obviously, I'm not asking you to predict here, but navigating that forward of the executive branch, you have been the Secretary of State. You understand the importance of American leadership. How Difficult does that job become for the executive branch here now, knowing that they're already threatening subpoena after subpoena and investigation after investigation, but still leading the world when you have antagonists here at home. Yes, we experienced that in the first term. You recall, for the first two years plus of the Trump administration, when he was first elected, we were Russian assets.
Right? This was Russia, Russia, Russia—the hoax. It's distracting. It can pull you off the mission. It causes you to have to respond to things.
You'd rather spend your time thinking about how do I deliver good outcomes and security for the American people. And one of the great things about President Trump is he was able to remain incredibly focused. I'm confident he will here too. Um, he's done so on Iran consistently. He understands that this remains the world's largest state sponsor of terror.
And as he said Tuesday night or Wednesday morning, after the election results came in, he said, "Look, I I'd do it again." He did not let domestic political ideas put the American people's security at risk. And I don't think President Trump will ever do that.
So I'm I'm I'm convinced he will stay the course. He will continue to focus on making good decisions, sound security decisions, and. That is politically unpopular in the moment. He is willing to suffer those slings and arrows to deliver on what history will, I think, regard as the right answer to deny the Iranian regime conventional weapons that would have protected a nuclear weapons program. Is something that I think President Trump will go down in history as being highly regarded for all across the political spectrum.
What about speaking of the political spectrum? What about a message I would say to our you know our supporters, our viewers, really the people who have just joined in sort of the political world over the last. Last few years, there's so many people who have just engaged, really in the Trump years, and I would say maybe even in the last two years, really in the post Biden years, and they see such a resounding defeat, and maybe they are not used to the pendulum swinging and seeing this. But I guess sort of a message to those people who have become a little disenfranchised, maybe not only with their own political party, but maybe have become disenfranchised with it when they go. Oh no!
Then they they wake up in the morning and they're seeing this, but knowing obviously God's in control. But but they may have a bit. A bit more stress. There's a bit more panic that I see in people's voices right now, and understandable to some extent. But it's nothing that a lot of people who have been engaged, including yourself, haven't been through many times before.
Look, I'm I'm perfectly positioned to respond to this. I I was a member of the Tea Party class of 2010, 80 strong Republicans. We thought we were going to control the political scene for years and years and years. It just turns out that it's more complicated than that. God is in fact in control, and the message that we bring, the policies.
I hope the the character and decency of the people that we elect will demonstrate to the broad political spectrum that we have the right approach. That big government, socialism, high tariffs, and taxes. These are not good things for the American people, and it comes back quickly when you get the message right and you get the policy, the deliverables right as well. And I'm convinced it's only it's only those of us who are conservative that can deliver that for the United States of America, and we will. I did just want to jump in there because I did want to say I almost brought that up, Mr.
Secretary, that I remember producing this show, talking to staffers in your office of this brand new freshman congressman from. Kansas that we were going to have on the show, Mike Pompeo, and one excited to have you on. But that's how long we've been working since 2010. We have been speaking with you when you were a freshman congressman in the Tea Party movement. When, by the way, Democrats were never going to win another election after that one, and we've seen how the world operates.
That's exactly right.
Well, bless you. It's been a long 16 years. Many good things have transpired since then, and I'm confident God is in control, and we'll. Get this back, and we'll get America headed the right direction. Will thank you so much, Secretary Pompeo, for joining us today, and thanks for everyone joining us.
The first half hour, we do have a second half hour coming up. If you don't get us on your local station, we broadcast live twelve to one p.m. Eastern time. That's live. We do the show live.
Find us aclj.org on YouTube, on Rumble, on Facebook. We're broadcasting live on all those platforms, but of course, archived on.
However, you get your podcast, we're available each and every day. Immediately as the show ends, they all go up there, so you can go find us there. But the second half hour is live, and we want you to join us.
So if you don't get us on your local station, you're watching. If you're watching us, you're good. I don't think there's a place we can view just a half an hour. I don't think so. I don't think so.
So come join us. We got second half hour coming up, but hey, help us stand strong today. Go to aclj.org. Be a part of this new campaign. You need to do it.
It's a good time. aclj.org. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow.
Welcome back, second half hour of Sekulow. Thanks for joining us today. Few lines still open at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Talking about a few different topics. We led the show talking about that leak of the Dobbs decision back six years ago was now finally getting the attention of the Justice Department as they've stepped up the criminal inquiry.
We'll discuss that if there is a federal crime and could we finally get some answers? That would be nice. We also So our course still, you know, dealing with the fallout of the midterm elections. If you didn't miss, miss, we had a great conversation with Secretary Pompeo in the last segment, and I want to hear from you. Though, as I said, at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten.
One of the things we're going to move to also is we heard from Chuck Schumer in the first segment back six years ago, but what is he up to now as he starts to threaten if he's going to be taking the lead? What he is going to do to conservative. Trump supporters, Republicans.
Now that they're in charge, but not so fast, Chuck Schumer. There are a lot of people calling for him to not be the leader. And who do you think those are?
Some of those new, fresh faces. Does it feel like the MAGA party of old a little bit when they come in, decide who's going to be the new leader, not the old guard? We're going to find somebody new. And of course, we remember the chaos that unfolded, the Kevin McCarthy chaos, everything that came after that. Of course, we ended up with Mike Johnson who did it.
Good job, and then we have now on the other side, we have Chuck Schumer saying, "You know what? I think I'm going to be leading this, and not so fast." Little friend from Minnesota, it's deciding. Not quite. Not quite. One state over.
What I say, Minnesota. What did I mean, Michigan? Michigan.
Sorry. There you go. That's right.
What we're seeing here now. I got Minnesota on the brain, and this I think kind of does go back to even what Secretary Pompeo was saying there, with you know the huge wave election that we saw in 2010, and that things don't always go necessarily the way that the excited newcomers think it's going to go, or the old guard that's like we spent so.
So much time working for this, we finally won. Like, guess who's back, back again? And when you talk about the Senate, you're talking about a much smaller group of people. That to a leak, to a leak, we're talking about leaks. To a much smaller to a leak, elect their leader.
You're not talking about it's one word over one word over. You're talking about in this case probably fifty five or fifty six when all the votes are tallied. We'll be voting for their leader, who will be the next majority leader of the Senate, and you. You have El Sayed from Michigan, who was originally not supported by Chuck Schumer until he won his primary, saying, "You know what? I'm not so certain that my vote is going to go to him to be leader." He's been talking publicly about Chris Van Hollen from Maryland as maybe a better choice for leader.
You're starting to see now internal questions happen with a lot of these new faces that are coming to the Senate on whether they will support Chuck Schumer to be the Next leader, he has been the leader for a very long time. It sounds like the new class may not be so excited about who it was de facto going to be the next majority leader. Yeah, we'll talk about that coming up in the next segment and a whole lot more. We do have two lines open, as I said. But look, it's easy to feel defeated this week, and I understand.
We let you have a few days of crying. But now we're back at it, and the ACLU team never stopped.
So I'm going to ask you today: if you're feeling even a little hopeless, and you're like, "Well, what am I going to do here? How can I support our own issues and what I feel is important? What I see that the House and Senate have flipped, and what are we going to do?" And of course, you do. President Trump's still there with that. He wore that veto hat yesterday.
You know, I'm sure that's going to be a top seller. But now you got to figure out what to do. But the ACLJ team, as I said, on a localized level, a national level, an international level, doesn't stop, and we could use your support. It is one of our. These are the the last two months of the year.
I can't believe we're here. You know, still wearing shorts here. You know, that's how how how it doesn't feel like it's going to be November this weekend. That's what I hear. Will's got to deal with that.
Talk about that later on. Will we? I don't know.
Okay, I think we should. All right. We need your support today. I want you to go to aclj.org. Stand strong.
These are the last two months of the year. Always, the most important months for a lot of organizations, but specifically ours. This is where most people decide their one-time gifts. Of course, you can always become an ACLJ champion. But if you're going to give one time a year, this is the time.
We know a lot of you do it, and thankfully, we have a group of ACLJ supporters and champions that have decided to match your pledge right now.
So, if you decide to give a donation, it will be matched today.
So help us stand strong at ACLJ. Again, that's at aclj.org. Stand strong with us today. You can scan the QR code you see on the screen. Two lines open.
One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Welcome back to Sekulow. Two segments left in the week. You can help us stand strong, finish this strong, be a part of it at aclj.org right now. As all donations are doubled, I'd love for you to be part of the team today.
We're going to take a lot of calls and comments over the next two segments because Will and I, of course, we were discussing Chuck Schumer in the last segment. I think we have a call related to that. I think we can break that down a little bit. It's good, Jerry in Pennsylvania. Jerry, go ahead.
Yeah. Hello. You know, I'm a Republican. I don't like Chuck Schumer. I never did.
But I'll tell you, I prefer him to stay in that position than Chris Van Hollen. Chris Van Hollen, if you know this, is a very vicious, particularly vicious Jew hater and an Israel hater, and he would be a disaster. For the entire Jewish population of Israel and and the United States. He's really very hostile, Jerry. I think that goes to a bigger point here.
Is look, Chuck Schumer, up until very recently, you could say I disagree with him on ninety nine percent of everything he says. The one percent was he was a very strong Zionist, very strong Israel supporter. That has altered a little bit over the last couple of years as his party has moved, and he's seen his own career threatened. But you don't think that the Al Sayeds of the world and all the people don't know. Really, what the history is of Chuck Schumer, and that that isn't playing a big part in wanting him ousted, right?
There's a reason why Al Sayed said he would like to have Chris Van Hollen as the next majority leader, Jerry. I think you picked that out perfectly. Hit it on the head, and this is another thing too, Logan. I think you brought up talking about how. The ACLJ continues to work, and we have to keep working.
A lot of the political class, you'll see on on every other show, still trying to pick apart every nuance of why this happened, why people lost, why it actually wasn't their fault, etc. We don't have that luxury necessarily here at the ACLJ to just sit around and either mope or blame. We have to move forward. Thankfully, keep working. Yeah, I mean, I'd rather do that than sit there and cry about it.
But we also know that there are big battles ahead. More than Would have been in the previous few years because of what happened in this election, and not just at the federal level, but in the states as well. We know that so many of those legislatures and governor offices flipped to a candidate that is not necessarily going to stand up for. Parental rights, for education rights, for religious liberty, and that's where we come in. That's where we have to stand in the gap, and why we have to continue to be that firewall for the Constitution at the state level as well.
And that's why we fight every single day here at the ACLU on on Wednesday after the elections. Yes, we covered it here, but it's not like everyone on our team was sitting around figuring out what happened. No, our attorneys were working. They were sending out demand letters. They were sending out FOIA requests.
They were still continuing that work. They were in court the day after. Standing up for those individuals in Chicago that were street preachers that are fighting back against what is going on in Chicago when it comes to systematic persecution and and targeting of those using their First Amendment right for religious purposes, and so that's when we talk about this that there are people that are going to try and discourage you, and also I think realize that there are people that. That are online using the ability to get messages out to depress the vote further. When people start talking about clearly this election was election fraud, at this point in some of these states that flipped, they are doing that to try and depress the vote further.
Because they know they can get people to throw up their hands and say it's not worth it. Suppress and suppress. That's right.
And I think one of those that we talk about, and I've seen, I don't want to address this. I've seen it pretty pervasively talking about what happened in Texas. Saying that clearly, it had to have been voter fraud because there is no way that that would have happened. You said it's all over your feed, all over my feed, not over my feed. I even see in the chat saying that there's no way that these voter numbers could have turned out.
And I did, and talked with my team. We went through every state yesterday and looked at the numbers and trying to get a handle on you know some of these things. And this isn't pointing fingers at anybody. This is the reality of how that happened. And I've seen people say, "Well, they we." Didn't get the Save Act, so that's why Texas was was overturned.
No, remember, in our constitutional republic, the states administer the elections. That's been part of the fight with California saying the DOJ can't look at our voter rolls.
So it was Greg Abbott's administration, a Republican Secretary of State, that those people that lost their job on Tuesday night. Were the ones that didn't want anything. They wanted to protect their elections. They have strong voter ID in Texas. They have they check the citizenship of people in Texas.
What really happened in Texas is 1.4 million people didn't show up to the polls compared to 2024, and that is because people were either saying it's not worth it, they didn't like the candidates nominated, they felt like they didn't have to. There's a lot of different reasons you can point to, but the reality of the situation is is that Democrats were motivated in this election, and Republicans were not motivated in this election. And I think a lot of people thought that Texas was way too far of a stretch because they've been through the Beto O'Rourke years, the Colin Allred years, and they thought no matter what the polls show, Republicans always hold Texas. And that is a fallacy that can happen in any state, no matter how red or how blue. If you get complacent.
And you think there is no way it's actually going to happen, and then after it happens, you blame voter fraud. Then it's going to keep happening because in a state like Texas, that is the perfect example of a state that was protecting their elections. They had the authority to do it, and they were strong on it. And what happened? One point four million people decided to stay home.
And when one point four million people decide to stay home, it can go any way. There was eleven point three million people that voted in Texas in twenty twenty four. Only nine point eight million voted in this election. That's one point five million, rather not one point four. That is how elections swing in places you don't expect them to.
We had a million less people vote in Tennessee, and you know what happened?
Some surprises in some way too close for comfort races for Republicans here. Yeah, I want to take a call, kind of related to this. Let's go to Richard in Kentucky on line three. Kentucky's another one of those weird states that you know you never know. Phone lines are open too.
We're gonna once Richard's, I'm left three lines open: one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. And I'd love to hear from you because the next segment, I'm just gonna take all the calls. Again, one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Richard, Kentucky, go ahead. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, the people let us down. That that's it. But people just didn't. I I I really truly think people really hate Israel more than you think. I mean, it's really shocked me, you know.
Because, and everybody wants free stuff. They don't want. They don't want to. Look, the Ratchford, the the anti-Israel campaign. Look, I agree with you about that.
Everyone wants free stuff, and and who doesn't want free stuff? Of course, everybody does. Of course, you they don't understand how it all works, but you know whatever the case. When it comes to the anti-Israel lobby, look, they've done a great job. They have done a great job taking over the left and taking over the right.
Feel pretty much like an island right now on this show. Feel like an island in our own life. Being the sort of lone supporters, and you do have to sort of look around and go, "What are we doing?" Are you? You gotta, you gotta check yourself, and then you realize, yeah, it's propaganda. Yeah, we're we're falling for it.
No, by the way, no politics or political administration I'm ever going to 100% agree with. That's Israel is no different. They've had very very liberal administrations. They've had very very conservative administrations. It's never had to do with who was in charge.
It had to do with the existence of a Jewish homeland. It had to do with the fact that Israel, you know, has been there now, even in the current state of Israel, for the better part of the last century. But here we are dealing with the fallout still from the mass media campaign, and the what what happened. And look, Israel has been bad at this. I've said this for for thirty years almost.
I mean, since I was a teenager, that something gets lost in translation when it comes to Israel. They never seem to be able to do a good enough job explaining. Who they are, why they are, what they are. Come see the country beyond this sort of version that's either biblical or even so high tech that you start to lose people that not don't understand. You really have to visit it to understand the country itself.
Now, on the other side, the media campaign against Israel has been incredibly strong, and if you were force fed imagery that you've been force fed for the last number of years. And you had no connection to this country. You had no idea of what was really going on behind the scenes, or even actually on the streets. Yeah, I could see how that argument would be easily swayed. It breaks my heart, but it's true.
So you are not wrong. And the fact that we see that in Kentucky, and we see that easy, because look, it's the oldest form of hate, and it's the easiest one. Phone lines are open for you at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. But the ACLJ is going to be here, and again, it's not about a political regime. It's not about Benjamin Netanyahu.
It's not about President Donald Trump. Never has been, it never will be. We're about protecting the rights of our citizens, their religious freedom, whether that is here in the United States of America or abroad, whether that's in Israel, whether that's in Europe, because we're the European Center for Law and Justice, whether it's in Pakistan, whether that is places we don't talk about. But that is only because you support. The organization is not just somewhat built; it's fully built on a backbone that you've created with gifts of twenty-five, fifty, seventy-five dollars once a year.
Now, some of you have decided to become champions, people who give every month, and God bless you. You know how much that means to me. But in these last two months of the year, it's the most important time. And right now, we're able to offer something special where your gifts are matched by other supporters.
So stand strong with us. Look. Get back up! You know you had your few days of moping. It's time to turn it around.
Actually, do something good for this country, and you can do that by supporting the work of the ACLJ. If you feel hopeless, it's a great way to connect and feel again that your views are being heard. That's at aclj.org or scan the QR code. Back with your calls and comments. Wrap up the show.
A little bit playful, but you know what?
So they're trying to make us happy again. I am happy. This is your happy face. How dare you call me? This is Will's very happy.
This is Will's happy face. It's very natural. You don't want to see my angry face. No, I've seen it. I've seen it.
That's fair. All right, phone lines are open at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. We actually lost a few calls during the break, so. We had a full bank of calls.
Now we only got three.
So we got three lines open. One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Last chance to call in. We got about eight minutes left. Let's go ahead and jump on some of these calls.
Let's go to Michelle, who's calling on line four. Go ahead, Michelle. Thank you. I am a champion. I forgot to fill the guy.
Ah, we want to take you. I mean, someone though. I think you still. I think you still got preference. Go ahead.
Okay. Thank you. You guys do great things.
So my comment is, as far as the Supreme Court leak, there is such a small pool of suspects to look into and question. I feel there is no excuse for not finding out who leaked the document. We can find out where the evil leaders are in Iran, target and kill them, but we can't find the leaker in the Supreme Court. And I also I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the Republican Party to get a good message out. Their election advertisements here in Michigan—I'm in Michigan now.
Previously in California, they were absolutely stupid, just snarky, stupid stuff. Michelle, one on that comment, the messaging for Republican candidates across the board was abysmal this election cycle, and and you point out it just felt tired and uninspiring. No one could be Donald Trump other than Donald Trump, and I don't really, you know, I don't love Donald Trump's rhetoric. I've talked about that many times here, but I'm not voting for someone to to be a good speaker for me. I'm voting for their policies, but I do feel like everyone took those campaign tactics.
On and not very many people can. Even attempt to pull that off, so Michelle, we agree with you in that. In terms of the leakers, I think that is actually interesting because you aren't wrong. It's not a giant group of people, and actually, was it Samuel Lido a few months ago? Yeah, we have that clip.
I think we can play. But I do also want to point out one difference between even the small pool of leakers that potential leakers at the Supreme Court and the Iranian leaders in Iran. The Iranian leaders in Iran don't have constitutional protections that the leakers would have.
So. Our our intelligence agencies can do a lot more things that we don't want them doing to American citizens to find out where those. But I understand her point. Yes, I do too. Let's play bite two from Justice Alito.
This was just last month in an interview on Fox News Sunday. That was totally unprecedented in the history of the country. It was a grave breach of the trust that everybody who worked in this building had before that point. Do you have an opinion about who you think the leaker was? I do have an opinion, but the evidence.
Available at this time is not strong enough for the court or for me to say this is the person who was responsible. Yeah, so maybe Samuelito doing the right thing in some ways, but going, you know, what I probably do know who it is. But I don't have the proof. I don't have the evidence. You know, I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus.
And I appreciate that from a Supreme Court justice. But you do know that at least maybe if you have a Department of Justice or a Justice Department, like I'm saying, stepping in and doing this criminal inquiry, they maybe asked him.
Well, who do you think it is?
Well, and probably the individual. What I would take away from that, the individual probably does not have the ability to leak again. Whether it be a former or someone who was a a clerk for a justice. Or whatnot that is no longer a clerk for the justice. Maybe that's why they felt like they were had the ability to do something at that particular time.
That's what I would read into that. But also, or they clearly made a decision at the court to not put out who they think it is, whether they had the full evidence or not. There's they have their reason for not naming someone. We don't necessarily know the relationship between this group of justices. I think that the like we all said the previous.
Court, if you will, let's say, like you know, kind of fully reset and go back pre-Roberts Court and the Rinkus Court and everything. You kind of had a good idea of who was friends, who wasn't friends, how it worked. I don't know why there was a bit more transparency here. I don't necessarily know some of the personal you know connections. We've seen some of them.
We've seen you know Kagan and I have good relationships with a lot of the conservatives on the court. I would not be surprised if a lot of them are friends, but I also would not be surprised if you found out that this. Leak went beyond a clerk. I'm not saying that's what happened. I don't think that's what's happened.
But at least you know that there could be some bigger ramifications if you found that out. Of it going well beyond someone on a lower tier, they couldn't done at that time as well. The the after calling me, my brain goes everywhere. I'm just saying the confidence in the court is so low right now from public opinion. There could be that calculation of we don't need to do anything else that could harm.
the the public reputation of the court even further, depending on what their internal investigation were to turn over. I don't want to take another call. Let's go to Thomas, who's calling in Virginia. Thomas, watch on YouTube. Go ahead.
How you doing? I'm good, Thomas. How are you? Fine.
Now that the election's over, which was a whitewashing, to be honest with you. I like us to focus on the future of the GOP. All right, you're looking forward. One name that comes to me is Byron Donald. Yeah, yeah.
Byron Donald did good in Florida. Matter of fact, the whole state did good, especially under his watch in particular. Look, Thomas, we were talking about this on election the day after election, which is of any of the candidates that I actually, and this is where it's crazy, and this is where our previous caller was right. Think about how few Republican candidates you knew the name of. And I'm talking about beyond your own state or your own.
You've seen the sign a million times. And think about how many Democrats you did know the name of: James Talarico, Abdul Al-Sayyad. All of these names who you are familiar with, almost in a household name kind of way. And how many Republicans, new faces of Republicans, have you heard? The answer was almost zero, except for one.
And I would say that one was Byron Donalds. And I am looking forward to Florida. Is obviously going to always be the little last bastion of hope. But you know he had Brian Donalds come out and say, when he won. By the way, we're sticking up for Israel in our Jewish community.
Said that immediately at his victory speech. Which, by the way, gives a bit of a breath of relief to the Jewish community in Florida that is largely migrated from New York to Florida to go.
Okay, at least he is not falling for the Tucker Carlson version of this or anything like. There's a bit of that. He could be one of those new leaders, and I, I don't know about presidency in two years. Obviously, you're going to have the previous governor looking like he's going to make that attempt again. I also think that the individuals of Florida would hope that you know he'll serve a full term.
I think that's probably his goal. He is young. He he did a great job in Congress. Was looked at actually as Speaker for a little bit when there was that whole Speaker fight. There were people trying to elevate him to the position of Speaker.
I think for his sake politically, it was good that he didn't end up becoming Speaker because I think that is a a position that no one really wants because of all the the the infighting you have to deal with. But he's he's the first African American governor of Florida in its history. Yeah, that is something to be. Said that that is the the Republicans in Florida are are smart. They're putting forward candidates that are historic candidates and that are able to do things in a state that, as red as Florida has become, the governor race is always razor thin margin.
When you think back at at all of these now in the Presidential election that they go for they've gone for Trump very much, but you look, it's been razor thin margins for governor, and I think that says something about the. Of the candidates that the Republicans are nominating in Florida to serve them, that they are not afraid of of old historic norms and political norms. They are going to move forward. You where he found the Lord? Where I did?
Cracker Barrel. Cracker. Where can a Cracker Barrel? That's right.
Church served church group, but you know what? I like that story. That's an American story. I dig it. All right, with that, I do want to wrap up this week.
Thank you all for tuning in. I know it's been some ups and downs. We're back at it, though. We want you to be a part of the team here today. Help us stand strong right now.
Be a part and have your donation doubled today. That's at aclj.org. Look at the great free content we provide. All our content is without a paywall. That's only because you support us.
So stand up, stand strong. Let's get back at it.
Next week we'll be back. Go to aclj.org today.
