Colorado Supreme Court Kicks Trump Off the Ballot — What’s Next?

Today on Sekulow, the Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off the ballot. What's next? Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, you may have seen the news last night. Maybe you saw that President Trump on Truth Social even re-truthed a video I did from my home.

Shout out to my wife Anna who filmed me in this video and our team for getting it up and all of our social media accounts. But President Trump re-truthed it as well so a lot of people saw that, again, the Colorado Supreme Court, we had been waiting for this case. We had won at the trial court and, again, we had been working our way up through the court system there and you go from the trial court to the Supreme Court. Made the oral arguments there and it's a seven-member Supreme Court and in this decision, not surprisingly because it was specifically chosen by the organization crew to start these cases in Colorado.

And remember, they haven't been having much success anywhere else. So the Colorado Supreme Court, all of the judges chosen by Democrats, so that doesn't mean they're all Democrats, but chosen by Democrats gives you a good indication. In a four to three decision with the Chief Judge dissenting have voted to remove President Trump from the primary ballot without due process, without a finding by a court that he committed insurrection under the 14th Amendment and Section 3. We are going to be talking about this with the Colorado GOP chair that we represent the Colorado GOP. Ben Sisney, elite attorney with the ACLJ in this case, he presented oral argument in this case. My dad will be joining us on the broadcast. Mike Pompeo will be joining us on the broadcast as well about kind of how the world is reacting to this court case. And we're going to explain to you about what happens next.

I think this is very important for all of you to know. Within this case, so if you're in Colorado or a state that you think, I mean, we're looking at Michigan now, if the Michigan Supreme Court decides, hey, maybe we should schedule this and follow what Colorado did. Inside the Colorado opinion, removing President Trump, they put a very important clause that stays the removal of President Trump until the Supreme Court decides the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether or not to take action. And that would then stay it until the Supreme Court does take action. So likely we're going to be filing with the U.S. Supreme Court.

We'll explain that with Ben Sisney coming up in the next segment of the broadcast, representing the Colorado GOP. Likely, again, this will be stayed and it could happen very quickly, but it's still very likely, and I just want to point this out, that Colorado voters will be able to vote for Donald Trump in the primary. Now, if the Supreme Court moves very quickly and all of our kind of indications are off, is it possible they decided to remove him this way? I guess it's possible.

I think it's very unlikely. I mean, you've had liberals go on TV thinking this is going to be reversed nine to zero by the U.S. Supreme Court because President Trump has not been ever adjudicated or convicted of insurrection. So how can this court just decide, well, it was enough for them, even though during impeachments he was acquitted and the court cases he's facing, he's actually not facing an insurrection charge. And even if he was, those haven't been adjudicated yet. So you've got big due process issues.

And there's a lot of the dissent here that is very close to the arguments we made. So I want you to know the ACLJ is going to be standing with you. We warned that this was the case most likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. And now that time has come, our attorneys are going to be working through the holidays. We were working late last night on behalf of our client, the Colorado Republican Party, to ensure that everyone around the country has the right to vote for their candidate of their choice. In this case, it will be it is Donald Trump who they are targeting.

In the future, it will be someone else. We need you to support us. Donate in our faith and freedom drive. The most important financial month of the year for the ACLJ. Donate today at ACLJ.org.

Make that donation, either the large year-end donation that will be doubled or become an ACLJ champion, a recurring donor each month. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. So you know we are going to appeal this, obviously, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Trump campaign will also be appealing this, and we're joined right now by our client, Dave Williams, who is the Colorado GOP chair we've been working with throughout this trial. Early victories, but knowing that the Colorado Supreme Court was the most likely court to decide, and they decided on the narrowest of grounds, four to three, even with an all-Democrat appointed court, that Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot. So I want to go right to Dave in Colorado, our client there.

And Dave, great job last night in these interviews you had to do right away. I wanted to ask you this because I think it's important to read from the opinion for Colorado voters. Even this court, which knows that they were kind of going into unchartered territory, these four, it's an unsigned opinion, interestingly, said that, quote, we stay our ruling until January 4th, the day before the secretary's deadline to certify the content of the Presidential primary ballot.

If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires, it shall remain in place, and the secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump's name on the 2024 Presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court. So they make this sweeping decision, but they also kind of kick the can to the U.S. Supreme Court, Dave, where we are ready to go. Yeah, I think it was very telling, and I think what's even more important to key in on are the dissenting opinions, and I hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly take interest in that.

I think what's very interesting to talk about is the fact that Donald Trump has neither been charged nor convicted of insurrection, but yet that is a basis that is being used to disqualify him from the ballot. We view this as a constitutional crisis in the making. The United States Supreme Court has to step in and overturn this, and I'm so happy and pleased to be working with you and your organization to make sure that people's right to vote for or against Donald Trump, quite frankly, is upheld and allowed to happen, because we can't have four unelected Democrat judges from the state of Colorado dictating which candidates should be voted for or against or be placed on a ballot.

That's un-American, and I'm glad to be working with you guys on this. We're glad that you're fighting this battle and the Colorado GOP is fighting this battle, because you understand, we understood right from the beginning when this case was filed in Colorado by the organization crew and its clients that this was the one to watch, because it would have the most money behind it, the most serious illegal, I guess, opposition. They chose specifically Colorado for a reason, but they want to set a national precedent. I mean, they want to set a precedent that you can basically, Dave, you could have these unelected judges from a different party decide who Republicans get to vote for in their primary.

Yeah, no question. This is a violation of our First Amendment right. This is a violation of our ability to associate with whoever we choose we want to nominate.

This is bigger than Donald Trump. If they can do this to Donald Trump, then they can do it to anyone, and consequently, they kind of did that in their own process with respect to RFK Jr. or Bernie Sanders before him. The point being is we can't allow the precious right of Americans to choose the candidates they want to choose or nominate the people they want to choose to be stripped away from them by radical decisions from judges that were appointed by the opposition party. We looked at some of the dissents and some of our briefs that we filed, and from Justice Seymour's dissent, he cites the OMB v. Morgan case out of the U.S. Supreme Court there where the principal said that this is not self-executing and it cannot rightly be said that the 14th Amendment furnaces a universal and self-executing remedy. He quotes that directly as well. He then goes on to quote another case, Alexander v. Sandoval, out of the Supreme Court that we quoted that, like substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.

Hasn't been done here. And another very important part, as you pointed out, and I mean, here's his direct quote, here's our direct quote, President Trump has never been charged, let alone convicted, of violating it Section 2383 or the Insurrection Act, and we put in our brief that President Donald Trump has never been charged with, much less convicted of violating Section 2383. That's just from one of the judges.

I mean, I can keep going through it. As you see, I've got this list, and as you said, Dave, very important that the U.S. Supreme Court notes that these three also judges that were chosen by Democrats to serve on the Colorado Supreme Court are very wary that this will stand and, in fact, are nervous that they're about to get a major smackdown at the Colorado Supreme Court. And rightfully so. Look, this decision attacks three fundamental things that are the bedrock of our country. It attacks our First Amendment rights, it attacks our foundation of free and fair elections, and it attacks due process.

In no way, shape, or form can we start punishing political speech and saying that it somehow is a crime when there was no charge or conviction, and we certainly don't want to go down the road of other banana republics or the Soviet Union where they're deciding which candidates are appropriate to be on the ballot. That's un-American, and I'm glad that we're working with you guys to make that case to the United States Supreme Court. You also made it clear last night in an interview that you did, I think it's important for our Colorado listeners to know, that if for some reason this turned out wrong, and I don't think it will, I think we're going to be able to win this at the U.S. Supreme Court. I think Donald Trump will be on the primary ballot in Colorado, and I think it will be so in a timely manner, and that will set the stage and end all of these other cases.

I mean, we've got 16 states we're representing across the country, some as interveners like here in Colorado where we're in the court case as a party, some as an amicus, that that will end all of those cases ultimately. And that Donald Trump, if he did what he had to do to qualify for the ballot under the rules of that state, he will be on the Republican ballot. But you do have another option for the Colorado GOP if necessary.

Correct. We kind of foresaw this happening, or at least we thought it was a good likelihood, so we created a contingency plan that we filed with the Republican National Committee. Should this stand, and we hope it won't, but should it stand, we're going to convert from a primary system to a pure caucus system where we can select our delegates who will then go on to Milwaukee and support Donald Trump or whoever else they want. We're not going to take this lying down. We're going to viciously protect our right to choose the nominee we want afforded to us by the First Amendment. Well, Dave, we are ready to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court. I know you're ready as well, the Colorado GOP. We will be fighting with you. You're at the tip of the spear at this battle. We knew you would be. We were waiting for this decision, and we knew if this went this way, this would be the case likely that would make its way first to the U.S. Supreme Court. So we're glad that we've been working with you over these past months, preparing for this moment to, again, win this once and for all, for all candidates, for Donald Trump now, and for all candidates in the future inside the Republican primary, Dave. Amen. I couldn't have said it better, and again, I just appreciate your guys' support and your ability to step in and help us wage this battle.

This is about the future of our country, and it's about protecting our precious right to vote and making sure that the freedom of speech and the First Amendment are protected to the utmost. You know, and I want to let people know, and Dave, I appreciate you joining us and doing all these interviews. I know you're going to be doing more, and you're doing great, and you're speaking for the Republicans in Colorado. I think you're doing a great job of that, so we appreciate that as a client.

It's a great client to have. Thank you for joining us on the broadcast today. I just want to go through so people understand these 14th Amendment cases. So we're in the Colorado court now. That was in the Colorado Supreme Court.

Now that'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We're in the Wyoming State Court, where we represent the Wyoming GOP. We filed a motion to intervene there.

We're in West Virginia. That's in federal court, and we are waiting because all the motions to dismiss got converted into motions for a summary judgment. So that's fully briefed, and we're waiting on the ruling.

We're in Oklahoma, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. We intervened, and it was voluntarily dismissed by the party who tried to bring it there, so we won there in Virginia. Again, the motion to dismiss has been filed.

The hearing on the motions to dismiss are on January 5th, so very close to all of this timing. In Michigan State Court, we filed amicus brief on behalf of five states, and then that increased to Michigan plus 15 additional GOP state parties. And in Minnesota State Court, we filed amicus brief there in Minnesota as well, and the Minnesota Supreme Court threw the case trying to throw President Trump off the ballot, primary ballot, off.

So we know that Colorado's heading to SCOTUS. Arizona and Michigan are pending appeal. Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have been dismissed. Voluntary dismissal by plaintiff in 12 states. Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, California, Utah, Idaho. 13 are pending. Alaska, Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming.

The list goes on. Just so you know, if you hear your state, New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Vermont, New York, and New Jersey. But this is what we're ready to do, folks. We've had to add additional team members to do all these cases, as you know, and we were able to do that because you've been responding to our Faith and Freedom Year in Drive, and we are in the final couple weeks of that. The most important time for the ACLJ financially. Listen, we didn't want to have to do these cases.

We didn't want to have to defend your right to be able to choose the candidate of your choice in the United States of America in the Republican primary. But it's exactly what we're going to have to do, and we're going to have to work through the holiday with our entire team to get these briefs ready for the U.S. Supreme Court. We want to make sure we protect all of your rights nationally. So we need you today to either make your year-end contribution, maybe that's a larger contribution, and it will be doubled during the Faith and Freedom Drive. Or if you want to become an ACLJ champion and there's an amount you want to donate automatically monthly, become a recurring donor to the ACLJ, become an ACLJ champion, choose an amount that you're comfortable with, and this month it will be doubled with that matching challenge. So donate to the ACLJ today. We need your financial support to fight these battles.

All right, welcome back to Secula. We are going to take some of your calls as well at 1-800-684-3110, but I also want to bring in Ben Sisney, an ACLJ senior counsel who has been really a key part of these cases presenting oral argument in Colorado. Ben, right away in Colorado, we got a big victory at the trial court.

It was a little bit unexpected, actually. I mean, because we knew we were kind of going against the grain in Colorado's courts. That's why CREW and those organizations chose to file their lawsuits, their first lawsuit, their main lawsuit in Colorado. They were looking for this kind of 4-3 decision. But ultimately, we were ready for this day or this evening last night when the Colorado Supreme Court came out just barely 4-3, all Democrat chosen judges, 4-3 with the chief judge dissenting, trying to take President Trump off the ballot with a big caveat that if the Supreme Court takes the case, he gets to remain on until they decide.

That's absolutely right, Jordan. And as you've indicated, we've known this was coming for a long time. In fact, we anticipated it from day one, going back a couple of months in our first conversation with Dave, who has done just a tremendous job.

He's been so courageous and we're so proud to work with him and represent him. But yeah, you know, the trial court's decision in this case, it wasn't the opinion I would have written. But at the end of the day, she had ordered that President Trump be placed on that ballot and we knew it was going up to the Colorado Supreme Court.

We went out there for that. It was an intriguing oral argument, to say the least. And I think that the final vote shows you how intriguing it is. I mean, it's 4-3 on a court where all seven of the justices are appointed by the opposing party to our client, the Colorado Republican Party.

It was still 4-3 and you were indicating some of the dissents were some powerhouses. And there's some really, I would encourage our folks to read the dissents. They really latched on to and amplified arguments we've been making from the very beginning, going back to the election code, its impact, what the plaintiffs in the case were asking the court to do would violate our client, the state political party's First Amendment associational rights. And that was kind of given short shrift until now and the dissents have emphasized that and we're taking that along with our other arguments right up to the U.S. Supreme Court in the cert petition that, as you know, we started last night in the middle of all the calls and the meetings and everything else we were doing.

It is well underway. Our people need to understand that. I want you to explain that, Ben, to our ACLJ donors right now because, I mean, last night I did a video.

I don't know if we have the picture of it. I mean, President Trump actually re-truthed the video that I did. I mean, we did it like immediately after the video.

I mean, I did it for my house. I thanked my wife, Anna, for filming that. I threw on a shirt and jacket. I was just out with my son.

And before that, I think I had a hat on. I mean, you know, it was very raw, but it was real. And that got re-truthed to a lot of people because we were working on this until late last night and through the night. Ben, kind of tell people the timeline we're expecting.

I mean, obviously, the Supreme Court will get to ultimately decide that and there's some different ways they can go, but we have to plan on the fastest path right now. Yeah, that's right. And yes, to your point, there's still some finessing that's happening even as we speak.

I mean, I was just on phone calls with some of our team members just immediately before this broadcast nailing some of this down. But it looks like, I mean, the outer window, the key date here is January the 4th. I suspect we'll be filing our petition well before that. And, you know, then I guess it will fall upon the court to determine if they're going to call for a response from the other side or if they're going to take some kind of a swifter action in advance.

There's several directions I understand this could go, some procedural mechanisms that we may be looking at. I think it's also interesting that we can't rule out, Walter Weber had pointed out earlier, we can't rule out that the other side may yet file some kind of request for an expedited process. Because even with their win at the Colorado Supreme Court, as you indicated, the Colorado Supreme Court is leaving the lower court's decision in place until that January 4th deadline by which we will have filed. In other words, if it goes past January 4th, then President Trump's going on the ballot.

And so they might employ some procedural mechanism to try to speed that up as well. We'll have to be ready for that, too, along with working up our own cert petition in the briefing and building the appendix and in the hours, as you and your dad know quite well, the hours and the manpower that go into building a U.S. Supreme Court case. I mean, here we are. We knew it was coming. You all talked about this for a while. And here we are.

It hit last night and we're in full swing and we need our people to stand with us. Yeah, I mean, and you just said it, Ben, right there. You're talking about the different attorneys at the ACLJ.

People like Walter Weber have been here since the beginning. I mean, who are top Supreme Court advocates in the country saying, hey, we have to be ready for this option. We need to be ready for this option and this option. And so this is how we need to go.

And it's going to take a lot of manpower. We know what our arguments are going to be. We know how we're representing the case.

But then the timing, of course, becomes extremely important, as you said. And a lot of that can be based on what's filed by the parties here and also what the Supreme Court decides to do. They have I mean, it is an unprecedented term at the Supreme Court starting right away in January. I mean, they've got January six cases. They've got Presidential immunity cases. They've got now a Presidential ballot case. I mean, the most important probably in history.

This has never been used. The 14th Amendment Section three to take a Presidential candidate off the ballot. The first time ever it's been used for some lower positions, but never for a Presidential candidate.

So unprecedented there. They've got they have an abortion case up at the Supreme Court. I mean, people thought last year with Roe versus Wade, all of this, that that was going to be the biggest year ever by the Supreme Court. And now you look at this year and you see there's multiple election cases and an abortion case. And the ACLJ, Ben, is involved in every single one of them.

Yeah, I was actually just going over the files to, you know, as part of the process, when you get a case like this or this happens, you start prioritizing, moving things around with all your other cases and figuring out how to how to get it all to work. In realizing how many other cases of unbelievable variety, but with common factors, religious liberty for our clients, protecting life, protecting women and babies from the exploitation of the abortion industry. You know, free speech, government accountability. I mean, we just we've got an appeal for an epic whistleblower pending at the D.C.

Circuit Court of Appeals right now. I mean, I could go on and on and on. We are we are all over these cases. And, you know, there's no end in sight.

I mean, it's just the snowball is picking up as it's going downhill. And I'm so grateful to be here with you and your dad and our team right in the middle of these cases. But again, we've got to have our people stand with us. We can't do this on our own. Ben, thanks.

I'm gonna let you get back to work on this and get back with our team. But let me tell you some folks, our work at the end of the year just kicked into overdrive with last night's decision by the Colorado Supreme Court for three disqualifying President Trump from the primary bat in Colorado. I mean, you just saw how Ben described all these different actions we've got to be ready to take at the U.S. Supreme Court. We are a party in this case representing the Colorado Republican Party. It has dangerous constitutional ramifications for your state, too. If an unelected judge or an unelected secretary of state can just remove a Presidential candidate that they deemed, even though a court never deemed and a case never deemed, no due process.

They're not the right person to be on the ballot because of what they might have said, a word they might have used, even if they had never had that adjudicated. This is your time to stand with us. Every donation counts. It's the most important year of the month for us financially over those final two weeks. You donate today, make a larger year-end gift.

It will be doubled through our faith and freedom drive. And if you want to become an ACLJ champion, choose an amount you're comfortable with that you can make monthly to the ACLJ automatically and you'll become an ACLJ champion. You have been key to getting us involved in all these cases. Donate today ACLJ. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. So as you know, last night, and if you're just joining us, maybe just learning, the Colorado Supreme Court, four to three, all judges, justices that have been chosen by Democrats, so those judges all appointed by Democrats, four to three decided to take President Trump off the ballot with an asterisk that if the Supreme Court takes the case, they will keep him on the ballot through the determination by the Supreme Court. Ben Sisney just walked us through all of the different ways this could go legally, and of course we're going to keep you updated through that, whether it's on our website at ACLJ.org, whether it's the broadcast, whether it's email.

Make sure you are connecting with us on social media as well. Last night I put out a video that President Trump actually re-truthed on True Social. I know Rick Rinnell shared it on Twitter as well, so thousands of people saw that just to make sure that they knew the ACLJ was involved, that we represented the Colorado GOP, and that we'd be explaining more on this broadcast so that people would learn what's going to happen next. I want to read from the dissent. Now remember, this is a Democrat chosen judge from the dissent in this case.

It was four to three. He wrote, these astute words uttered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase a century and a half ago eloquently describe one of the bedrock principles of American democracy. Our government cannot deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law. Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past, dare I say, engaged in insurrection, there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office. Procedural due process is one of the aspects of American democracy that sets this country apart. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a team member of the ACLJ, is going to be joining the next segment. We're going to be asking him just about that, about how before this case came out, and maybe obviously we hope and believe the Supreme Court will correct this.

We fight hard, prepare the right briefing, so that we are still a country that is set apart from the rest of the world when it comes to American democracy. He wrote this as well, the decision to bar former President Trump by all accounts the current leading geo-Republican Presidential candidate and leading overall Presidential candidate in the polls from Colorado's Presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine. So it flies in the face of the 14th amendment, which has that due process clause. That is so important to all of us in our country that, again, you are not going to be held guilty until you've had due process of law.

That applies to federal and state. I do want to take, do we have time to take a phone call? Which one should we take, Will? Is there one we want to go to? Let's go to Nancy. She's in Colorado.

Hey Nancy, welcome to Sekulow, you're on the air. Thank you. My question is, the last couple of years on the Colorado ballot, they have a paragraph at the top that says, if you make a mistake on this ballot, draw a line through your mistake and mark the correct answer. It does not say you have to initial it or anything, and we used to have to go pick up a new ballot.

I wondered if this was legal. You know, I think that, listen, I know that the Republican party, after what happened the last election cycle, as well as some senators and legislators across the country, are looking at election laws. So again, that's specific to Colorado.

Each state's different. And then they're looking again at how we can protect more election integrity, because that sounds like pretty crazy, right? That you can just, someone could correct your ballot.

You don't even have to put a signature with it, not even initial with it. So all of these issues are at play right now with ballot integrity. But here's how it doesn't even matter. They don't even want to give you the chance to vote for Donald Trump. Like if you tried to write him in under their holding, if the Supreme Court doesn't overrule this, your ballot just gets tossed. It doesn't get counted as a write-in for Donald Trump.

It just gets tossed. You don't get a chance to vote for someone else. Your vote wouldn't count.

And then they say they don't even know how it would impact, if he did win the primary still, nationally, how it would impact the general. They haven't even gotten to that issue. So it is time, folks. This is the most important time to support the ACLJ financially. We did not want to be fighting this fight.

I will tell you, we don't have to fight the fight to make sure that you have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice. But let me tell you what the ACLJ will do. We will fight that fight with every resource we have. Make sure you provide those resources to us. Donate today.

Double the impact at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. And folks, we'll be taking more of your calls tomorrow on the broadcast, because we've got our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, Secretary Pompeo, joining us right now.

My dad's going to be joining us, and he's in Washington, D.C., in the final segment of the broadcast, so you don't want to miss that either. And Secretary Pompeo, I want to go right to you with this. Your initial thoughts on this Colorado Supreme Court decision, which is making news all around the country and world, taking President Trump off the primary ballot in Colorado, Democrat-appointed judges deciding four to three that Republicans should not be able to vote for Donald Trump. Jordan, it's outrageous. It's lawless. You know, while the Biden administration is talking about authoritarian regimes and protecting democracy and protecting the ballot, they are acting just the opposite. They are plotting a decision that denies the most fundamental right for Colorado citizens to choose the candidate for President of the United States in a primary that they want to choose.

It's so deeply troubling. I think in some sense it's a true wake-up call for those who thought, well, maybe what the Biden administration is proposing with its draconian efforts to avoid enforcing basic fundamental norms at our southern border and just these constitutional things, and to watch this court now go down this rabbit hole is so deeply disturbing. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court will do the right thing here before long and fix it so that the American people will know that they're going to get a chance to make their decision for who ought to be the President of the United States and not use some flimsy legal theory never invoked before on a four to three court decision to deny them that most fundamental right. I mean, we're seeing some international ramifications. The President of El Salvador tweeted this last night, quote, the United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about, quote, democracy. I mean, again, this is one Colorado Supreme Court.

I hope and believe that through the ACLJ's work and through the Trump campaign's work, legally we will be able to win this at the U.S. Supreme Court, and this will be some kind of an asterisk in history. But for the moment, the world is watching and they are seeing a legal system that acts before President Trump has ever had due process on whether or not he committed insurrection, which, by the way, he isn't charged with in any of the cases that he's even facing right now. So first of all, I know President Bukele down in El Salvador was the first foreign leader to go meet with him right after he was elected for the first time. His comment will be reflective of what not only leaders around the world think, but ordinary citizens.

Think about this. Your State Department today is going to be critical of Maduro. We're not letting people be on the ballot to compete against him in an election that happens early next year. The complete irony, the complete dangerousness, that's a terrible word, but it's so deeply dangerous for the United States to head down this path that we have criticized around the world for decades and criticized, rightly so, for regime's political leadership to deny some party the chance to compete on a ballot, where the people have the right to absolutely reject them.

This is unchartered territory, and you're right. The rest of the world will remember this forever, that the United States went down a path that we have criticized them for for decades. Similar to the impeachment process being abused, it's now, and we've called it around the world, we never hoped it would come to the United States, we called it law fair. Using the court systems to basically conduct your battles, political battles, even military battles, in the courts and to use the courts abusively.

And while almost every other court so far that has decided this, whether it's a blue state or a red state court, has said no, Colorado specifically said yes, you can take Donald Trump off the ballot, with the asterisk that the Supreme Court can still obviously step in and do the right thing. They at least acknowledged that they weren't the final say in this, but that was about it. So now it all relies, Secretary Pompeo, on our US Supreme Court to right this ship for the entire country and hopefully, hopefully make it a small asterisk that this doesn't continue to happen in the United States, where people think this is a smart decision and use of resources to go in the court to try and have people removed from the ballot that they don't actually want to have to beat in a political election. Well, I hope it's an asterisk, Jordan.

I hope you're precisely right. I know your organization, the ACLJ, I know it'll do its part to make sure that it is, in fact, an asterisk. But you remember, asterisks stink. They set precedent, too. People will use this. There will be others go to court and try to do this for a hundred different reasons.

They'll claim that some act was an insurrectionist act. They'll try and stick their particular set of facts into this legal opinion. It's really a bad path for us to go down. I regret that we had this. It was a four to three decision. I think the dissent nailed it in the same way that the other states have nailed it.

This is just not the way to do it. What we have, our founders set up this tradition where the states get a chance to hold primaries and then there are votes and there's an electoral college. That constitutional set of processes is absolutely essential. No one from either party, from either side should violate that and deny the basic due process to these voters.

And frankly, the rights of every candidate who says, I want to put myself forward and go through the ballot qualification system, we got to get it right. I pray that the Supreme Court will do so. And if they don't, this is a really watershed moment for the United States of America. We're going to do everything we can to make sure the Supreme Court does the right thing as we represent the Colorado Republican Party. So their interest is not just in this election, but in future elections as well and how their primaries work. And they've said, Secretary Pompeo, if this doesn't work for the primary, they have a caucus option.

I mean, it could change the entire nominating process completely around the country and how Republican parties have to, right now as they're under attack, choose their nominees. I want to play this because yesterday the White House had no comment last night. But this morning on Air Force One, President Biden basically agreed with the court and called President Trump an insurrection.

Take a listen by 38. Is Trump an insurrectionist, sir? Well, I think so certainly he's self-evident.

He saw it all. I don't know whether the 14th Amendment applies or let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection. There's no question about it. None.

Zero. And he seems to be doubling down on about everything. Anyway. So they decided to at least let President Biden comment on it. And he came to that conclusion, even though it has not been adjudicated and there's been no due process, that absolutely President Trump, no doubt about it, committed insurrection, going along exactly what the Colorado Supreme Court wanted to hear. Yeah, this is part of a political operation.

We saw it. Remember when he spoke in Philadelphia, Jordan, in front of the big red backdrop where he talked about mega extremism, this is part of their political operation. And this is the tragedy of the court decision. You now have the courts facilitating the Biden administration's political operation and now being reinforced by the President himself. Look, the fact that President Biden wants to say that he thinks that this was an insurrection led by President Trump, he's entitled to do that. He's going to be a candidate for President, it looks like.

He can make his arguments to the American people. I think the American people will reject that and reject the Biden administration. But what you can't do is then take that and move it out of the political process, which is what they're trying to do. They're trying to take President Biden's political argument and deny President Trump the capacity to compete and to advocate for votes from the people of Colorado.

It's indecent, it's dangerous. And President Biden essentially seconding the motion by saying, look, what these courts want to do is just fine. When these were Democrat appointed judges is at the height of hypocrisy and dangerous. Final question is, Secretary Pompeo, because you've been involved in politics as well, electoral politics.

I think it's a dangerous game, too, that they are playing because you could see this going one of two ways. Either they think, OK, we continue to dirty up Donald Trump. We've got these cases against him. And even though his poll numbers keep going up, maybe this this is the one that will say he's an insurrectionist, even if we lose at the Supreme Court and will somehow hurt him. And yet it seems like every time they make this move, more people say, you know what, I wasn't even going to vote for Donald Trump, but they are so much so far against him, I am going to vote for him. And they're actually bringing more people to Donald Trump's campaign. I think it's just a dangerous game they're playing. It kind of worked for them last time around. And they're hoping it works this time. Yeah, look, there's the one element, the substantive element that is the process one, which is that, gosh, if this stands true, President Trump won't be able to be on the primary ballot in the state of Colorado and the GOP there, the Republican Party there will have to figure out another solution.

And then there's the one you talked about, which is just the political one. There's no doubt there will be people who weren't thinking about voting for President Trump or were undecided and who say President Trump has now become a proxy for the Constitution and for our republic and for protecting democratic values. And so I don't think there's any doubt there will be people that say, no, I'm going to vote for that. I'm going to vote for the republic.

I'm going to vote to protect our country, even if it was the case that if this hadn't happened, I might have considered other candidates, whether they were other Republican candidates or other candidates not from our party. Secretary Pompeo, it's great to have you on the team at the ACLJ as a senior counsel for global affairs. Thank you for joining us today. Folks, again, I just want to reiterate this. This is not a battle. And you heard from Secretary Pompeo that we wanted to be fighting at the ACLJ at the end of the year, going into Christmas and the New Year, a battle to determine whether or not you could vote for the candidate of your choice. And this time it happens to be Donald Trump. But also we're representing these state parties who are saying, listen, this is not just for this election. What about all these future elections and the candidates of our choice?

So it's about Donald Trump now and other candidates in the future. But we have to fight this battle and we have to have the resources to fight. You heard from Ben Sisney, you heard from Secretary Pompeo how important this is to our country, how important this is to our country standing in the world. Make sure we have every resource we can to fight this battle. We know we're going to the U.S. Supreme Court, folks. We've got to be ready.

We are working right now all through the night. Donate today. It's the most important month financially of the ACLJ. You do a major donation, maybe year end donation to the ACLJ, it will be doubled up to a million dollar donation.

You can also become an ACLJ champion by becoming a recurring donor. Don't miss the next segment. Jay Sekulow, my dad, joining us. Welcome back to Sekulow as we discuss this Colorado case. My dad, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ is joining us.

He's doing some important work in Washington, D.C. right now involving Israel. But dad, we were all following this last night. We got a video out, even President Trump put it on Truth Social, but there's a lot to dig in here. And really what I wanted to underscore with you on this is the timing.

The ACLJ team is going to be working very diligently through the holidays. Well, that's because here's what happened. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot appear on the ballot. They believe that the 14th Amendment Section 3 is self-executing. There was a three judge dissent.

By the way, all seven judges were Democrats, but three of the judges, including the chief judge of the Colorado Supreme Court, thought the decision of the majority was wrong, that it was taking the vote away from the American people, that there was no due process given. But we're under a very quick timeframe here. So we have a stage in place. And as long as we file our petition for review, we represent the Colorado GOP, who obviously is the main party in interest here. As long as we file by the 4th of January, they will keep in place a stay that will allow President Trump to stay on the ballot until the case is disposed of. So our first documents to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court are going to be next week. We'll be filing what's called a petition for review, petition for certiorari. We may ask for summary reversal. We may not.

We're still looking at that. And then the case, then you have to start doing the merits brief. So the other side is going to respond, and we have to respond to that.

This is going to happen, Jordan, very quickly. I think by mid-January, this issue is joint, and we could well be at the Supreme Court arguing this case. Yeah, I mean, there's two options for the Supreme Court, really. They could take the case and slow it down. But, Dad, that would mean that they would then be getting into almost like general election territory if President Trump were to win the primary.

And then that would be very awkward to say, well, he shouldn't have been on the primary ballot, and then how do you figure that out? So if they take this case, it does appear that even though Colorado put in this safeguard, it keeps President Trump on the ballot so long as the Supreme Court is considering it. It's tough for them to just say, oh, we're going to treat this like any normal case.

They're not going to be able to treat it like a normal case. First of all, the ramifications, it's taking away the right of citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice. I mean, this is an absurd ruling. You talk about election interference. This is election interference in a magnitude we've never seen.

Having said that, this is what it means. We've got a full team on this, probably eight lawyers right now that are working on this and will be through the holiday and into the beginning of the year. But within the next 10 days, they're going to be critical in this case.

What was interesting in this case, we were waiting, we were waiting. All these judges, all seven, were appointed by Democrats. And it was still a very close, unsigned four to three decision where they do acknowledge the weight of their decision of how big it is that a state court is doing this. But they were kind of slammed by the three dissenters on the court saying, one, we have no role in this, two, this is not for us to decide, three, this is just, this doesn't apply because due process wasn't. And the chief judge of the Colorado Supreme Court, that was his major problem was that there was no due process here. Exactly right.

And he's correct. No due process. And the President is not an officer under the Constitution.

That's another huge issue. So the Supreme Court has no choice but to take this, Jordan. But I want to let our ACLJ members know. I mean, we're in our faith and freedom drive.

We did not expect that the Israel thing would be this big. That's why I'm in Washington today. And then on top of that, another Supreme Court case. So this is now the third Supreme Court case for this term. So those of you that can support the work of the ACLJ folks, this is your right to vote.

Go to ACLJ.org. Any amount you donate is matched. And it's our faith and freedom drive. And we encourage you to do that if you're able to do it. It's really important. Yeah, I mean, we've got live cases. We've got January 6th protest cases. And now we have the right for you to vote for the candidate of your choice. This has far-reaching consequences past even the primary in Colorado debt.

So far, no other state court has gone here or federal court has gone here. But we are expecting maybe Michigan and a couple others to follow suit. So we are ready to take this on as we have been throughout the country and make sure that ultimately President Trump, if you want to vote for President Trump, that he will be on the ballot in your state so long as all the other normal rules are met to be on the ballot. And I think what's important here, Dan, for people to understand is that these come out right around the holiday, but the deadlines are also right around the holiday. And so our team is on it. Yeah, our team is on it. And they're working hard. They were working hard last night.

We had conference calls until almost midnight. I want our ACLJ supporters to know that we're on top of this, but this is the most important election case in U.S. history. This is the ability for someone, one sole administrator, a secretary of state or director of elections, to remove a candidate without due process, without being charged with insurrection. And to me, that in and of itself is just absolutely unacceptable, outrageous. And you talk about a violation of constitutional norms and order.

This is the most. Yeah, I mean, I look at this case, Dan, I realize I think that people understand all over the country that the ramifications this has. And that's why we're not just working in this case.

Obviously, in Colorado, we are in Wyoming as well. I mean, we've intervened in a number of cases, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Virginia, in Michigan State. Of course, we followed amicus where we represent 15 additional GOP groups, 16 total states there. So all around the country, we have been defending Americans' right to vote for the candidate of their choice by representing these Republican parties or filing an amicus on on their behalf. But this again, Dan, it puts it front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court. We have an election issue. We have a January six free speech issue and we have the abortion pill issue all before the U.S. Supreme Court this term.

And this case has both the 14th Amendment and First Amendment. So, folks, the amount of work that's going to go into this in the next few weeks is going to be breathtaking. Really, in the next few days. So we really appreciate you and everybody supporting the work of the ACLJ. Listen, we hoped we wouldn't ever we hoped we wouldn't ever have to fight this fight, Dad.

But you know what? Because the strength of our ACLJ champions and you support, we will fight it. We know we will win it. That's why your support is so important. Our faith and freedom here and drive your impact in this can be doubled right now.

You can stand with us in this fight. You can report for duty as we go to the Supreme Court in this historic case. Every gift, big or small, makes an impact. Donate today at ACLJ.org and have your gift doubled.

And if you're able to make it a monthly gift, a recurring gift, you become an ACLJ champion. The ACLJ champions, Dad, have been key. The ACLJ champions have been key, as my dad knows, he's been telling you, to making sure we are ready for these quasi-surprises. I mean, we knew this case was coming out of Colorado, but it was for the last two and a half weeks. And I think it's so important right now that you understand our team is going to be working through the holidays.

Working late last night. President Trump actually re-truthed a video I filmed, my wife filmed of me from my home about this case. And about how we'll break it down on today's show, which I hope we have for you. If you want more information, we've got it at ACLJ.org and I encourage you to become an ACLJ donor today. Either an ACLJ champion, a recurring monthly donor, or be part of our faith and freedom year in drive. Make your larger donation, it will be doubled, it's tax deductible, and you can do it at ACLJ.org. This is about defending your right to vote, not just in Colorado, but in every state for the candidate of your choice, for President of the United States. Support the work of the ACLJ, donate today, ACLJ.org.