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

WHAT’S NEXT: Biden’s DHS Sec. Mayorkas Impeachment Heads to Senate

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 14, 2024 1:14 pm

WHAT’S NEXT: Biden’s DHS Sec. Mayorkas Impeachment Heads to Senate

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1022 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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

February 14, 2024 1:14 pm

WHAT’S NEXT: Biden’s DHS Sec. Mayorkas Impeachment Heads to Senate.

Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Today on Secular, what's next as the impeachment of Biden's DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, heads to the Senate. Alright, I'm making good on that promise after last week's failed vote to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, for his failure to secure the border. Last night, by a one-vote margin, 2-14 to 2-13, the House of Representatives approved a motion to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas on two different impeachment counts.

Willful and systematic refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust. We also know who did not, the Republicans who did not vote to impeach were Ken Buck from Colorado, Tom McClintock of California, Mike Gallagher joined. He actually voted no as well. Two Democrats and two Republicans did not vote.

So what happens next? Well, this is interesting because it's not a Presidential impeachment which has a lot more structure in place about who oversees it, the timeline. For instance, we know the managers at the House are going to argue the case, but we also know it's not going to happen anytime before February 25th, before the Senate gets some of its other business done. It looks like the Senate pro tem, who is a Democrat, would be the Chief Justice in that situation. But there's also an ability, Dad, which wasn't really an issue so much because of the Republican majority when we did the first impeachment trial. But when you've got a Democratic, even slim majority, you can actually do a motion to dismiss on a majority vote. Don't need a super majority.

Right. So they allow in the system, under the rules of the Senate for an impeachment, actually a motion to dismiss like you would file in court where you move before the trial to dismiss the two articles of impeachment. And it's by, as you said, just a majority vote. So if 51 senators say yes, it is in fact an impeachment. I'm trying to figure out if it's 50-50, if it was that kind of situation, Sinema going with the Republicans, let's say. Does the Vice President, who's the President of the Senate, does she then have the right to be a tiebreaker? I think we're looking at that now. I don't know if we have an answer to that because obviously there hasn't been an impeachment of a cabinet member in 158 years. But remember what the articles of impeachment are over. And I think that's important for people to understand. But the trial itself would take place in the United States Senate. They do the walking it over like they normally do.

But again, a lot could change in the next two weeks as this thing progresses. That's right. So we will take your calls on this. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Because again, not a guarantee yet that this will get tried in the Senate. But if it does get tried in the Senate, listen, I think you can count the votes.

It's unlikely he would be convicted. But what it would give the opportunity to do... That's the two-thirds rule. That would still take two-thirds of the Senate.

Not going to happen. But what it would give the opportunity to do for these House managers is present the case to the American people. I think that's who the audience actually becomes about how bad the border is and how bad the Biden administration and Secretary Marcus are failing to protect America at the southern border on a multitude of fronts. Whether it's terrorism, fentanyl, the amount of illegal immigrants which are just making cities impossible to run, school districts not running, hospitals overflowing and having to close because they can't keep up with the amount of people coming in, and just the lawlessness surrounding it. So I mean, there's a reason to do it, but there's no guarantee that you get to make that trial when you take an impeachment to a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Not likely. And remember that the articles of impeachment are based on his failure to enforce the existing border laws amid what is clearly and everybody's acknowledging is a crisis of high illegal immigration and allegations that he keeps saying are baseless. Folks, let me tell you what's going on. We are fighting on so many fronts at home and around the world right now. And these are crucial fights to you and your family. Without our champions, our ACLJ champions, without our monthly donors, we would not be able to engage these fights, exposing what Secretary Marcus has failed to do. We just filed a brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Charlie Kirk and others on big techs trying to silence conservatives.

We're engaged in 19 lawsuits against the Biden administration right now, and we continue to win. But we urgently need you to be part of the team. Go to and become a monthly donor. You become an ACLJ champion.

That's forward slash champions. All right, welcome back to Secula. We are going to be taking your phone calls, too, as well, but just trying to go through again. Do we have to put up on the screen yet the articles of impeachment? Yeah, so again, the two articles, Secretary Mayorkas was impeached, so this now moves to the Senate. The House will take those articles over.

We know, again, the plan for who will present the case. It would be Mark Green, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, a Republican from Tennessee. Mike McCall from Texas. Clay Higgins from Louisiana. Ben Cline from Virginia. Michael Guest from Mississippi. Andy Biggs from Arizona.

You've got Andrew Gavardino, August Fluger, and Harriet Hagerman, Laura Lee, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. So you've got a big group there, again, to present that case. The question now becomes, though, you're taking it to a Democrat Senate. So you're not going to get a conviction.

So let's be clear. He's been impeached. Now, all that means is the process has been set up. So the House does the impeachment. The trial of the impeachment goes on in the Senate. I think there's a significant likelihood that the majority leader, Chuck Schumer from New York, Senator Schumer, will move, if he has the votes, for a motion to dismiss before any evidence is presented. It's a motion that, like, you would file in a court before you start a trial. And if they get 51, all it takes is a simple majority.

And if he gets that, it's over with. And we have been looking at, if there were a couple Democrats that, or one Democrat that switched over and felt like they were too uncomfortable because of the state they represent switching, if it's a procedural matter, which that would likely fall under that by a parliamentarian, the vice President can be the tiebreaker vote on procedural matters. So Kamala Harris could come in and be the 51st vote to take this over the line for the motion to dismiss. That's not guaranteed yet because they, right now, we haven't gone through the, we don't have all the rules set up for this style of impeachment. It hasn't happened in 150 years. Yeah. So it's different than a Presidential impeachment, which is chaired by the presiding officers of the Chief Justice of the United States.

There's been four impeachments in our US history of Presidents, two on President Trump, two other Presidents have been going through impeachment proceedings. But this is different. And I think that, I think you have to have a reality here of what is likely to happen. So look, the border crisis is significant. ACLJ Action, by the way, our team did a great job of getting, I think, was it 7,200 letters to Capitol Hill urging that this happens. And the problem that you have is Mayorkas goes up there. Remember, he wasn't even acknowledging it was a significant crisis until, until really forced to do it. And when the, of course, he's taken his lead a lot of it from the administration.

So that's a lot of what's going on here, but I think we have to be clear what's at stake. The House got this through, but Jordan, we got to look at this by a one vote margin. Yeah, I mean, it's a one vote margin.

That doesn't really matter now because it moves out. He's been impeached. Do you think Mike Johnson did his job by getting it out of the House? Yes. I mean, they had, they had a little bit of hiccup last week because of, again, you had the majority leader. Yeah. So he had to, he was getting treatment, wasn't able to make it back in time and Al Green was able to come from the hospital to vote. So some hijinks there, but at the end of the day, when the vote was taken, even with losing a couple of Republicans, and by the way, we are now down because of the race last night in New York, that special election that Republicans lost by just 10 points in that, that former seat held by Republican Santos, which will have another election in November.

Yeah. That means we are down to a two vote majority in the House of Representatives. And by the way, our teams researched it out. Generally speaking, vice Presidents, because they are the presiding President of the Senate, can vote in Senate procedural motions if there is a tie.

And that motion to dismiss, I think, would be deemed a procedural motion. We've got a call coming in on Mayorkas. Let's go ahead and take it up to line four. Yep. Let me go right to the phones.

If you want to talk to us from there, 1-800-684-3110. Listen, no questions are wrong on this. This is unprecedented territory because last time we had this happen with a cabinet member, none of us were alive. It was 150 years ago, a very different Congress.

Rachel in New York online, four year on the air. Yes. Hello. I'm just calling on with all the mess that's going on at the border and everything surrounding the impeachment. Why, why is it going to be killed? I mean, clearly there's a big problem. Why don't they see it as a problem?

I don't get that. Because an impeachment is uniquely a political process. So what happens is the House voted to impeach. That means the person should be removed from office, at least that's what the House is alleging.

It's basically like an indictment, except it's in a political context. Now, the important part here is it goes to the Senate. And when it goes to the Senate, they actually try the case.

And to get a conviction in the Senate, the Founding Fathers said it would take two-thirds of a vote to impeach. That is not like, I don't see any way in which that happens, but the reason it was important for the House to do it was to get on record that this border crisis is a crisis. And the Homeland Security Director who's in charge of all of this is not taking the necessary steps to protect the country.

And that's the, it's malfeasance as a form of high crime or misdemeanor. But as Gerald Ford said, high crime and misdemeanor is whatever the majority of Congress says it is. Yeah, I mean, it's very much up to Congress. I think the bigger issue now that's at play with the Senate is, are there enough senators in, Democrat senators in red states that are just under too much pressure to vote yes on a motion to dismiss? I would imagine if that vote will even be close, Chuck Schumer would take the risk of trying to get the motion to dismiss, to see if he could get it to, you know, 50-50 to bring in the Vice President. Because again, there's really only a couple of those senators left.

It's not impeaching the President or removing the President here. And they would argue this is, you know, the American people don't want us wasting our time on this. They want us to do it, you know, on legislation. So you can see again how we're looking at probably, you know, end of this month towards, so February 25th, sometime after that, the articles will be delivered. And then this kind of process begins on whether or not we're going to actually get a full-scale trial in the U.S. Senate. I wouldn't be spending so much time on the motion to dismiss, except for I think in this one, it is very relevant. And just again, because of the slim majorities.

You want to play that sound? Yeah, over the weekend on NBC's Meet the Press, when Mayorkas joined, Kristen Welker, take a listen. Do you bear responsibility for what is happening at the border, what the President himself has called a crisis? It certainly is a crisis. And well, we don't bear responsibility for a broken system, and we're doing a tremendous amount within that broken system.

But fundamentally, fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it. Well, I mean, fundamentally, the President has executive authority through executive orders, which this President, no President has failed to utilize. He could have also not reversed some of the Trump policies that would have prevented these massive surges. He did on day one. He did on day one. That was part of what he went in on.

So Mayorkas' answer, there's not technically even legally correct. But anyways, so that's where it is. Let's go. People are calling in on this and other topics.

800-684-3110. Yeah, Dan in Minnesota on Line 6. Hey, Dan. Hello, guys. God bless you.

Thanks for what you do. Obviously, all of us commenters here in America know that Mayorkas is breaking the law. According to Margie Taylor Greene, there are six pages of law that he's broken. He's releasing these people into the country and, you know, beyond cutting the wire in Texas, you know, wanting to cut the wire and letting people flood in.

You know, it's absolutely a joke. We have to have this vote because we need to identify these cowards and spineless politicians who aren't defending this country. And can we impeach?

A question for you. Can we impeach some of these congressmen who refuse to stand up for the America that we know and love? No, they're elected representatives, so that would not be a ground for impeachment. Yeah, I mean, so they'll have to answer to their constituents, which they do every other year.

Some of them are excited not to run again. Yeah, I mean, so Ken Buck, congressman from Colorado, Republican, voted no. Tom McClintock from California voted no. And Mike Gallagher as well joined those 210 Democrats in casting nay votes. There were two Democrats, two Republican members who didn't vote.

Sometimes that's for personal reasons and they just can't get their health reasons. So I'm not going to cast any blame on those two or those four at this time, but they were very clear about that. They were always no votes. I believe they were no votes last week as well.

So not a surprise. Their constituents will know that. And if they get challenged in a primary, certainly the primary candidates will let that be known. But they think they're making the right decision for their constituents.

Yeah, and the fact of the matter is, look, we just need to deal with the status as it is. Mayorkas has been impeached. He's not going to be convicted in the United States Senate.

I don't think anybody has an expectation of that. I think it's more likely than not – I don't even know if there'll be a trial in the United States Senate. I think there's a 50-50 chance at least maybe more likely than not 60-40 that, in fact, what you end up with is a motion to dismiss that they vote, which is a simple majority. And the vice President can break it if there's a tie because she is then the President of the Senate.

So I'm just – we're just giving you the facts as they exist. But Mike Johnson did his job, the speaker of the House, by moving it out of the United States Senate with articles of impeachment. Folks, you know, all of these issues that we talk about, we're front and center at the ACLJ, whether it's international issues, whether it's domestic issues like we're talking about. The ACLJ action delivered I think 7,200 letters on the Majorca situation.

The border is a mess. Without our champions, our monthly donors, none of this would be possible. So I want to thank those of you that are already signed up to be a monthly donor, supporter of the ACLJ. You're a champion for life, a champion for liberty, and a champion for freedom.

Also, at times it can be hard to give, but there are other ways which you can help us. We've got a petition up at dealing with some of these big tech issues, silencing conservatives. We're just a few thousand short of hitting our goal of 50,000. You can go to, look up the petitions, you can find it there. We're going to talk about the case later in the broadcast. We've engaged in 19 lawsuits against the Biden administration for their policies.

We encourage you to go to forward slash champions. That's right. We also had 7,000 plus of you sign letters to members of the House to support the Mayorkas impeachment through And I want to thank all of you who took that time to do that, to take those actions.

Welcome back to Secchia. We'll continue to take your calls, too, on the impeachment as well. But we want to get to some other issues as well throughout the program. One of those, of course, is some judicial nominees that the President is making. And again, you know, we don't just pay attention to the Supreme Court nominees. We pay attention to those circuit court nominees, district court nominees. And there's a Third Circuit nominee that is getting a lot of negative attention right now, rightfully so, because of their associations with not just anti-Israel organizations but almost terrorist-supporting organizations at, well, at universities like Rutgers who set up places for convicted terrorists who have now been deported from the United States after being convicted of terrorism to come and speak.

More than speak. Rutgers Law School's Center for Security, Race and Rights, which is obviously their anti-Israel research office, has also platformed a convicted terrorist for a fundraiser, has become obviously the nominee, a deal. Manji has a little baggage going into this. Jeff Balaban is joining us. Jeff, you were in Washington yesterday talking to members of the staff of the Judiciary Committee.

What's the sense of what we've got here? This is a radical appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These are the courts right under the Supreme Court.

Yeah, this is a disastrous appointment. I mean, there's the normalization and the elevation of people who hold tremendously radical views and not just anti-Semitic views. These are truly anti-American views. These are supporting groups like Hamas, which are foreign terrorist organizations that are terrorists against America and in American interest, kill Americans.

And he supported financially a center. And by the way, Jay, we obviously at ACLJ have some experience with Rutgers itself. Rutgers has a systemic problem with anti-Semitism and support for jihadists. And so the fact that they're now trying to mainstream this and they're calling the Democrats are calling this an historic appointment. Well, it is historic, but in a terrible way. Imagine someone like that having life and death power making decisions at the federal court level.

It's actually terrifying. So aiding and abetting the enemy, which is Hamas, you would think would be a disqualifier to be, Andy, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, let alone any place else. Let alone any place else is right. District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. And yet the President has nominated this person who is with a big law firm, Patterson Belknap, before he got into the judicial business. He's a Muslim American litigator. That doesn't bother me as much as the fact that he's an anti-Semite and he's anti-Israel.

And we need to admit that and we need to say that. But he's also platforming, he's supporting groups that are platforming at Rutgers University convicted terrorists that were deported from the United States for terrorism activities. That's the problem here.

This is the person you're going to put on the Court of Appeals, which is one step below the Supreme Court of the United States. So, Jeff, my question is, did the Biden administration think this was just going to sail through? Well, it could be worse than that.

They could have thought it was going to sail through. Look, there's been a lot of talk lately about how they're trying to appeal to the part of their base that is anti-Semitic and is anti-Israel. The part of their base that's frustrated by whatever support Biden has shown for Israel, even though that support comes with a lot of arm twisting. And as we see increasing pressure more and more and now more hostile talk against Israel, most of which, if not all of which, is completely undeserved. And these attacks on Israel seem to be for domestic purposes. It could well be that this was seen as a win to get somebody with these kinds of radical views by the left appointed to the Third Circuit.

But it is very frightening. Go ahead, Jordan. They've also, I mean, this individual wasn't just involved, but donated money to the organization, $6,500. We talked about it, kind of how they platformed that University of South Florida professor who was known at the time. This was a big news story with Samuel Arian at University of South Florida, who pled guilty in 2006 to aiding Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Ultimately, he was under house arrest for a short period of time in New Jersey and deported to Turkey under some kind of diplomatic deal. But this was a professor at a U.S. school tied to the same organization that was, again, getting propped up by these organizations. So what we're trying to say is that these individuals, when they are going for seats on the judiciary at time, when you look at their background and you look at who they've been associated with, and they're supposed to be the system where they can judge and rule without politics, without that coming into play. They've been involved with these very extremist groups. If you were a Jewish American who came before that judge, would you already feel like you were fighting from the toughest? Yeah, already fighting from behind, even if you brought the case, had a stronger case.

Well, you've got that, which is a factor of how it looks, you know, just supposed to be blind. But you also got to realize that the courts of appeals are the breeding ground for Supreme Court nominees. That's right, Jay.

It's the step right below the Supreme Court. What I found interesting is that this center at Rutgers University to which this Judge Mangy, or soon, or perhaps not Judge Mangy, Mangy contributed $6500 to, as Jordan said, hosted an event last December called, listen to the title of this, The West Israel and Settler Colonization of Palestine. Yeah.

I guess there's some bias. So here's the question, Jeff. Radical appointment, no question. Here's the question.

You met with Judiciary staff. What do they think is going to happen in the Senate? They're fighting hard on the Republican side against this. It's a tough fight.

It's still a fight. They did not seem to feel that this was going to go the right way unless there's a lot more pressure put on. See, the problem is that the left and the Democrats now are saying if you oppose this nomination, it's because you're an Islamophobe. And what's deeply troubling is why aren't there any responsible Muslim American groups decrying this guy for supporting terror? This is the problem. It's not that he's a Muslim. The problem is that he supports terror.

Where are the groups saying we are Muslim Americans, we are against these terrorists, and those who support terror? And so until that exists, there is an imbalance in the political pressure, and it's very frightening. We've got a caller coming in. Let's go ahead and take it. It's Bill from Wyoming on Line 5. Hey Bill, welcome to Secular.

You're on the air. Okay, thanks for being interested in my concern. Is there any way to stop this person from getting on? I mean, let's face it, this is really radical to get somebody like that. So the way to stop him is you're going to have to stop him, Jeff, at the Judiciary Committee, and that's who you met with. And Bill, this is the problem. It seems like we've got a real uphill battle right now. Do we have Republicans that are supporting him? I didn't hear that there were Republicans that are supporting him.

I heard that there are Republicans who are getting some internal pressure from their states. But we didn't get into a nose count yet. We're going to have further conversations.

What does this do to come up? I don't actually know that we have a date. Okay, this one has kind of been slowed because of the issue.

That's been the issue, is that there's been a lot of... Well, the best date would be never. I'm sure that's what the administration is looking at, too, and Democrats are looking at, too. They don't want to have a loss on this. So if they don't think they have the votes, they're not going to likely put it forward. The question is, though, if it gets out of committee, that's going to be tough.

It's tough to beat on the floor. Jeff, it sounds like to me we've got to win this in committee. I agree. And the fact that we don't have a date yet does suggest that the pushback is beginning to work and there needs to be much more pushback. And we need to be more active as we are, and others need to be active in pushing back against this and not to be afraid of being derided as Islamophobes.

It's nonsense. This has nothing to do with his religion. What about ACLJ action on this, Jordan? Yeah, I mean, ACLJ action I think we can do is then put together a much more targeted campaign to those senators who are on that Judiciary Committee, Democrats as well, to make sure they can't vote without knowing that their staff and their teams received all of this information that we're talking about, and in more detail even, about this nominee. So we can certainly get them on that. Okay, very good.

All right, thanks Jeff. Folks, again, support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. Become an ACLJ champion. When you support with your monthly gift, you become a champion for life, liberty, and freedom. You go to forward slash champions, whether it's issues in the United States. Globally, you're part of the backbone of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Go to forward slash champions and become a supporter of the ACLJ. Coming up, how about this, CIA spying on 26 members of the Trump team during the 2016 election. We've got a lot to talk about on that one.

Welcome back to Secio. We're going to be talking more about Internet freedom and your freedom online as well with a new case we are filing at the U.S. Supreme Accord representing Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, Robbie Starbucks. So we'll get to that later in the broadcast. I do, again, want to kind of set up, too, the impeachment of Mayorkas has moved forward out of the House, now to the Senate. I don't think there will be any action there until after February 25th.

We'll have a set of rules done. Those rules may allow for a motion to dismiss, which only requires a majority vote. I think that Schumer would want to do that if he thinks he's got at least 50, because it does look like Harris, as vice President, could come in as President of the Senate to make that tiebreaking vote if it's seen as procedural. Some of that will come down to the questions they have to present to the parliamentarian before we get answers exactly on that. So no guarantee yet that there will be a trial in the Senate, but if there is, I think, you know, the American people, it could be very beneficial to the American people to see why this impeachment was done. It was done because of the serious crisis that's not just the people coming across the border, but the Americans being killed because of the drugs coming across the border, the human trafficking, the crime, the cities being overrun, institutions being overrun.

You know, the list goes on. We've also got, you know, waiting on the Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment issue, and Tim is calling from Colorado on Line 1. He got his ballot in the mail here, and he's got a great question for us. Hey, Tim.

Thanks for taking my call. Yeah, I was very surprised last night when I got my primary ballot here in Pueblo, Colorado, and Trump's name's all over it. So, but the thing that my question is, is this possibly just Colorado trying to stir the pot?

Here's what happened, Tim. The order from the Colorado Supreme Court said if Colorado's GOP, who we represent, or Trump lawyers, if the lawyers filed a motion petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States before January 4th, and I think we filed on December 27th, Trump would appear on the ballot. So we went immediately, we were the first ones in, filed a petition for certiorari, and then Trump's lawyers came in about four days later, and that petition was granted, the case has been argued, all the briefs are in. So once we got the petition for certiorari actually in, that assured, at least on the primary ballot, that the former President would be there. So that's why he's there. It's not indicative of the ruling, although I am optimistic we're going to win.

It's just that's what the Colorado Supreme Court set up. Let's go ahead and take another call. Let me take Dorothy. Yeah, Dorothy Conlon from Ohio online too. Hey, Dorothy.

Yes, how are you? Thank you for taking my call. I had three points. In 1973, they said that the people at the abortion clinic only had to report half of the abortions, so there could very well be 130 million babies. Exactly, you have no idea what the actual number is, you're right.

That's one point, and the other point is that with all the sacrifices that President Trump has made for this nation, he didn't take a salary, he didn't take down, he lost so much of his wealth just defending himself and the country because we're really in a revolution. There's been some point of an iron curtain type of a media blackout where the people are not getting all of the information they should be getting. You know, it's interesting you said that because one of the things we're talking about in the last segment of the broadcast is what big tech's doing on that media blackout, and we just filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States actually on that very topic. In the last segment of the broadcast today, Dorothy will be talking about that. And folks, this is again the reason why we encourage you to support the ACLJ.

What Dorothy just said is a perfect example. The big tech silencing conservatives, we're in the Supreme Court of the United States on that right now. While we were doing the other Supreme Court cases, that brief was being worked on.

It was an amicus brief for Charlie Kirk, Robbie Starbuck, and others, and the fact of them and David Harris. The fact is there is this silencing of conservatives, and when you become an ACLJ champion, you are helping us in court to fight for life, as was just mentioned, to fight for liberty, to fight for freedom when you give monthly to the ACLJ. So just go to forward slash champions, and whatever amount you donate, you become part of our team. I'll tell you what else it helps us. The champions are part of our team that helps with our matching challenge campaigns, too. Your money can be matched.

You have to agree to it, of course, but many do, and that becomes a big part of what we do. forward slash champions. All right, welcome back to SECU. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We are joined now by Rick Renown. Rick, we are learning more about what happened back in 2016.

This is unreal. Just to kind of rewind back to 2016, the amount of surveillance that was being done by the CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies targeting 26 Trump associates before the 2016 collusion claims, this is, again, we know that these were, they were asked to both meet and develop relationships with individuals. We haven't got a list of all the names.

Obviously, people like Carter Page, George Papadopoulos would likely be in there, but there's 24 more. I mean, a large group of people that the CIA and other intel groups were targeting. And, Rick, I'm sure the American people want to know, you know, at this point, how concerned is the Trump team this time that this could be yet happening again? Look, I think we should be very concerned. We found the phony dossier and the phony charges against President Trump during the Trump administration.

We tried to clean it up, declassify and come clean. But now we're finding even more information. My first question is, is why wasn't this information presented? Who knew about it?

We certainly did not know about it at the DNI's office. What we need to do is a thorough, thorough scrubbing of what the CIA knows and what they haven't released. There is troubling information in this latest report.

Rick, you were the director of national intelligence for the United States, and this is what they're reporting. The U.S. intelligence community had identified 26 Trump associates as people to, quote, bump. And then it says, bump meaning make contact with or manipulate and to become an intelligence basically source.

And then bumping is when a reason is manufactured to meet with the target of interest in order to develop a relationship that could lead to further intelligence. This was of a Presidential campaign, and it launched the Bob Mueller investigation, which there's nobody knows more about that than Jordan and I because we handled it. This is – as this stuff becomes public, it's outrageous what Brennan and his colleagues were doing.

And you wonder what did Obama know in all of this? Well, the most troubling part of me is that the CIA was asking foreign intelligence agencies to bump. They're asking foreign intelligence agencies to do their work and say, hey, can you reach out to these individuals? This is a coordinated effort by the United States government to get other governments to come after their political opponents. That is so outrageous, I can't even begin to describe the fury that people have towards the intelligence agencies that are asking our foreign allies and partners to spy and help them spy on political opponents in the United States. This not only is wrong and immoral and outrageous, but it also, Jay, sends the message to our partners that they can do the same thing, that they can spy on their political opponents, that they can push their political opponents off. The immoral character to tell other countries that this is the way the United States works is super troubling. Rick, they said that John Brennan identified and presented the targets to the U.S., what they call intelligence sharing partners, the so-called Five Eyes.

And that would include the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Can you explain how all that works for our audience so they get a sense of when somebody like a DNI goes to these agencies, what does it mean? So we have different levels of partnership, of course. We have certain countries that we trust and that we share a lot of information. Certainly, there's a level of NATO allies that we share information with. But there's this thing called the Five Eyes, and that's a group of nations that share everything.

We have a commitment to share everything we know because we totally trust them. And so this is what's troubling to me is that this didn't get outed sooner. And remember, one of the Five Eyes is the British government, and the Steele dossier was developed over there. There's a lot of indications about who was doing that in our embassy. And it's always been troublesome to me that Gina Haspel, who was the deputy CIA director in the Trump administration in the very beginning when Mike Pompeo was the CIA director, and then she became the CIA director, but she was the station chief in London. When all of this was brought to light, when the Steele dossier was being manipulated with the Hillary Clinton team at the State Department, this woman, Gina Haspel, was in London.

And I've always, after working with her, I've always been very suspicious of when she's telling the truth and when she's telling the truth to the President of the United States, because I've actually seen her lie to the President, and I've had to out her for lying to the President. You know, you talk about the Steele dossier, Rick. So, you know, for those that don't remember, the Steele dossier was what allegedly started the whole Trump investigation on Russiagate. And then Steele, when cross-examined under oath in a deposition, basically acknowledged that none of his sources were verified. In fact, some of the sources that he said he used, when they went to the sources, said, we told them none of this is verified.

Salacious was what Jim Comey said. But it got through to all the intelligence agencies and was used against a candidate for President. And it was opposition research from Hillary Clinton. It was literally the Democrats' opposition research that became a narrative, and the intelligence community believed it. This is what's so outrageous, is that they just had many individuals who were leading the intelligence agencies at the time had an inherent advocacy to go after Donald Trump and to help Hillary Clinton. That's what happened. They believed fake information.

They didn't check it. They used it. And then they participated in this whole charade with the U.S. government at the time and the intelligence agencies.

And now we find out our partners. I think this is what concerns voters today. And it's, again, it goes back to what happened in 2016, what we learned through these last eight years. But how much of this is going to be a factor if, in fact, President Trump, who looks like he'd be the nominee of the Republican Party this time through, that they kick this into gear already? For all we know, they've already kicked something into gear on this.

I mean, remember, they started very early with this, very quiet, and then suddenly they start releasing it out on you to try and hurt you. This time it was because they got caught off guard that he got elected. Now they know he's been elected before, so he can win.

So do you think that they wait? I mean, I don't think that they're done trying to utilize this kind of tactic to get people at least worried or concerned about voting for President Trump. Look, there's no question that we need to be suspicious of all of the information that's coming out of Washington, D.C.

The intelligence community is absolutely not able to police the leaks and the partisans inside their organization. But I want to give people a little bit of hope, because if Donald Trump is elected and we are able to go back in and really clean up these bureaucracies, there needs to be gut renovations to many of them. And I'm talking about the leadership. The leadership needs to be gone and held accountable for their actions. And I believe that we can do it. I believe that there are enough career intelligence officials who hate the leaks, who hate the partisans, and who want to clean it up. We've just got to give them a little more voice.

You know, the nature of the injustice here, I think about this. Remember the attorney Kevin Clinesmith, he was sentenced to probation in 2021 after admitting that he falsified an email in order to renew a wiretap through the FISA court against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. So they had already been wiretapping him. And to keep it going, he actually changed an email. And for that, he was suspended for the practice of law for six months.

That was it. And then I can give you the list of lawyers that have been disbarred in their representation of the former President. So this double-tiered justice system all emanates because of what the intelligence – I'm not trying to blame the entire intelligence community.

And I know, Rick, you've got a lot of respect for the intelligence. You were the director of national intelligence. They do a great job. But my goodness, the abuses here have been unbelievable. The abuses are well known by the Intel career officials. I've had a hard time when I was director of national intelligence getting career officials to brief members of Congress. They didn't even want to brief members of Congress because they know that these leaks are manipulated and they impact their career. They look like they're being political. They're having to defend information. And so there's a lot of individuals who are really sick and tired of the partisan and political process that's happening.

But there's no question there's a two-tier justice system right now in Washington. We can fix it. We've got to send in the outsider.

We've got to send in the guy that absolutely will fix it. You know, and we're working also on the FOIA aspect of this to get information. Thanks, Rick, for being with us. We really appreciate it.

Yep. Thank you, Rick. You know, folks, coming up too, we'll take more of your phone calls at 1-800-684-312. And as you know, I mean, exposing Secretary Mayorkas at the border, the failures through our FOIA work. Now we've got that impeachment done. We just filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Charlie Kirk. We're going to talk about that because the Biden administration using big tech, as you've seen, to silence conservatives. And again, we know it can be hard to give.

And there are other ways you can help. Sign the petition at We're just a few away from hitting 50,000. Go to today. All right. Welcome back to Sec. Well, before we get to your calls, too, I want to talk about this new case we've got at the U.S. Supreme Court right away. Just because I think it's important that people hear it.

We've been talking about it at the end of each break. And we're representing Charlie Kirk. We're representing with Turning Point USA. Robbie Starbucks, a well-known conservative activist and leaders online who have been silenced multiple times before by social media companies.

Of course, they use those platforms to get their message out. They've had to go other places. And a lawsuit has been filed. It's made its way all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. ACLJ is involved representing them. It's important.

Yeah, it is. And we represent also. So we represent Charlie Kirk, David Harris Jr., and Robbie Starbucks, all conservatives. Because you had a situation where the Biden administration was basically in cahoots or pressuring the big tech companies, the social media platforms, to silence these voices. CC Hill worked on this brief with Craig Parshall, who heads up our digital media and the social media legal side. What is the core issue in this case that the Supreme Court's going to be addressing? Yeah, the issue is going to be did Biden's administration, the government, basically do something, use these big tech platforms to do something that the government themselves could not do, which was violating our free speech rights. Censoring a point of view.

That is correct. And it was viewpoint censoring. And just like you said, we not only point out the viewpoint censoring, but we point out the coercion in this case. Because we say in this case, the government burrowed itself into the decision making of the massive online platforms.

The benefit to the executive branch and its agencies was the suppression of dissenting opinions politically inconvenient to the government. And then the benefits to the host platforms were avoiding pressure by the executive branch to repeal or amend Section 230, as well as protection from prosecution. Okay, but let's put that, that's our legal argument.

Let's put this into an understandable context. You had big tech companies being told by the Biden administration, watch these people, don't promote this view, be careful on this. And these tech companies felt that pressure and they have protection under Section 230, so they're not liable for the content that's posted.

Yes. So they wouldn't have been liable for the content posted, yet the Biden administration was trying to basically skew the point of view. That's exactly right. And they were literally threatening them saying do this or else we will pull your immunity. We will actually go after you. They threatened them that they had to do this.

They had to censor our speech or they would be attacked. All right, I'm putting up on the screen, this is the brief we filed in the case at the Supreme Court of the United States. A lot of briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States in the last eight weeks here at the American Center for Law and Justice. So this case is going to be argued in March. We'll get a decision by June.

Not hard to predict, but very, very important case as it relates to the censoring of free speech. We've got callers. Let's go ahead and take some calls, Jordan.

Yeah, right to the phones we go. I want to go to Jill in New Jersey first on Line 3. Hey, Jill. Hi, guys. How are you doing? Good.

I just want to say I'm so glad I found you guys on Family Talk and I'm an ACLJ champion and I say my prayers for you guys and your team all the time, every day. Regarding Mayorkas, just disgraceful how he was and how he would talk to Mr. Hawley and just lie. Is there another avenue to kind of go after him like civil suits? The impeachment is it because they're immune from, you know, enforcing policies. The impeachment was important in that it highlights the issue.

I do not think – I don't think there's going to be a conviction. But the impeachment process is there for something – it's a uniquely political process. So Mayorkas has been impeached.

He will not be convicted at the United States Senate, which takes two-thirds. That's the – well, listen, this is when you have elections. I would say elections, you see, have consequences.

Absolutely. They have consequences. And we've seen here that the Republicans have made it known that he's done a bad job. And, you know, whether it goes through or not, at least it's been a public statement that he's done a very bad job. Yeah, here's the problem, okay? The Republicans won this impeachment by a vote, literally, 214 to 213.

If one other – if somebody had the flu that day, it wouldn't have happened again. And this tells you when you've got a divided Congress like this and then Jordan losing the Santos seat yesterday, what does this mean legislatively going forward? Not good. Legislatively, you're going to get very little done. I mean, what I hope for is that we get some kind of funding to Israel at some point done. I mean, so far that's not been able to get through. They weren't able to use the supermajority to get through that because the White House whipped votes against it, so there were not enough Democrats to join to get to, like, the 280-ish they needed in the House. There's certainly a majority in the House that would vote for it, but we don't know if there are in the Senate. So the House could go through a longer process and ultimately get it out of the House. No guarantee that, though, gets through the Senate there. So, I mean, I think you're looking at, again, either extreme compromise, which has not been the way this Congress has worked at all until really – unless you're talking about, you know, keeping the lights on kind of compromise.

So there's a couple sticky issues. The issues are, of course, the White House doesn't want money to go to Israel unless 10 times the amount of money goes to Ukraine and the border, and they can claim that they sent something to the border. They don't like these individual spending bills that Republicans favor, so they know exactly this money is going here, this money is going there, this money is for this. So I think, again, when you get these tight margins, listen, you're not going to get a lot of superconservative legislation through the House. That's not because of Mike Johnson.

That's because just the numbers. You're losing Republicans even on impeaching Mayorkas. So then in the Senate, you're already down, too, and with the vice President being able to, you know, cast tie-breaking votes and things like that.

So I think what we see in these final months of the Biden presidency is only really like emergency actions, and maybe we get to see some funding to places like our allies, Israel, because right now it doesn't look good that we're not funding our allies. Let's go to Roberta from Colorado, on Line 4. Roberta, welcome to Broadcaster on the Air.

Yes, sir. My question was, if Biden signs this executive order he's been threatening to do to keep the border open, and he said he's going to codify it, what can be done if he codifies that executive order? Well, codifying means he can't codify it. That's the role of, he's confusing the branches of government.

That's Article 1. That's Congress. The legislature can codify it, and that is not happening out of this Congress. No, just like I was telling you, nothing like that would be going through Congress right now. It wouldn't make its way through the House, and if some version did, that version wouldn't make its way through the Senate. I think we have to be ready for very little action in the House and Senate until we get again to the next election cycle.

And listen, I mean, we're down to just the slimmest of slimmest majorities in both the House and Senate. I'm going to go back on this brief at the Supreme Court for a moment, because I understand, folks, the silencing of conservative voices is really viewpoint discrimination if it's done by the government. What we're alleging in our brief, and let me see if I want you to explain this, is that the government is using these social media companies to do their bidding.

Absolutely. They use the big tech, the online big tech companies, to censor any voice that did not agree with the White House and its policies. They did that because they could not do it themselves, so they used these companies to do what they could not do themselves. And the reason they can't do it themselves is if they did it, they could be sued for violating the First Amendment rights of our citizens, because that's viewpoint discrimination. I've argued three viewpoint discrimination cases at the Supreme Court.

We've won them unanimously. Nobody on the Supreme Court thinks you can engage in viewpoint discrimination, but that's when the government is doing the censoring. Here they're using a third party to do it to try to get around it. Absolutely, and they did it directly, and they did it with coercion. They literally threatened these companies.

What did they threaten them with? They literally said, we'll pull your immunity and we'll go after you with antitrust enforcement. So you've got antitrust enforcement. Get rid of Section 230 for the limited immunity. Folks, we're in the Supreme Court. You're a supporter of the ACLJ.

Look, we have to walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak. We've got a lot of cases going on right now. I saw in that report yesterday, we have 156 situations we're handling right now domestically. We're getting the international stuff.

It's just domestically. So your support of the ACLJ is critical. If you can support us monthly, you become an ACLJ champion. You're a champion for life, liberty, and freedom.

I encourage you to go to forward slash champions. Have your voice added to our petitions, and there's one up right now on a lot of these issues on silencing conservatives. Almost 50,000 signatures there. Go to Just look up petitions. Boom, right there. If you want to support us monthly, forward slash champions.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-02-14 14:25:45 / 2024-02-14 14:46:41 / 21

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