MASSIVE SOCIAL MEDIA OUTAGE on Super Tuesday

This is Jay Sekulow. We've got breaking news. It's Super Tuesday, and now we have a massive social media outage. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.

Share and post your comments. Recall 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Okay, it is Super Tuesday. It's a big day. There's a lot of delegates at State, 17 states. And of course, we now have reported a huge social media outage.

Now what does that mean for the election? This, by the way, has just happened in the last hour or so, right, Logan? Last few hours, yeah, you had a massive disruption on meta programs, so that was Facebook, Instagram. I believe Instagram is still down. Facebook is trying its best. I know some of you may not be getting the broadcast today on Facebook. Some of you may. It is a continual issue.

You should have had a problem, too. A lot of them have had big issues this morning. All, obviously, coincidentally, if you want to put that in quotes, on Super Tuesday, and you have a platform, I think people need to realize this, it's not just about sharing an image. It's Facebook shares your polling information, tells you where to go.

On Instagram, the number one most used feature on Instagram is Messenger. So people are messaging each other, telling people where to go, what to do. You had Taylor Swift this morning putting out her statement about making sure if you were living in a Super Tuesday state to go vote, and oddly enough, she did not endorse a candidate one way or the other.

Which they expected she was, actually. Yeah, so you have that happen. All happens this morning as people are headed to the polls. And Facebook, which I would say probably leans a little bit more into the users that would be active voters, even, because you're talking about an older demographic that's probably on Facebook in the states. Has Facebook or has meta put out a statement yet about what's going on?

Last thing I know, they had not. So I'm sure they are working tirelessly to get everything back fully functioning. And I think, again, it's starting to kind of work its way up. Yeah, I just tried to get on my Facebook, I couldn't get on it. Yeah, I think a lot of people are currently having issues.

So I think this is a topic of conversation we should have. Also, even if it's not something nefarious, which I think a lot of people are going to speculate that it is, as you should speculate that it is, because it does feel very coincidental, is the impact on social media, on the American politic, on voting, on everything, when all of this happens at once, when it is really the number one source. Look, it's the number one source.

If you put YouTube in there and Rumble, it's the number one way people watch this broadcast, is through social media. So without it, it is a big deal, especially on specific days like today, where voting has become very important. Not just, again, there's a lot of people who just assume the Republican primary is going to go massive sweep to Donald Trump.

And you think that the Democratic primary, obviously a lot of those are just going to by proxy, by default, essentially at this point, go to Joe Biden. There's a lot of small races. I got more ads for sheriff or for the circuit judge than I ever have before. And you got to motivate people to get out there.

Like I just put my name in Facebook, Logan, and it says we didn't find any results. Yeah, there's a lot of problems going on. But I went there and voted this morning. I have to say, it didn't feel like a massive turnout there at the polling place. But it is what it is here in one of the Super Tuesday states. So here's the question. I mean, social media plays such a big role in everything, like you said, in information. And it happens to be on Super Tuesday. You have to at least go to the thought that this was some kind of planned something.

There's no reason to not at least consider the idea that this is intentional. Sure, it's fairly localized. There was thoughts that YouTube was also impacted, which is Google. I haven't seen that.

But what I've seen is that certainly Meta, which is still kind of the big dog in that industry, has taken a major stumble on a pretty big election day. All right. Well, folks, we're going to take your calls on all this. 1-800-684-3110. We'll take your calls on Super Tuesday. We're going to take your calls on the Supreme Court decision yesterday.

Boy, the left had some reaction to that, including going after their own justices. But I want to tell you, in our life and liberty drive, this is day five for us. As you know, and the world knows, we won a historic victory yesterday.

But as I told you, and I tell our team, next case, and the next case, of course, is our whistleblower cases, which you're going to find out more about today on this broadcast, as well as our immunity case at the Supreme Court. That's why we launched our life and liberty drive, and because the only way to achieve these victories is through your dedicated support. Your gifts will be doubled dollar for dollar. Go to ACLJ.org now and have your tax-deductible gifts doubled during our life and liberty drive. Remember, if you can make that a monthly gift, you become an ACLJ champion, and that means you're supporting us each and every month. And that has already made, I have to say, it's already made a huge difference. So thank you to all our ACLJ members and our ACLJ champions.

ACLJ.org for that will take your calls at 800-684-3110. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110, addressing currently the massive social media outage mainly featured on meta programs or meta products. So that's Facebook, that's Instagram, that's Threads.

And this is Super Tuesday. Yes, and obviously there hasn't been an answer yet. There was a statement that was put out by meta spokesman Andy Stone on X, which again is kind of ironic. He is having to go to another social media platform to make this statement. It said, we're aware people are having trouble accessing our services. We are working on this now.

Obviously, they're going to be working at it pretty hardcore. I just got a message on Facebook. I think Facebook is starting to repopulate, come back to life, if you will. But could not be a worse time unless this was the general Election Day. But I think this also should put a warning out to the social media platforms, even if this wasn't something nefarious, to be extra careful when it comes to Election Day this November.

I was going to ask you this. I think this will be helpful for our audience. So the social media presence now, I mean for our platforms, it's one of our biggest outlet now is all these different social media platforms. Take us inside like a meta right now when this is going on. What are they doing? I don't claim to know everything that goes on, but you know that this is a team working tirelessly right now to get their services back online. You're talking about millions of dollars a minute being lost in terms of advertising.

Explain that to them. They're an advertising-driven company, so if your advertising is not being served, therefore people are probably not being charged. And you're losing, like I said, millions of dollars of revenue every minute that is not up. So that's probably why you saw Facebook get itself back up first, because that's where the ads are probably primarily still. Instagram's still down. Last time I checked, Instagram was still down. Less ads there.

There still are ads, but I'm sure it's a different platform. They do operate independently, but it also shows that there is still sort of an overarching structure, because it's not like one went down. The whole thing went down.

Facebook, Instagram, Threads. It's unbelievable that it's on Super Tuesday. Yeah, I think this should be a warning shot for the general. You need to make sure that if you're one of these social media platforms that highly rise on, number one, advertising revenue coming from politics, which they had kind of gone off of, but now we're sort of back into it.

You need to really start to hammer down on making sure that people can get the information they need. Again, like I said, you had finally a moment from a Taylor Swift, which a lot of people have been talking about for months, whether she was going to say anything politically. Came out and just essentially said a very general statement this morning of make sure that you vote for someone who represents you. I encourage you to go out and vote Super Tuesday if you're in Tennessee, because she's a Tennessee resident, I would assume. And also, go vote if you're in one of these states.

It's very generic, but yeah, I think that's been shared then hundreds of millions of times, and this is the time when it gets shut down. All right, we're going to take some calls, 1-800-684-3110. We're going to get some of those calls up, so if you're on the line, hang in there.

We're going to get to you, 1-800-684-3110. You know, I want to say this, because we had this whole Russian interference thing. Remember in 2016, that's how it all started with the election, and it also was concerns over the social media usage. So this has been a problem now, Logan, for at least nine years. And you would think now, nine years later, we might have figured it out. Yeah.

But the people going after it are probably very, well, no question, they're very sophisticated. Oh, if this does turn out to be some sort of cyber attack. Will we know that? Probably not.

Okay. I mean, maybe they would say. They may say it. They may put out a statement, but I mean, that certainly will not cause your company to do well in the stock.

You may have to. You can maybe explain that for publicly traded companies, like is Meta publicly traded? I believe it's in it. Yeah, so you kind of have to describe why you'd lose millions of dollars in revenue. And you said today they're losing millions. I would assume. I mean, I can't imagine they're not.

How do you survive? Our phone lines are jamming up on a whole lot of different questions. Let's go ahead and take a line one. All right, let's go to Don's calling at Oregon on line one. You're on the air, Don. Hey, Don. Yeah.

Thank you for taking my call. You guys. My question is, um, President Trump wins the 2024 election and the house swings back to the Democrats and control for 2024 2025. President Trump gets sworn in as certified by the house and they refuse to certify him.

What happens then? Well, they, they can't refuse to, when you say refuse to certify him, um, the, once the election takes place, it's exactly what happened in 2020. You have the, the vice President because he's a presiding officer of the Senate will open up the electoral votes because remember it's electoral college still that votes you, you vote and then elect electors, those electors, then certify it through the secretary of state's office or the board of elections.

And then they count the votes. It's a ministerial function. That's all the vice President could do.

It's strictly a ministerial function and you become President. They're not going to, you know, Jamie Raskin is talking about legislation to try to, you know, on this because of the Supreme court decision yesterday. The thing is there is an insurrection act already on the books. The problem is, okay, Trump was never charged with it because you know what, Jack Smith, although he likes to overcharge, wasn't going to go that far. So there is an insurrection act on the books. So none of that's going to get through.

And if it went through the house and Senate, President could veto it and think to override that veto, I think next to impossible. But you know, the hysteria, we're going to get into this later from the left on this Logan is unreal. Yeah. And I think that you saw that in full force yesterday. You saw the left really come after the, the entire court, but specifically the liberal justices because they felt betrayed. Now look, we've been in a situation where we felt that some of the more conservative justice should have voted one way and they did not.

But it rarely happens on a nine zero, you know, usually it's a nine zero. It's because there's a pretty set precedent that they are going to uphold or they're going to, you know, really push forward. And to see some of the attacks on the justice, again, the left justices, the bordering on racism that was coming out of the left in the way that they were spinning these conversations, Justice Jackson, the newest justice. Yes.

Of course. Specifically on her saying that she's the sole reason that, you know, MAGA survived that kind of rhetoric. You know, I don't find that good on either side. I think when you start attacking Supreme court justices and, and really start sending things that are fairly threatening, we don't stand for it on, for the conservative justice. We don't stand for it for the liberal justice as well.

I think it's a disturbing, but you did see that. And, and you really saw the, the never Trump group also really, oh, they're just fuming and these are conservative. Including Mike Luedig. I mean, who I like and was a judge on the fourth circuit court of appeals who said this case was a slam dunk. The Colorado got it right. Colorado got it wrong. They were never right. A state cannot create chaos in election and all nine justices from the most conservative to the most liberal said, you can't do it. So, you know, they let their anti-Trump bias get in the way of their better judgment.

Yeah. Let's go ahead and take another call. Let's go to Donna in Washington. I can give you my voting scenario too. Donna, you're on the air.

Hi. Um, I'm wondering if what King County is doing, I don't know if it's other counties, but at least King County and Seattle on our primary ballot, they put on the part that goes, would go into the ballot box, has our name and requires that we identify which party we're voting for. I'm wondering what that does with the integrity of the primary. I think you're gonna have a lot of questions. I don't know specifically about your situation. You can comment on that.

I can. I mean, I hear you even what you had to do here in Tennessee, which was a little odd. They changed it.

It was different than it was in previous years. You go to Tennessee and then I'll answer Donna's question. Well, in Tennessee, it used to be, you walked in and you had to declare your party, party. You don't have to declare your party to vote. You have to pick your party to vote. I can vote in the Republican or the Democrat primary, but they used to make you say it out loud. It was kind of an awkward moment where they made you declare. You kind of thought this person judging you. Now they have you point to a picture of a, or like a, a printout that they have that says Republican or Democrat and you point and they go, please don't say it.

Point. And this is what happened to me this morning. So I had to do like this awkward point and hope they gave me the right one. They're trying to figure out, I think how to adjust these things. It's like the way we've done it for like a hundred years, you go in and you vote. This is the print down.

And the problem that you have is, is the same thing that Logan just mentioned. It puts you in these weird scenarios where you're either having to call your party affiliation and publicly announce it, or you're, it's on the outside of the envelope with who you're voting for, or at least what party you're voting for. And you know, voting was supposed to be anonymous. I even thought the whole thing with voting was anonymous. So today, and another situation is here in Tennessee is you voted, it then gives you a printout.

So there is a backup. Yeah. Then I went to take it and they're like, you feed it into this machine, but there is a person standing right there and it says, it's not like it's coded. Like it says, here's who you voted for and everything like this is that person definitely read who I voted for.

I mean, not definitely, but it didn't feel like they didn't. This is why voter integrity, listen, this is why voter integrity is such a big issue. And that's why we're fighting for all these issues at the ACLJ. The next big moment in the cases is going to be the Presidential immunity case, which by the way, will affect every President of the United States going forward. And the idea that a President can be criminally prosecuted for official acts should be sending chills down Joe Biden's spine, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, you know, Jimmy Carter's too old to have that liability, but it would affect every President and every President going forward. Then you get to the election integrity issues.

I think some of it's overkill. That's what you're seeing in some of this, but that's where the ACLJ comes in where uniquely positioned folks, whether it's at the Supreme Court in the United States or what we're going to talk about in the next segment, which is protecting FBI whistleblowers who are trying to do the right thing. Logan's going to let you know how you could support the work of the ACLJ on this. It's very, very important.

That's right. We are right now just starting off our faith and freedom, life and liberty, I'm sorry. Life and liberty drive right now. If you're seeing this on your screen, if you're one of the thousands of people who are watching, scan that QR code right now. Make your donation.

Your donations are matched. We appreciate that right now, so go ahead and do it. We are involved in all of these amazing issues right now and you're hearing about it, right? Even right now, we're covering the breaking story of this massive social media outage. There's a reason we're talking about that because it affects everyone and it affects what's going on here. We can't do that without you. Go to ACLJ.org slash life and liberty right now and give us a call, 1-800-684-3110.

Come back to the broadcast, everyone. We mentioned earlier about the whistleblowers that we're representing with our colleagues over at Empower. Tristan Levitt, who's the President of Empower, good friend of ours, someone we're working with closely, is on the broadcast today. They do great work, by the way.

We'll get you more information before we close the segment on how you can get in touch with them. But Tristan, let's talk about Garrett O'Boyle's case, but I think to start, let's go back to what his case was about. I think we need to refresh our... As we say when I'm doing crosses, refresh your recollection, so we want to refresh the recollection of our listeners to what that case is all about.

Sure. So Garrett is someone who has been in the FBI for quite some time. He's had really an impressive career, and he's someone that really contributed a lot in the FBI. There came a time, obviously, when there were allegations that were made against him. And the key thing that I'm sure most Americans will remember is when he and I testified at the same table, and he explained how, as he was making a move from Kansas to across the country, that when he arrived there, all of his belongings were locked up because the agency waited until he was en route to his new post to dismiss him from the agency. So they locked up his clothing, they locked up all of his family's clothing, all of their belongings, and he couldn't access that storage unit. And it was just outrageous, unconscionable, and I think his plea to the American people that the FBI need... People need to pay attention to what's happening in the FBI really resonated for a lot of folks.

We had... Agent O'Boyle was on our broadcast, and I want to play what he said. Take a listen. But the FBI will crush you. This government will crush you and your family if you try to expose the truth about things that they are doing that are wrong, and we are all examples of that.

That was exactly before Congress, and he said the same thing on our broadcast as well. So let's talk about where the case is, because these cases are complicated, Tristan. People need to understand, when you're defending these whistleblowers, you're up against the federal government here. Right, right.

He's at a particular disadvantage. So I was the number two official and the acting agency head of something called the Office of Special Counsel, different from all the many special counsels we see, but it's one that investigates whistleblower claim. And then I served as a Republican on the Mayor's Systems Protection Board. And way back in the 80s, the Mayor's Systems Protection Board determined that it did not have the jurisdiction when people had their security clearances suspended or removed as retaliation. It didn't have the jurisdiction to look at that. Of course, because Mark Garrett is at the FBI also, Congress carved the FBI out from that same appeal chain there. So the real challenge for these is Garrett has gone to the MSPB, ACLJ helped to represent him, that review board, because he couldn't go to the Office of Special Counsel. They won't even look at that because he's FBI, goes to the review Mayor's Systems Protection Board, and they said, look, because of security clearance, we can't even look at this.

And so that's where the route to the DC court went. But again, it is a very uphill battle because of that MSPB decision back in the 80s. And because the Supreme Court held, I think in contradiction to what Congress intended to do, that security clearances weren't the type of government action that you could appeal from. If you get fired, you can appeal that to this board. If you get demoted, you can appeal that to this board. If your security clearance is removed and then you can't work and you have to leave, that's something you're not allowed to appeal. I think that needs to be changed. We filed an opposition to the government's motion to dismiss.

The government wanted to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. And we filed with you all, I am holding in my hand, I don't know if we have it up on the screen. Yep, there we do.

We do. That's petitioner's memorandum of law and opposition to the respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We've had a lot of legal documents up on the broadcast the last two days with the Supreme Court decision yesterday. But Tristan, I think it's important for people to understand this was an uphill battle, but we got a really good order.

Yeah. And to be able to present your arguments is really significant. And this is when we're doing Marcus Allen together with ACLJ, and power is not a part of this case, but we've worked with Garrett. And I think it's really significant that you were able to get the court to allow you to make those arguments.

Because again, most of the time they just dismissed right at the outset because for many years it's just been accepted that this isn't an area where the courts have oversight. Can we talk a little bit about Marcus Allen's case too, because that's when we're doing it together. There's an interesting dynamic on that one too, because you've got a lot of moving parts. Let's explain that one. And again, folks, these are FBI analysts or agents that we're representing with Empower here.

Yeah. So again, it's a situation where he just flagged to his supervisors problems he was seeing. As with Garrett, his security clearance was suspended in retaliation.

And again, he doesn't have a route to appeal that. And so that's where together we have explored these various avenues. There is a case that is down in South Carolina that was brought to try and push the agency to note that part of what he raised was arguably just First Amendment activity, but part of it also was clear whistleblower disclosures. And so as we partnered with ACLJ, we've been able to have a dialogue with the agency because we have filed a lot of FOIA requests. We've been doing everything we can to bring transparency to the fact that without your clearance he's not allowed to work, but he's also not allowed to take another job. And in fact, a FOIA that we have done today with ACLJ is about his request for a prayer journal. He requested a year ago, said, OK, I'm out of work, I'm not allowed to do any work that's related to my FBI work, so I'm going to do something totally different. He made a request to sell this journal on Amazon and it took the agency a year before they got back to him and said, yes, this simple thing. You are permitted to do that outside of the agency. The agency will let you sell a prayer journal. That's really kind of them.

I mean, this is this is the absurd nature, but that's why we're fighting, folks. Tristan, for people that want to get information about Empower, what's the best place for them to go? Empoweroversight.org or you can also link to that from our more specific portal DefendWhistleblowers.com.

That's where we have a fundraising portal because there are many law enforcement whistleblowers like this that need representation because they are they're pointing out problems with how the government's been weaponized against those people to go to those websites and to support the work that Tristan and his team are engaged in and we're thrilled to be partnering with them. Tristan, thanks for being on the broadcast. We really, really appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Logan, we got a lot of calls coming in that I mean, we do lines are jammed. You want to give a little bit of an update on where we are on on the Internet out? Yeah, a lot of it's starting to come back. Instagram and Facebook have started to figure this out.

I mean, it's probably not up for everyone, but it's starting to come back. We're seeing actually quite a few of you watching on Facebook. So welcome if you're watching, it is, again, a very convenient issue to happen on Super Tuesday. I think it's something we need to keep an eye on. I think we also need to keep an eye on what this could mean for the future. And I think for these campaigns, they need to be looking at what happens if on Election Day social media is down. Could it mean people don't show up? I think that that that to me is probably the biggest concern is people forget the general elections a little bit easier to remember.

But for days like today, I mean, I don't know many people other than myself that so far have gone and voted, to be honest. So if you're not being constantly reminded and bombarded with it, maybe you've maybe this could be a big issue coming forward. So we need to stay tuned to it, make sure make sure things are up and running and operating.

But it is an update. At least it seems like things are turning the right direction. We have a lot of calls, though, we should get to coming up in the next half hour. We will. But let me remind people, folks, we're in our life and liberty challenge. You just heard from Tristan Levin, who we're working with. We represent two whistleblowers of the FBI right now that we're defending aggressively in court. And one of them at the now D.C. Court of Appeals, folks, these are real cases with real people that we're really helping that really need help because they're putting in a vice where they can't work and they can't get their security clearance. And we're fighting back and we're able to fight back because of people like you. We got the whistleblower case at the D.C. Court of Appeals. We got the immunity case that we're involved in representing our members on what Presidential immunity should look like at the Supreme Court of the United States. And this is day five of our life and liberty drive. And because the only way we can achieve these victories, of course, is your support. So your gifts will be double dollar for dollar.

Twenty five dollars becomes 50, 50, 100. Go to ACLJ.org now. Have your tax deductible gifts doubled during our life and liberty drive. That's ACLJ.org. I encourage you to do it as we're fighting all these cases. And folks, if you can donate monthly, you become an ACLJ champion. Let me just tell you this, our ACLJ champions have radically changed our ability to fight on these cases.

You become a champion for life, liberty and freedom. ACLJ.org back in the next half hour in just a moment. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

And now your host, Jay Sekulow. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, I remember we talked about this little Internet or social media outage. It seems to be, you know, you think is coming back. Yeah, things are coming back right now.

I would say little. You said about the biggest platform. You've met a down for hours on Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday is pretty crazy. Yeah, it should be at least something we keep an eye on.

All right. We've got a lot of calls coming in on that. A lot of calls coming in on our cases. Let's go ahead and go right to the phones. We normally don't do it this early in the second half, but there are so many people calling.

We want to be able to answer your questions. 1-800-684-3110. Let's go to Susan first in Nevada on line six. Susan, you're on the air. Hi, Susan. Hi. How are you guys doing?

Great. Here's my concern. We have an outage today and of course, I posted where it could, yep, it's election day. We're forgetting that a week ago or was it two weeks ago in South Carolina where the phones went out nationwide, the iPhones on the same day. Yeah, nationwide there was an AT&T outage, same kind of thing that went down for a number of hours and that was all cell service was down nationwide for, again, a number of hours through the evening. There's a lot of theories of what went wrong there and really not a lot of transparency from the company. A lot of, well, there was an update that went wrong. Some people say solar flares happened and caused issues. There's possible. It's definitely possible.

Okay. It's definitely possible, but there's a lot of issues that, I mean, we have a pretty vulnerable ... We have a pretty vulnerable communications situation and remember when you talk about reports of Russia having space nukes and those kinds of things, you know, don't put anything, you know, this is what I said, we got to prepare and not someone saying prepare for this kind of thing, but technology going down is something that very well could have happened. Here's the truth. If that cell phone, I voted this morning, I wasn't sure of my voting place. If my cell phone had gone out after I dropped my kids off at school- You wouldn't have known where to go?

I wouldn't have known where to go and I probably would have not voted. So- You're very dependent on your phone. There's no doubt about that. Now, what's interesting, you mentioned the Russian satellite issue. You know, one of the things President Trump did, which is not people forget, was the creation of the Space Force. Yeah. And now everybody's thinking that's a brilliant move.

And by the way, the Biden administration didn't undo that one because there is a battle in space. Yeah. I think it was a branding issue maybe or just Trump making it easy to understand.

Yeah. Making it Space Force. And we were used to hearing Air Force our whole life, but no one cares. But as soon as you heard space, it evoked Star Wars, it evoked science fiction.

The logos all felt that way. But comes down to it is that we definitely need it and I think we all know that we need it. We've had a division of space aeronautics and those kinds of things for decades. But now it's its own thing because we see these issues. Why?

Because all of this is being operated off of satellites in space and it's just what it is. Let's continue on. We have another call before we get to break. Let's go to Mary Ellen who's calling in Illinois. Hi, Mary Ellen. Always good standard call.

Mary Ellen, Illinois. You're on the air. It's not super Tuesday here, however. My suggestion is that this be counted as a dry run.

We don't want any repeat performances. Therefore the party, GOP and all the candidates from the national and the local level need to have a target date like two to four weeks before the November election that all the voters have in hand the information where and when the voting will be and a sample ballot which was always helpful for me from other elections. And I also think if your state allows early voting, do that as well. This morning I looked up- For exactly this reason. This morning I looked up or last night, what is the sample ballot?

I went to go find it myself. You're all right. It's nice to actually know ahead of time what you're getting yourself into and the fact that also a lot of these places where you vote for early voting, not where you can vote on regular voting and it changes. So maybe there needs to be some thought process going into this if you're running these elections that this could happen and what happens if your digital system goes down? So- Well, I'll tell you what has not gone down and that is the American Center for Law and Justice and our Life and Liberty Drive. And we need your support to keep us in this fight.

Go to ACLJ.org, any amount you donate, we're going to get a matching gift for. Yeah. Yesterday we had a massive win and I don't think that could be understated at all. A huge win.

9-0. It's one of the biggest Supreme Court victories in the ACLJ and we couldn't do it without you. The legal work does not end on this. We must defend the Constitution once again. We need your support to do it though and again, thank you for all your support.

Go to ACLJ.org, have your tax deductible gift doubled as well, we'll match it during our Life and Liberty Drive. Making more phone calls coming up 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to Sekulow.

We are now going to talk about, if you're on hold by the way, stay on hold, we'll get to as many calls as we can. We've got Mike Pompeo joining us in the next segment. But obviously, big Supreme Court win yesterday, 9-0.

Yep. In a court that rarely does that now, do you see a 9-0 ruling on a, especially something that is highly political, and of course, the liberal news didn't exactly take it lightly. Well, because you had, listen, you had some Republican conservative judges that said that Colorado was perfectly correct, that this was a slam dunk, and that includes people like Mike Ludig and others, and then you had the whole anti-Trump crowd that said, oh, the Colorado was right, and then nine justices of the Supreme Court said Colorado was wrong. But I want you to hear the reaction. Our team has put together, and I appreciate them doing this, what we call the supercut of reaction from everything from CNN to the University of Virginia to MSNBC and more.

Take a listen. We've learned that it was a 9-0 decision ruling that Donald Trump can be on the ballot in Colorado and other states. I'm not confident that that will produce a result that's good for American democracy. This is actually what I had been concerned about. I had been concerned that should it go to the Supreme Court, they would rule this way.

I'd laugh if it weren't so sad. My next guest says Donald Trump is still an oath-breaking insurrectionist. Do you have confidence in the Supreme Court? Do you think this court is partisan? The court itself may have overstepped. The court went way further than it needed to go. Our colleague Melissa Murray has called this Supreme Court the YOLO court. The criticism of the court is that they're playing interference.

Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that has had this many opportunities to interfere in the election. The headline here is that this is a unanimous ruling, but if you scratch the surface just a little. This is a 5-4 ruling, I'm part of it. This is actually a 5-4 decision. It's 5-4. Trump will take this, spin it, spread the misinformation, disinformation on it, so it's a win for them.

He's on the ballot and voters will vote and it looks like he's headed to become the Republican nominee for President. You can't save a people from themselves. If they're determined to re-elect him after he organized that insurrection, then there's nothing to stop the people from doing that. First of all, there was no 5-4 decision. It was 9-0 on that Colorado had no authority.

States cannot create chaos. Nine justices of the Supreme Court. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, but they concurred in the judgment.

Explain what that means. Concurring opinion means we agree with the judgment, in other words, Colorado cannot on their own take somebody off the ballot. States don't have that authority. But they thought the court went a little bit too far as far as what they actually held as the rationale. But on the judgment, they concurred in judgment, so 9-0. What's ironic to me is the way the left has gone after Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, and Jackson CC in particular maybe.

Yeah, it is ridiculous. And what is so funny about this is what they don't understand is let's go just to the logical conclusion of what they want the Supreme Court to rule, that oh yes, one state can take somebody off the ballot. They can make the determination. Well, would they have been so upset if it were Texas that had said, look, we're pulling Biden off the ballot.

He's not able to run. They don't understand that this has far reaching implications. This is just not about a pro-Trump decision. This was a pro our constitutional republic decision, and it was right, and the liberal justices got it right and should not be attacked because they actually made a right decision. The left, Andy, if they don't agree with the opinion, all of a sudden you're anti-democratic, you're anti-constitutionalist, and they're going after their own people.

Yeah, their own people become fodder for the mill of attack. I mean, Justice Jackson did the right thing. Justice Kagan, Sotomayor, they read the Constitution. They said that the states do not have the right to create a patchwork quilt. This is a candidate that can stand for Presidential election.

This one cannot. We would have 50 different opinions as to who should be on the Presidential ballot and to preserve uniformity, and Justice Kagan said this during oral argument. Isn't this a national?

Isn't this a federal question? So she signaled that at the beginning, but you step away from the party line by the woke left and you're dead. Whether you're a conservative or a liberal progressive, you are dead in their eyes and you need to go. Joan Biskupic, who was a reporter for the Washington Post for years and now CNN commentator on the Supreme Court, saying this was a five to four decision. Now where are they getting that from? Because it was nine to zero on the judgment. What was the judgment? The judgment was the Supreme Court said, all nine of them, the states don't have the authority to do this. So they are making things up. That's what this is. Absolutely. And the per curiam decision is unanimous, unanimous.

It's not five, four, it's nine, zero. So it's absolutely just misinformation and false information that they're spreading. So here's the real issue I think you've got to get to. And this is, I think, a fundamental constitutional liberty issue. The court made the right decision. They've got another case that's up there right now and it's a big one. And that's this Presidential immunity. We're taking the view at the ACLJ that it's a limited Presidential immunity for official acts, not this absolute immunity that they were talking about, some of Trump's lawyers were talking about. But when it's an official act, which I would assert that what he's been charged with were official acts, then you have to be immune. And that's coming off of a case called Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which allowed for civil immunity from litigation for official acts. But you've got all of this pending at the Supreme Court right now.

Andy, if the reaction to this case, where most people knew we were going to win, I mean, I'm thrilled it was nine, zero, but most people knew we were going to win except for the Mike Ludigs of the world and some of our friends even, some of the commentaries they're writing are so over the top. But now you've got the immunity case, that's a much closer case for the court. It is going to be a closer case for the court and I think it's got to be looked at very carefully. As you said, we're looking at saying that the President should be immune for official acts taken as President in her or his administration post termination of their administration. In other words, a President should not be hampered by having to look behind his back every time he makes a decision for fear that he's going to be prosecuted because he's made a political or a policy decision or a Presidential decision after he is terminated from office after his term expires.

And this is a very subtle distinction that has to be made. And I think that the Supreme Court, I hope, will read the constitution as we have read it in this Anderson case out of Colorado and do exactly what the constitution says. Here's my prediction.

This is always dangerous. I think what the court's going to do is I think it probably is a 6-3 decision. Alan Dershowitz said that last night on Sean's program when Jordan was on with him.

It probably is a 6-3 decision. I think it's the court says the DC circuit got it wrong saying that immunity expired at 1201 January 20th. That's absurd. So that gets thrown out. Then they say it's limited immunity in the sense that it's limited to official acts. There was not really an adjudication of what was or was not an official act here. So it goes back to the district court for adjudication. That's right. If they make a determination that the court has to decide whether there is some immunity and does it affect official acts, it may be remanded to the district judge to make a finding as to whether these were official acts, acts committed or acted upon during the scope of the presidency and thus subject to immunity.

In the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case they said it's even the outer periphery of those acts are covered. So I think that's what they're going to have to conclude. We'll see.

It's going to be very hotly contested though. Make no mistake about it. Briefing due March, March 19th I think or 20th we've got to get our brief in and then arguments not until the end of April, decision probably the end of June, Logan. All right. Let's try to quickly take these couple calls.

Terry in Oklahoma line one, Terry, you're on the air quick. Hi gentlemen. Uh, first of all, I'd like to say thank you so much for the work that you do. I appreciate it.

I was getting ready to donate to your, uh, website here, but I thought I'd call first. My question is, first of all, I worked for state agency in Oklahoma for many, many years and every office had a big placard that said whistleblower law. You are protected, right? You cannot be, uh, harassed anything for making a claim. So why aren't these gentlemen covered under that? It's very interesting because they're covered under, you're under a state system.

They're under the federal system and there's a merit review board that's part of this. And then on top of that, and Andy, you've, you've dealt with this way, both dealt with clearances before they mess with their clearance and that's how you, you freeze these guys out. You just, you don't get rid of it. You suspend it. Right.

And you, and it's a chilling effect that you put on these people by making their life miserable and marking them for future promotion and other jobs and other positions by scaring them into keeping their mouth shut. All right. Hey, let's quickly take Joshua in California, set up our next segment. Joshua, you're on the air. Hey there guys. Thanks for everything you do, particularly in the case for the Supreme court going nine nothing. It's really awesome to see them quote your, your brief submission. So that was really nice to see.

So thank you so much again for that. And so my question is, I know with all the super Tuesday voting going on is going on today, but I did see a article from the daily wire yesterday, talking about the FBI going on the hunt for an Iranian intelligence operative who has been allegedly plotting to assassinate current and former U S government officials, which includes Mike Pompeo. So I just wanted to ask one, what's going on with that. Mike Pompeo is joining us in the next segment. So we're going to talk to him about that. Mike Pompeo was the secretary of state. He was also the director of the CIA. He was involved in the ordering of the elimination, which is good for the world of Soleimani and the Iranians put a price on his head. So look, we were with the former secretary often, and we could tell you right here in our office, there's a lot of security when Mike Pompeo, we have a lot of security here period, but there's a lot of security. There's more security when Mike is here.

Yep. We'll discuss that with him directly. Thank you for your call. We'll make sure to bring that up. I definitely was a report that we all took very seriously. I'm sure Mike as well. I'll be right back with Mike Pompeo on secular.

Hey, welcome back to the broadcast everyone. As I said, we're going to be joined by our senior council for global affairs, former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo. Mike, we just had a call or call in.

I want to talk to you about this because we're getting a lot of people are concerned for you. And we just had a call or call in that read the reports yesterday about this Iranian situation. And you know, obviously this is a serious situation, but I thought whatever you can share, obviously not putting anything at risk, but there's reports out there, obviously that the FBI and secret service and other agencies are very concerned about your safety. And they have been, of course, since you've been serving well, Jay, look, there's, there's no doubt the Iranians are the world's largest state sponsor of terror and that terror is not just abroad.

It's certainly something they've done here in the United States. They've come after American civilians in addition, now trying to come after a bunch of former government officials. And so the reporting you saw yesterday as part of a, a big effort by the United States government to keep all of us safe. The flip side of this is unfortunately this administration has now emboldened the Iranian regime, given them the capacity to increase their wealth. And that only means that their terror campaign can increase. So the reporting you saw on Friday is consistent with a good effort to keep me and my family safe. I appreciate that the state department and the FBI are working so hard on that.

In the end it will have to be an effort to contain Iran more grandly if we're ever going to provide security for not only for every American, but to help the Israelis do what they need to do against Hamas and keep our Gulf state allies and friends safe as well. Let me, did you mention the Hamas-Israel situation? So Israel kind of tentatively agreed, I was on the phone with some of our colleagues in Israel yesterday, tentatively agreed to a form of a ceasefire for six weeks and then Hamas doesn't even respond or they're, they're, they're thinking about it. What do you, you just, I know you just came back.

What are you hearing? What do you think? Yes, this is a complicated negotiation. I think the Israelis have literally taken on a board, a lot of risk to agree to what they agreed to and then to have that rejected by the terrorists who killed a couple of hundred Israelis and are still holding Americans hostage. I'm sure that came, Jay, to connect up, I'm sure that came from their Iranian patrons, the folks who are underwriting them, but nope, this is not a deal we should take.

And I'll say lastly, I think one of the things that gives them confidence to reject the kind of offer that Israel made to them is the fact that you have vice President Harris out there saying we need an immediate ceasefire and you have President Biden talking about, you know, the Israelis need to be careful and behave decently when you, when you do those things, when you just, when you tell the world that the United States doesn't understand the necessity of the Israelis eliminating Hamas, you encourage these guys to stay in the tunnels, use human shields and continue the depravity that we saw on October 7th. Yeah. You know, it's interesting.

We're looking at, I'm actually going to send this to you later. UNRRA has a 501c3 in the United States that they raised money for. Yeah.

And they give millions and millions and millions of dollars to Hamas and they've been giving millions of dollars to Hamas and no one's really gone after them until now. And we're looking at that case right now. So I'll, I'm going to send you that memo in a little bit. Let me ask you this, get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision yesterday.

I see you're still smiling on that one, but UNRRA has been, they're awful. So when I got that memo yesterday, I said, if it's feasible, do it, but go ahead. I'm sorry. On the 9-0 opinion yesterday involving the ballot in Colorado, what was your reaction when you saw it? Common sense restored, a little bit of faith in an institution like the Supreme Court for nine of them to all say how just absurd it is that a state court could invalidate a candidate appearing on election because of a historic constitutional provision that had nothing to do with the presidency. And so they got it right. I'm very happy about that. And now, and by the way, bless the ACLJ for the hard work they did in making that happen. It's really good work.

This stuff doesn't happen just accidentally. Jay, Jordan, you got, you all know that we've got to continue this effort and now this big case, this immunity case, I hope the Supreme Court gets it right there as well. So here's my view on the immunity case.

And this is how I'm arguing it. So President Trump's lawyers have argued this like absolute immunity. Here's what I think the court's going to do. They're going to look at it. They're going to say, what did the court of appeals, this is how you got to start a case. What did the court of appeals get wrong? Well, they got two things wrong. One is they said immunity stops, if there's any, on 1201, January 20th.

It's over. Well, that makes no sense. And Nixon versus Fitzgerald, which is the civil immunity case says, that's not true. And of course in the criminal case, it would be even more appropriate. And also it only apply, the immunity would apply to official acts. So the immunity is a limited Presidential immunity for official acts. There was never even an adjudication of whether these acts were official acts or not.

And under the execution clause of the constitution, where the President has to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, the take care clause, I think the argument is very strong, but there was never even an adjudication of whether there was official acts or not. So I think this is another Jack Smith overreach in my view. We'll get your opinion. I think you have that right. Almost exactly.

Your points are very well taken. It can't be the case that when you walk out of office, the the handcuffs can be put on you, right? That they can, you walk out of the Oval Office and the FBI handcuffs you as you walk off of the property, that that can't be the case. The immunity has to extend for actions taken while in office has to extend in perpetuity for the official acts that you take. That is almost certain. I can't imagine the Supreme Court not getting that piece right. And then the second one is because there was no lower court adjudication, I suspect the Supreme Court probably won't solve that, probably won't rule that there's total and complete immunity for anything you do while you're the President of United States. I think that's, I think that's a bridge too far for this court. And so I suspect that's probably where they end up. And that would actually be a good grounded constitutional opinion, given the facts and the case that's presented to them.

And this would be the right place for future Presidents and future people like myself, who was the Secretary of State, to feel confident that they could do the things that they needed to do for the American people without the threat that when they were no longer in office, they could be held accountable for things that they did there through a criminal prosecution that could be brought by anyone. Very good. We appreciate it as always. And let me let you, you and your family know that we're all praying for you and your safety. And like I said, we had callers started calling us, so I wanted to raise it with you. Well, obviously I was aware of it last week, but again, we're praying for you and praying for your safety.

Thank you very much. All right, folks, you know, look, I wanted to say that because a lot of you are praying for the former secretary and we encourage you to do that. He's served our country, continues to serve with us, but we're going to continue to fight for him. And we're fighting on all of these cases he mentioned. All right, folks, we are in our day five of our life and liberty drive. Our legal work is not ending and you just heard a little bit of it today, whether it's the whistleblower cases, whether it's the Supreme Court, when we saw nine to zero on the ballot, being on the ballot, or whether now it's the Presidential immunity, which we just discussed with Mike Pompeo, we could not do this without you. And that's why we've launched our ACLJ life and liberty drive where your donations are doubled.

That's the way we can defend the constitution. We talked about the whistleblowers we're representing, I mean, on and on it goes, Israel we mentioned, so a lot of activity going on. And right now we want you to be a part of joining us in the fight. We have just launched so many different projects that really could use your support.

And we have also taken the Supreme Court case doesn't actually end all of this. We have to get to work. We must defend the constitution once again. You can be a part of it. We need your support. Go to, this is a really critical time because all donations are doubled. ACLJ.org, you're going to have your tax deductible gifts doubled during our life and liberty drive.

It's really simple. ACLJ.org, you've heard us talking about some of the biggest cases. We are also covering things like the big tech disaster that happened this morning on election day.

We will make sure that you are all not only informed of what's going on, but you're also engaged in a way that you can really have a global scope of what's happening in this world. You can do that by supporting the work of the ACLJ. We provide this broadcast absolutely free. We provide our legal services absolutely free, but we can't do that without your support. So right now, help us defend our constitution, scan that code if you're watching, or go to ACLJ.org slash life and liberty. We'll talk to you tomorrow.