Today on Secular, Trump and Biden prepare for a must watch debate. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now, more than ever, this is Secular. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Secular. These debates even happened. Would we see Presidential debates anymore in our political process after the Commission on Presidential Debates had basically broken down? Both parties, the Republican and Democrat Party had left. So these are being organized directly by media outlets with the campaign.
So the campaigns go, they negotiate out with the media provider. How long are we going to do this? What's it going to look like? Remember, initially they said they were going to be seated. Now they're going to be standing.
It's, you know, 90 minutes usually is the timeframe, but they can usually go over that a little bit. And again, you'll see kind of debate topics. Now this one, they're making a big debate about no audience in the room. But usually even when there is an audience for these debates, when you get to the Presidential level, they're pretty quiet. You don't hear a lot from the audience anymore. So I think people think about that more in the primary audience where the crowds can be a little bit more raucous and bigger rooms, a lot more people on the stage. I think the first question we have for you is, will you be tuning in?
That's question one. I think a lot of our listeners and viewers are going to be doing that. But the second question is, do you think anyone is going to be convinced to vote differently because of this debate? I mean, we know that the country is very divided, that most people have likely already made up their mind when it comes to the Presidential campaign.
So you're talking about a very slim margin of voters that you may want to tune in, but I'm not sure they're even engaged yet in the Presidential process in the middle of summer. I mean, having gotten into the July 4th holiday and you're asking them to kind of start considering issues that we usually saw really later post-convention, we would see these debates leading right up until people were voting. But of course, with early voting now, you can even have, I guess, debates. Well, September 10th, no one will be voting yet. That's the second debate.
We'll see if it actually happens. There could be additional debates added. I always have a lot of criticism for the right on this because I don't know why we let CNN host it with two liberals, one Jake Tapper, who I'm not attacking him, but he was a press secretary for a Democratic congressman. So why are we allowing these people to be the only host?
Is it to ultimately say, see, we can go anywhere and look tough? But you're giving over a lot to the Democrat candidate when you have people who are moderating the debate who are hostile to your ideas. Not even about you personally, not even about Donald Trump, but they're actually hostile to the ideology of the Republican Party. Then CNN took it one step further, Will. They are instructing other news outlets about how they have to, you can air it on Fox News, so a lot of our folks will probably be watching it there, but they'll see all the CNN stuff.
That's right. So CNN really got the cash cow here when they were given this debate and they're providing a live feed of the debate to other networks, but they have very strict rules about how you must air it. They must run it in full screen. The CNN logo must be visible and they aren't allowed to cut away from the debate or on air analysis during commercial breaks. So there will be some commercial breaks and they can't go back to the Fox News panel to break it down. They have to stick with the CNN feed that's being given. They must refer to the event as the CNN Presidential debate and they must advertise and their TV listings must say CNN Presidential debate simulcast. A couple other rules are that the White House Correspondents Association, which is the organization that covers the President, it's made up of many outlets. They requested to be sitting in the room.
That request was rejected. And then also there will be a limited number of still photographers in the room and 800 others will be watching the feed in a building across the street from the main studio. So that's where the audience will be.
They will be sequestered in a secure location across the street. Folks, we also of course had that draft opinion of the abortion yesterday after we were on air and the actual opinion came out today. We're going to break down for you what is actually the opinion, what the truth is, the difference between how a lot of the liberal media tried to jump onto this last 24 hours before actually getting their hands on the full opinion about this major victory for abortion.
Well, was it? We'll explain it for you. Folks, this is life week. Now, of course, with that opinion, I think is a time we've got to double down our work.
Go to ACLJ.org. If you donate $60 today, you'll get that lapel pin to keep our funding for that. Alright, welcome back to Sekulow. So during life week, this again commemorated the overturning of Roe vs. Wade two years ago, and we've got these lapel pins you've seen us wearing all week. Then we're asking if you donate $60 to the ACLJ, we'll send you this lapel pin.
Remember that victory for life. But also a reminder, another opinion on abortion. People are saying it was leaked. I think this time the Supreme Court came out very quickly and did not announce some investigation. It wasn't three months before.
It says it was a clerical error, you know, uploading to a website. They pulled it down really quickly. I think the only thing I will say on that right now is, you know, it's a little bit of a shrug because the day before at the same time, the only time this is happening is with cases involving abortion. So it's not happening on the other case. It's not happening on Presidential immunity, which is a pretty big issue that could come out tomorrow or next week. If the court goes into that, which it might since there's I think seven cases still left that they've got to decide on. But the issue, again, with this leak or technical error by the publications department of the US Supreme Court, as they said, gave the media 24 hours to decide how they wanted to frame this issue. Who won, who lost. And I want to just be clear for everybody about what the actual Supreme Court opinion was. Can we put it on the screen for everybody?
Because you can put the entire opinion on the screen and maybe you can read it for yourself right there. All it says is it's per curiam, so it's unsigned. The writs of certiorari before judgment are dismissed as improperly granted and the stays entered by the court on January 5th, 2024 are vacated. When you get into the separate opinions by the court, you see it's like a three, three, three split. There are some justices, obviously, who wanted to take the case, wanted to actually issue a merits decision because I think you had enough information to do that. You have this emergency federal law in place. You had Idaho's law in place. One of that, the initial law in place in Idaho was a very old law, predated Roe versus Wade. Then they updated the law in the middle of this case. They also skipped from the district court right to the US Supreme Court. There were a lot of issues here. But when they did that move to go right to the US Supreme Court, you would think after going through all the briefing and going through after all the arguments, the Supreme Court might do more than just punt this case back to the courts. So let's just give you the honest truth about what happened here.
I will go to Justice Jackson. She is a supporter of abortion rights. And in her opinion, she's actually very angry in her opinion. The only reason the justices on the left who are pro-abortion signed on to this is because it lifted the stay. But the stay was lifted on a law that is now very different than the law that was initially being challenged in court. As she ends her opinion, she says, so to be clear, today's decision is not a victory.
That's a lot different likely than what you heard on MSNBC for 24 hours yesterday, even right now. Now, it'd be interesting tonight to see how the Presidential candidates here, but I want to go to CeCe Howe, too, because, CeCe, you know, I don't even have to go to the justices that we agree with more often. I go to the justices who we probably agree with less on this issue, obviously. And when they say it's not a victory, I'll take them at their word.
Right. And it really isn't a victory. Like you said, starting off, you know, and some people might not know what a writ of certiorari is. But basically, when you file a petition for writ of certiorari, you're basically asking the Supreme Court to take a case. And so when the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari, that means, hey, we've looked at this. Yes, we're going to go ahead and take it and we're going to hear oral argument and we're going to give an opinion. In this case, what happened, they actually took the case. They granted writ of certiorari. They heard the oral arguments. And then when they're supposed to be giving an opinion, you're exactly right.
They basically punted and say, oops, we made a mistake. We shouldn't have taken this case. Now, there are concurring and dissenting opinions that go along with that.
They kind of get into the meat of it. And you'll have one side, like you said, you know, Jackson, she's saying it's not a win. And she tries to say, to be clear, that, you know, the Idaho law prohibits what the federal law requires. And the federal law we're talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. And Alito rightly points out that Judge Justice Jackson is completely wrong because EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, actually, in its words, says that and it obligates a Medicare funded hospital to treat, not abort, an unborn child.
So there really isn't a competition. The Biden administration kind of created this problem. And here we are trying to resolve it. And again, you said three justices, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas said, yes, we should take this and resolve it. Then three justices basically said, well, there have been some changes and so maybe we shouldn't take it. And then three justices said, yeah, we shouldn't, absolutely should not take it. In the oral argument, too, the Biden administration's Solicitor General gave up on one of the main arguments that expands the abortion right when she said that they are not arguing that they want a mental health exception. So it can't just be someone going into the hospital saying, you know, I'm having a nervous breakdown, I need an abortion. So they took that out. So, I mean, this, again, they kind of limited how far they would go. Now that's because they're dealing in, that was the key in overturning Roe vs. Wade is there are arguments they used to be able to make that they can no longer make.
They know they are going to fall. And that's what Justice Alito was saying, that even with some of the changes in the law, why did we take this case then? Like, why did we take this on a special appeal? Why did we take it on the merits?
Idaho has a strong likelihood of success. Why did we stay, issue a stay until now, you know, we were leasing the stay, for what reason, why? And now they're saying it's because the law, Justice Barrett's saying it's because the law has changed. It's basically a different law and a different argument. Again, it's the Supreme Court putting this issue back and it's going to be back to them in the next year or two. Yeah, absolutely.
It is. It's a head scratcher, really. Like, what is going on here other than the fact that they just didn't want to take a position on it right at this moment in time. And I agree, of course, with Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch that they should have taken it.
They granted cert. They heard the oral arguments. They were ready. I want to take a call, Will. Let's take Kelly from California on line one because it ties right into the debate as well tonight. And I have a pretty interesting take on this Supreme Court decision and how it could affect the debate if the candidates are prepped enough on it. Kelly, welcome to the show.
You're on the air. OK, thank you. I believe it was Donna Brazil that said the reason they chose Biden was because he would be easier to manipulate. Also, Biden is Catholic and Catholics are to be excommunicated for aiding and betting abortion. The Catholic Church is also 100 percent against IVF in vitro fertilization because in the process it destroys human life. I know the abortion issue is going to come up in the debate, and I thought that it would be a good counterattack for Trump. Well, I think this is the counter for Trump, this decision, because their argument is going to be you appointed the justices that overturned Roe versus Wade.
You put women's lives at risk. And then they're going to say, you mean the same justices who yesterday said even without Roe versus Wade, we're going to carefully look at all of these laws to make sure that they are intact with existing federal law. I mean, right there. Now, again, will they get enough into the weeds to make that argument?
I think you could just say that. You don't necessarily get into everything that we just did and with a full legal analysis. But this opinion itself shows that these justices who believe that Roe versus Wade was a bad decision based off judicial precedent, based off the Supreme Court precedent, based on how it even got there, and that it should be an issue, again, that's resolved by legislators, either at the federal or state level, and most of us believe at the state level. And that's what you're seeing here with the Idaho law, is not the Supreme Court immediately going in and doing everything they can to overturn any laws that might allow some abortions.
But they're doing the opposite. They are trying to, I think, be open-minded to say, OK, well, there is this law that exists on the books. If someone comes in, does it have to be that they're going to die?
Does the ER doctor have to certify that, or could it be such a serious health matter? They don't know if someone would actually die, but they would think that they would need to intervene and possibly perform an abortion. That doesn't sound like a very radical position that's outside the mainstream of the American public. And for those of you listening as well— If Donald Trump can communicate that, I think it kind of shuts down the issue in a way that he didn't have that from the Supreme Court 48 hours ago. And I think also one thing to point out for our listeners that are pro-life and that do care about this issue, when you had the 24 hours of headlines from the left saying that this court has granted Idaho's ability to perform more abortions, one line in Justice Barrett's concurring opinion—and she was of the nature, too—she kind of had the majority concurring opinion, which said, let's not resolve this now. But she says, thus, even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho's ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact. So this didn't get rid of the whole law. The injunction at the lower court wasn't against the whole law. It was just that very fine Imtala provision that they're fighting over. And so her analysis is that the majority of the law remains in place, and that is a victory for the pro-life community and for the pro-life cause to limit the number of abortions in the state of Idaho.
Folks, this is our life week at the ACLJ. And again, this shows you this fight continues state by state. I mean, they even say that this is only about Idaho.
You know, this is not about the entire circuit even. It's about a very specific law in that state. So we have 50 battles going for life now because we got it out of Washington, D.C. by overturning Roe v. Wade. Support the work of the ACLJ and ACLJ.org. We have this lapel pin that we wear to remind us about overturning Roe v. Wade and that the fight for life continues.
I think this opinion reminds you of that as well. We still have to go into court making the arguments to protect the life of the unborn as well as the mother. With the protections there in place to protect women who are pregnant. Again, go to ACLJ.org with that $60 donation. We'll get you that lapel pin. Welcome back to Secular.
As a reminder, we're taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. In the second half hour, we'll spend a lot of time on the debate. Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us as former acting director of national intelligence, but also a key advisor to the Trump team. With these kind of debates and kind of our own analysis, we've all been a part of it. Some of us have been a part of these Presidential campaigns.
Even preparing in debates against some of these candidates as well. So, the issues for you. I've got questions for you. I'd love you to think about it.
1-800-684-3110. I know a lot of our audience, the audience is going to tune in whether they want to or not. You know, they kind of almost can't not watch the debate tonight unless you absolutely are just not able to do it at 9 o'clock Eastern Time. But, there are a lot of people you have to wonder, we are just in the kind of the middle of summer. This is still very early for a lot of general election voters. So, the question you ask is, does it affect how anyone votes enough to where this could affect which candidate wins? Is anyone going to, you know, are you going to be able to sway people or is it just do you have a bad night or not?
That then just they put on replay. I will tell you, personally, when I look at how these debates have both shaken out, both for the CNN debate tonight and the ABC debate later in September, I think Republicans are making mistakes. I know the idea is you want to say, I'm not afraid of having a debate. But, why do we walk into debates controlled by CNN with two Democrats asking all the questions?
I don't know. I mean, I think, again, we want to act tough and we think we can take our message everywhere. But, when they control your microphone and they control the questions and they know that one of the two or three issues that are most concerning to American voters that maybe you're going to have the toughest time answering, but they're going to shy away from issues on Joe Biden potentially.
I mean, we'll see how the moderators do tonight. But, if their history is any indication, you're putting two almost paid for Democrat activists and one was. I mean, that'd be like putting me up there and saying, I'm just a moderator.
That's not true. That wouldn't be true because in my past, I've worked for only Republican candidates and only conservative causes. So, I'm probably not going to come at the Democrat the same way I would say the Republican because of the ideology. The views I have on the issues, it's not even about the person so much as I strongly disagree and believe they're wrong and dangerous policies. So, it's hard to just hold that back and just say, well, I'm just a neutral questioner of fact. Because do you see a lot of Republicans running to this network doing a lot of interviews? I don't.
And there's a reason why you don't. You know that if you go on there, there's a good chance you're not going to be treated fairly at all. And you're just going to be kind of getting all of the gotcha questions for five minutes.
It's like a survival game, but not for Joe Biden. And it's not like ABC is that much different. That's just more mainstream news. I think there's going to be a lot of talk on abortion, but what we really should be talking about tonight is how are we ending the war in Ukraine? What side are you on when it comes to Israel and getting the remaining hostages out? Why did you run away from the Abraham Accords? Why is Fentanyl killing so many Americans? Why do we have an open border?
How did ISIS get 400 people through? These are the kind of topics I think we'd like to know about, but instead it's going to be you took the reproductive choice rights away from women. I have a feeling. And, you know, election integrity. Now the ACLJ we're going to announce today is fighting to defend election integrity in a state which has had issues with it, certainly in the last election cycle, in Arizona. And I want to go back to CeCe on this because, CeCe, our client is Arizona Right to Life, and they believe that the abortion industry is circulating a petition they want on the ballot, a ballot initiative, that's one, that the initiative itself, the language itself is fraudulent, that they're not explaining to people what they're even signing when you do these petitions to put it on the ballot, that they don't know what they're actually signing, the language that's being used.
They have evidence that there have been fraudulently added names. I mean, these are major issues that the abortion industry has to face, but it's something we have seen across the country. They are fighting hard to sneak these abortion, pro-abortion laws into the state constitutions, into the state legal system with very tricky language.
I'll say it again. This is how they do it. It sounds like, for instance, if you read this while you're on the street, they're asking for you to sign. And all they're saying when you want to sign is saying so people can have a chance to vote on this issue, but if you walked into the ballot box and you read this and you're not an attorney, I'm not sure if you would understand where this opens up to basically abortion on demand.
See if you can figure it out. Quote, before the point in pregnancy when a healthcare provider determines that the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical measures unless justified by a compelling government interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means. That's it right there. It's those words at the end that basically open up abortion on demand because they can say unless it's justified by other means. And that's a doctor doing that.
And again, this basically takes it away, the questions of the doctor. It's up to them. They can always say they had a compelling interest to handle it.
Would most people understand that language? And so, Cece, that's one main point that we will bring is that even the language itself is not clear to the voter. Absolutely. And in this case, like you said, it's a petition that they have to circulate and gather names to actually add abortion to the Constitution to have a constitutional amendment on their ballot. And so it's really at the point of processing this petition and making sure that it was legally done. And Arizona Right to Life has gathered a lot of evidence to prove that they have not gathered names correctly and as required by law. And under Arizona law, anyone can challenge the validity and sufficiency of an initiative or referendum. And so that's what's happening here.
And that's what should be happening here. We should be holding, you know, the pro-abortion side, their feet to the fire. If they're going to do these constitutional amendments and these ballot initiatives, they have to do it by the book. And we're able to jump in at this point and actually take them to task and proving that they've failed to properly verify signatures, that they've misrepresented the nature of the abortion amendment, and they've fraudulently added signatures. Now, Cece, the deadline for this petition for the signatures to be submitted to the Secretary of State is July 3rd. So just a few days from now, there's no action we can take at this point because it hasn't been submitted yet.
They're just in this process. But working with Arizona Right to Life, who is our client in this, they have been documenting this. They have evidence of this, of what they believe is fraudulently obtained signatures or fraudulent addition of signatures.
What kind of is the next steps if they are able to submit with enough signatures that what they're saying are valid signatures to the Secretary of State? Yeah, well, we'll follow that. And if a court proceeding is necessary, we will absolutely be ready to file that.
You know, we've been able to help them to even be able to tell them what they need to gather to make this challenge sufficient. And, you know, hopefully it will go through without a problem because of all the evidence that they've gathered. You know, folks, we are, as you see, with this case that is likely developing right on July 3rd, as Will said, we've got the evidence that Arizona Right to Life is putting together.
We're going through right now. And if this is submitted by the abortion industry, we're ready to take action. As Cece said, the Arizona law is very clear that anyone may challenge the validity and sufficiency of an initiative.
So you don't, it's not like a real big standing hurdle to challenge this. And we've got evidence of this fraud already. So we are going to be prepared to go. This week is Life Week, not only to commemorate the overturning of Roe vs. Wade two years ago, but to redouble our efforts on the unborn, as we talked about.
Whether it's what's happening in Idaho, kind of explaining that for you, getting down to the truth, and what's happening in Arizona, which is one, an election integrity case, and a case that involves protecting the life of the unborn, protecting mothers as well. We are, again, we are asking for your support. You see our lapel pins that we're wearing. Any donation for $60 or more, you will get your own lapel pin commemorating the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. And it's also a reminder to pray for our attorneys and our teams out there who are fighting these battles. Pray for us at the ACLJ.
So it's great to have, whether you're wearing it every day or it's just something you keep as a kind of a memento to remind you. We'll be right back. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Hi, welcome back to Sekulow.
Remember, we're taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. So tomorrow we'll have full debate analysis for you. You know, again, I don't expect maybe the majority of Americans to last all through 90 minutes of these debates. But I think a lot of Americans are going to tune in because it's interesting.
Why? I mean, Donald Trump has been in the news more than any other former President in our history. So you've got a former President running against a current President.
That's unique. They're both two oldest people running for President at the same time. Joe Biden has had a tough time at live events where he is literally, shouldn't be so difficult, where he's just announcing something or reading something off a teleprompter or a cue card. And if he's having tough times there, how will he be in a Presidential debate years later? Now, remember, they brought that issue up in the last time they debated, and Joe Biden came out pretty tough, pretty strong.
If he does that tonight, remember, he can kind of, could he shut down? That's why I say you almost put issues aside just to a bit and say a lot of this is how do you look, how do you sound, and can you defend yourself? And if you also beat back against a narrative that you are somehow aging out or you're not capable of leading, even if you can only put it together for this hour and a half, Donald Trump has seen it before with Joe Biden. He's seen this happen before where the Joe Biden who you've seen during the week is not the same Joe Biden who showed up at debate night.
Listen, you're going to get a lot more natural energy from those settings because, again, it focuses on you, you're defending yourself, you're trying to keep your presidency and your views. But the record number is 84 million, which is a lot of people. That was Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Certainly, again, a lot of interest there.
You have a former first lady, it's Hillary Clinton, would have been the first woman who was President of the United States versus Donald Trump who had just become a politician at that point. So a lot of interest there. I don't know if the just kind of the people who just want to tune in because, you know, Donald Trump's interesting. They've seen him now as President for four years.
But when you put the two of them together, this could turn out three or four different ways. Yeah, there's a lot of different scenarios that people could be tuning in for. And I think it's also important to remind people, love it or hate it, the debates are not so much about getting a really good point across to convince the voters. In reality, ever since really the dawn of the televised Presidential debate, it's been about optics. And you think back to that Kennedy and Nixon debate and what many people point to losing the presidency for Richard Nixon is the way he looked on television. JFK was polished. He had the makeup on. He was prepared for the lights and he looked great. Richard Nixon would not put the makeup on, was kind of begrudgingly doing the whole televised debate.
And he came across optically looking less telegenic. And a lot of people, a lot of political scientists point to that debate as a pivotal moment for JFK in that election. And I think that that's what you have to remember is that these are made for TV events. These while there may be rallying points for your base, when you score a point with a zinger of a soundbite or a really good response that at the end of the day, a lot of it isn't about the policy that they put forward.
A lot of that's already known. They're not going to come up with something novel in a debate. But the way they handle themselves, the way that they are able to last, the stamina that they have on that stage under a grilling when there's lights. And in this case, there's no audience.
So you don't have that kind of natural adrenaline boost that you get when people are cheering for you. That's really what it comes across is who's more fit, who has the more stamina to be President of the United States. That's what may come out here. What's interesting is you also have two candidates who are also like running to protect themselves from actual legal prosecution with Joe Biden. It's his son, Hunter Biden, with Donald Trump, of course, his entire business empire and his own convictions. I have a feeling Joe Biden is going to bring that up a lot. He'll try to bring up Hunter.
He'll punt on that. I mean, again, that'll be interesting to see how the moderators handle that, because are they going to be fair about it or not? And about the investigation, about the laptop. We'll take your calls and comments at 1-800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. I will tell you another issue that's going to come up tonight, the issue of life and protecting the unborn.
ACLJ.org. Donate that $60. You'll get that lapel pin. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Secchio. Rick Rinnell is joining us right now. So, Rick, I want to go right to you on the debate tonight. Most of our audience is going to be the type of audience that tunes in. There is a concern, though, that I want to get your thoughts on that kind of permeates through. I see it in all the comments.
I see it in callers waiting to talk to us tonight. That is that this is CNN, and it's under CNN's control, and it's under CNN's moderator's control. And that the next debate is, if it goes through in September, is ABC's control. And that this is going to be another kind of partisan attack on Donald Trump, and it's really three against one.
I mean, how do you feel about that? Because obviously the campaign and the Trump campaign decided to go into this. They didn't say, and I don't think Donald Trump himself is afraid of that setting. But I see how our viewers, our supporters, our listeners could be concerned about that kind of hostility towards President Trump tonight. Well, I think from 2016 it's been like 50 to 1. The media is completely against Donald Trump and Republicans. We know that. The most powerful person in that room tonight is going to be the sound engineer who gets to cut off sound.
I'd like to know if he or she is a partisan Democrat. Look, this whole setup is a way to get Donald Trump, but they've been trying to do that for a very long time. I think it's going to take a lot of money and a lot of people and a lot of manipulation to try to convince the American people that we're not at war and gas prices are low. They've got a huge bar to try to convince people that things are going well.
We see, we hear, and we feel that things are not going well at all. And so you have an entire team and media in Washington that have to try to defy reality in order to win. Yeah, especially when you're actually talking about the issues and the facts and the numbers. And we also know, though, and I think this is part of the risk analysis that you have to do as a campaign, Rick, is that if Donald Trump has a strong night and you're able to walk into CNN with the feel like that, and people realize that most of those people don't agree with you, don't even like you, but strongly disagree with your ideology too and where you are on the issues. If you come out strong, it's almost like a double win for the Republican, less so for the Democrat. Joe Biden surviving tonight is not some great victory for Joe Biden because he's got, as you said, a lot of support there.
People who might prop him up, help him out with words. We'll see which Joe Biden shows up tonight too. And we've seen different Joe Biden show up at debates before, even four years ago. What should people be looking out for issue wise? What do you want to see kind of the focus and where do you think the American people? I think it's I think it's issues like the economy. I think it's the border and the wars that are going on and how we see it into those wars as well. Yeah, look, I think that the media and the Democrats are in a dangerous position here by lowering the bar and saying, you know, Joe Biden doesn't make mistakes and just gets through it.
He's a winner. Are you kidding me? We have high gas prices. Inflation is out of control.
Have you been to the grocery store lately? Have you seen the wars that we're in? If Joe Biden just survives tonight, it's going to remind people that he's not doing anything to help us have better lives. I think Joe Biden has an incredible high bar tonight. He's got to try to convince people that his multiple wars is good for them. He has to try to convince people that shutting down energy in America is not the reason we have high gas prices. He's got to convince people that his terrible policies and spending are somehow not the cause of our high grocery bills and that the killings that we're watching are not because he's got an open border. I don't care if he survives.
I don't care if he barely is able to get by and he doesn't make any moments where he glitches. The economy and the border and world affairs are terrible. He better tell us why we're going through this mess. I don't think he can ever convince us that going through this mess is the right thing. Rick, an interesting timing for this debate is that we had squad member Jamal Bowman lose his primary fight in New York this week. So at a time where Joe Biden had been increasingly flirting with the left, the far left of the party, and adopting many of the policies that that radical wing of the party wanted him to adopt, now you see that one of them, one of the most outspoken, whether in terms of anti-Semitic rhetoric or the actions that they take, actually fell in their election because of how progressive they were portraying themselves. Do you think that there's a calculation by the Biden team that maybe we need to pull back on looking so progressive, or do you think tonight he leans into that full bore?
It's a good question, and I would say that from watching, I think Democratic leaders think that they should be pulling back, but it's too late for Joe Biden to pull back. He's already gone full on in with these crazy, wacko, radical, woke ideas. He can't change horses now.
What they have to try to do is really get their radical, woke voters out to the polls and try to convince people that this is a base election. Look, my attitude is he's already lost. He's lost because gas prices and grocery bills and the open border and a war haven't been able to change, and we're going into July.
He's not going to be able to change those. He's not going to be able to spin his way out, but I do believe that people like James Carville and others are beginning to say, we're going down a terrible, woke road. We're way too far left. We're going to have to change, but I think that's a message for after Joe Biden loses.
They're starting that messaging now. Joe Biden can't change directions at this point. It's way too late. Rick, just a final question for you, and then we'll, of course, do all the analysis tomorrow after we actually get the hour and a half debate. You've been in these prep before. We know Donald Trump preps differently. Joe Biden probably in much more traditional ways, but doing this segregated way at Camp David. But the idea here again is you have a former President with, and he did not have this before, with a record, a record of peace in the Middle East, record of low gas prices, a booming economy.
We get hit by COVID. Sure. I think he's going to have to discuss two of the legal challenges. It's going to definitely come up, but that is different than most candidates have had when they go up against a Democratic incumbent in the past. And so there is a real contrast there. Jake Tapper can't ignore that. Yeah.
Yeah. You got to be able to point to the facts of what President Trump's record actually was. This is a unique situation because we've got a President versus a President and they both have records. It's not promises of what they might do. It's actually evaluating what they did do.
And that's fundamentally different. I think the reality, too, is that Joe Biden is trying to memorize lines and stats and Donald Trump is talking to people to make sure that he understands all of the issues. That's going to come very clearly through tonight because Donald Trump is going to be able to dig into issues in real time, respond. Joe Biden is going to be looking to memorize a quip or a line. No, I think you're going to see a lot of that tonight, too.
Joe Biden, that's kind of what we've seen from in the past, too. It's a lot of lines. Repeat those lines. Try to get people to think about that.
Repeat numbers. Go that way. And Donald Trump actually going right into issues and not being afraid to kind of actually go right to the facts and even disagree with, you know, and say, we could have done this better.
You could do that better. Get into the issues. And you actually see the thought process a lot more, which I think the American people like. Rick, we'll get you back tomorrow, too, to get the full breakdown of this debate tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, folks. So thanks, Rick, for joining us for pre-debate. We'll get you for post-debate analysis as well, folks. We're going to get to your calls when we come back for this break. We've got one line open.
I think, again, if that line is being filled, if you fill that line, I think we could get to all of those calls in the final segment of the broadcast. We want to encourage you to support the work of the ACLJ, too, at ACLJ.org. Well, this is life week. There's been another case on abortion out of the Supreme Court. We know more is coming. And these battles, as the Supreme Court has noted, even in this case, which was, you know, a one-page procurement decision, it's 50 states now. So though we have gotten the battle out of Washington, D.C., in the sense of out of Congress or the executive branch, yes, some of them will get back to Washington, D.C. through the Supreme Court. We have to take these fights in every single state. That means to every community as well.
That's right. And that's what we are doing here at the ACLJ. As you heard earlier, we talked about a ballot initiative that the left is trying to push in Arizona, where they're trying to get to the voters a very craftily and cleverly worded abortion amendment that doesn't necessarily mean what they're telling people it means.
And they may be, in fact, doing things fraudulently to get it on the ballot. But we will fight there. We will fight all across this country to protect the life of the unborn.
And even in Idaho, as that case now goes through the Idaho court system in the Ninth Circuit there, we will continue to fight as we see it potentially reaching the Supreme Court in another day. All right, folks, we encourage you to, again, support the fight for life. We've got this lapel pin.
And again, it's not so much about the pin. The idea is what the pin reminds you to do, which is pray for our work, support our work, any gift of $60 or more at ACLJ.org. And you go to ACLJ.org slash Life Week as well to learn more about the work we're doing. As you know, we're doing work in Arizona. That case, again, involves election integrity, involves ballot initiatives, and a ballot initiative put forward by the abortion industry to try and, again, fraudulently get through expansive abortion laws in a state by confusing people.
By not being straightforward with people, not even being honest about who signed it. So, again, another fight the ACLJ is involved in to protect life because of your support of the ACLJ. So it's a reminder, whether you're wearing it every day or not, to fight for the unborn, to pray for the unborn, and we're doing that at the ACLJ. All right, welcome back to Sec Hill. Folks have been holding on to talk to us about the debate, so we're going to go right to those phone calls. We've analyzed that. We've told you about upcoming work in the ACLJ in Arizona on ballot security, on election integrity, but also on the life issue tied together. Broke down that Idaho Supreme Court case. And, again, I think it's very suspicious, at least the only times we've seen this from the Supreme Court, it's on the abortion issue. So this time they say it was a wrong upload. And they did get out much quicker, but last time we never got a real indication of who would, no one ever was held, you know, had to pay for what was a leak that was months in advance.
And really changed how the abortion industry planned for their battle because they knew what was coming and were able then to go into these states and get ready for all these ballot initiatives, confusing voters, try to outspit us, put the money in the coffers, get the billion dollars in. The list goes on. So, again, I will say, again, we can talk about that for another day because we've got the debate tonight. Will, we've got a lot of phone calls on it.
That's right. Let's go to Jerry in Rhode Island on Line 2. Jerry, you're on Sekulow. Going home, team. Will's bullet list in the first segment and Jordan's bullet list on the lack of journalistic integrity and their investigation has sullied CNN. I am not tuning in.
I'll just listen for the recap from you guys tomorrow. Yeah, I think that, again, a lot of people, they go for 90 minutes. It's tough for most folks. I mean, you've got kids, work, other issues going on. You know, you're not watching as closely as people who are paid to do it. And then you kind of see where the media focuses. Both, you know, let's say conservative media, what do people pick up on from Donald Trump?
Do you, is there a consensus? So do you see both conservative, this is always the big, because you know you're the winner. You're the winner if the liberal networks have to admit it and the conservative networks. There's certain, sometimes you get both, you know, both networks are going to have totally opposite views and that's more of just kind of, you know, I'd say that's more ideologically based. But if you can get out tonight and people have to admit you had a better night than the other candidate, regardless of their politics, that's how you get a big win. I mean, that's what you're looking for if you're Donald Trump or Joe Biden, is to be able to come out on top regardless of people's politics. That they can't, that to deny that you had a better night would be idiotic.
That's right. And I also think before we go to another call here that one other metric that we should be looking for, and we won't get it probably for a few days, is audience retention. You know, how many tuned in at the beginning of the first hour versus how many were there when the second hour rolls around? Did people tune in to see how it started and then just tuned out or did they stick around to see the debate?
I think that'll be very telling about winners and losers as well. Let's go to Carly in California on line three. Carly, you're on Sekulow. Hi, guys.
Thank you for taking my call. I just was wondering, how is Biden's team going to talk to Donald Trump about his court convictions when he's on a mandated order not to talk about it? And why didn't his team tell them you cannot bring up the court proceedings or the conviction? Well, first, he has had some of that gag order lifted. So the gag order when it comes to, I think, the jurors, the issue itself, it's still in place for some issues.
I don't think you could have negotiated that out. Now, for the same reason that you can't negotiate out what's happened to Hunter Biden and the convictions there and the legal issues he faces. And also the fact that some of the more serious cases, again, we're still waiting for the Supreme Court on immunity, which could delay Jack Smith's D.C. trial indefinitely. And we now know that the government has lost some of these supposedly classified documents, wasn't keeping them ordered. So another major federal case that's on a major delay. And they even had a hearing on whether or not these special counsels are even constitutional or legal based on the law. So if you're Donald Trump and the campaign, you're not going to be able to negotiate away, not discussing the fact that you are up against all of these different legal battles. You have six different legal battles, civil legal battles, trying to seize your property.
Partisan Democrat DAs coming after you, AGs coming after you, federal government coming after you. And I think you want to address it. And we have to actually, as I think conservatives, you want to know how will he address it directly in a more hostile setting. So I think it's fair game for Joe Biden. I think it's fair game for the question, because, one, Donald Trump talks about it a lot. I don't think he's afraid of talking about that either. But I do get your point that there are some issues he could get hit with a gag order on.
I think that likely, if you're the attorneys on that in this kind of setting, if it's Joe Biden who brings it up, Donald Trump is going to be okay with responding to it, or the moderators as well. All right, let's continue on. We've got Warren in Idaho on Line 1. Warren, welcome to Sekulow.
Thanks, guys, for all you do. My question is, if Biden shows up sharp intellectually there, doesn't that bring up the question of him able to stand trial for his documents thing in the H.E.R. report? I mean, again, you could say that, but that's not going to change a special counsel report. It's done. He's over. He left. So he's not a special counsel anymore.
That report has been submitted. That was the conclusion. Now, there's also policies, remember, about sitting Presidents. So not only did he have that view, but he also had the ideas that we could recommend prosecution, but the Department of Justice policy is that we're not going to bring criminal prosecutions against Presidents of the United States.
So that wasn't going anywhere at that time anyways. And so, again, we've seen Joe Biden perform differently. But I will tell you, when your job is on the line, almost say your life is on the line to some extent, and your career is on the line, you're going to have a little bit more, a lot more energy. That can come across negatively. It can come across poorly. And I do think it would be weird if Joe Biden shows up tonight and is like that.
If he's not kind of an older Joe Biden, who is the President of the United States? So I think there's a middle ground there where you can be too aggressive. That happened to Donald Trump in the first debate with Joe Biden. He was a bully, and he was making noise. So, again, remember all the times, liar, wrong.
It didn't work. As we said, it's a TV, it's a televised debate. Donald Trump has an advantage there because he's been a television host before of a major TV show on a major network. But at the same time, you can go too far. And where the American people stop, they kind of shut you off regardless of issue. Again, ideology is important. Issues are important. But this is a lot about, do people think that you can actually do what you're saying you will do? I mean, the promises you're making, can you carry them out? And what about the issues that you weren't able to succeed on?
How do you answer those questions? And we'll see that tonight. All right. We've got Connie calling from Washington on Line 4. This is probably our last call of the day. So, Pat, sorry we didn't get back to you. And we'll get it tomorrow too. But Connie, you're on Sekulow.
Thank you for taking my call. My question is concerning President Biden. How do we know for sure that he hasn't already been given these questions to practice? You know, we know that through with Hillary Clinton. I will tell you this, if you have a decent campaign team at this stage of the debate, Presidential debate, remember that was a primary, you get a lot more shifty on primaries too.
They're actually nastier. Because this, you have to get into top level issues because it's for, one of these people is going to be President of the United States. So even if you don't like, you've got to go more issue. If you've got a decent campaign team, they should be able to prep you on every question that's coming up. There should not be many surprises at this point.
If there are, you still know about them, right? So if it's about you, you know about it. And so the candidate plus the team, none of this should be a surprise. You know, we see what's in the media. We see where they like to focus for both of these candidates and we see the issues that get the most attention from the American people and that they care about the most. So that's, again, it's pretty easy at this point to figure out what the questions will be. The style, the appearance, that's what is key tonight and convincing people that you're telling the truth. We will break it all down for you tomorrow on secular. Don't miss it.
