SHOCKING: CNN Blasts Kamala's Campaign

Today on Sekulow, at this point it is shocking that CNN anchors blast Kamala's campaign. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow.

We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright folks, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.

That is 1-800-684-3110. Well, now after Kamala Harris has been the Presidential nominee and become official next week in Chicago at the Democrat National Convention, but the delegates have already voted, so much of that will just be for show because they did a virtual nomination. She's got her VP nominee in Waltz, and yet even though she's done some campaign events and they did a big campaign blitz when they announced Waltz, it's interesting that today, tomorrow, and Thursday she has no events on her calendar for the campaign and you've got CNN of all places. So it's not just Fox News and conservative media pointing out that Harris is unwilling to do interviews. It's now CNN in interviews with two different campaign spokespeople, two different shows at two different times of the day on CNN yesterday, who are all pointing to, well, she had a busy schedule and she's doing a policy speech Friday, which, by the way, is not an actual press conference where you take questions. Again, they also say, well, it seems like President Trump isn't doing as much.

We hear that line right now. Tomorrow, he is doing yet another open-ended press conference. This time, he is doing it from Bedminster. He's already done one in Mar-a-Lago where the press is invited and they are allowed to ask questions and he answers the questions. And of course, the press sometimes will then, they say, well, I can't believe he did such a long press conference and meandering and all these different answers.

But they actually have content and they have an ability to speak to and ask questions of someone who is yet again seeking the most powerful office in the United States. What's interesting, Will, is that the response from some of these individuals like the former ambassador under Obama to Russia, to the American people in response to the fact that Harris has only said that she has agreed to schedule an interview at some point. And she did not say that she would schedule an interview at some point this month, but that she would schedule an interview at some point this month that could be in the future. The scheduling will happen this month and they've got an ambassador saying she's got no reason to have to do this. That's right.

This is Michael McFaul. He was the former ambassador to Russia under President Obama. And this is what he tweeted just last night. He said the paramount objective for at Kamala Harris is to win this election. If a press conference helps her wins, she should do it. If not, she shouldn't do it.

It's just that simple. She has no, quote, moral obligation to talk to the press. Tone it down, folks.

I mean, first of all, moral obligation. Let's just throw that out the door, OK? They're politicians. If you can't speak to the press as a Democrat and you can't take questions from a majority-friendly audience, it is likely 98 percent of them or more in that room are going to be voting for you. So they're going to ask questions.

They're just trying to actually help you or maybe get you out of some of the holes that have been dug, like about were you the czar on the border or was that something that was just thrown out there that you really didn't have the power to. You know, was that really did that fall to DHS? And did you were you ever actually empowered to do anything where she could start distancing herself from Joe Biden? But instead, it's well, you know, she's got time to do it Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. But she's not going to. And the only thing she's promised to do is this month to schedule an interview sometime in the future. That does not mean she'll be doing an interview in August. It doesn't mean she won't be. But I don't think she's going to be doing it during the DNC next week. So I want to take your calls on this.

Don't you believe that Presidential candidates need to talk to the press so that the American people get their answers when they get pressed, especially when she's only agreed to one debate with President Trump? One only one shot at that. He's open to doing three.

She's only agreed to one. Give us a call. One eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. As we continue to protect speech in America, go to ACLJ dot org. Be part of our life and liberty drive. A lot to talk about there as well. All right, welcome back to secular. We are taking your phone calls to one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten.

That's one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. How important I mean, again, it's not like speaking to the press is the number one most important thing that a Presidential candidate has to do. But certainly you've got to be able to get your message across in different ways. So you host events, rallies, you host town halls where you take questions from American voters, and then you, of course, take questions from the press. Usually the questions from the press are the more deep policy questions, whether it's on the economy or foreign affairs. But a lot of those issues, if you think about Harris has not really spoken about as vice President. And we don't know yet how involved she has been until now in any of those kind of discussions, which is kind of an interesting opportunity.

It does, I mean, maybe create a little bit of a weird situation at the White House, but she has an opportunity to, if she wasn't that involved, to explain that to the American people. And look, I've got some differences from President Biden. And now that I am the nominee, I'm going to start walking through those with you and can do that with the press when it comes to foreign policy, when it comes to domestic policy. But if you don't do that and you just go to rallies and just rah, rah, rah, and it's just kind of the same speech over and over and over again, it doesn't really give the American people a feeling that you've got a command of the issues and are ready to actually govern. Now, we have seen this strategy kind of work when Joe Biden just spent his time in the Delaware basement. But what he did when he was in the Delaware basement was do TV interviews. I mean, that's basically what he did was did as many as he could every day.

So he was in effect, because he wouldn't go on the road, he was out on your TVs, at least taking questions, including tough questions on policy. So it is taking her by just doing political rallies will you get to control those in every step of those, you know, the way you get a speechwriter gets to go over speech multiple times. You get it on a prompter.

You get to practice doing it off that prompter. You know how many people are going to be there. You know where to look. You know how to go on stage. You know who's going to get the crowd pumped up. You know who's speaking before you.

You know the theming. And so you're pretty confident going in and you don't have to come up with any words on your own. But in a actual press conference, while you while you can be prepped for the big issues and it's not hard to figure out what those are, you do have to talk off the cuff.

That's right. And now it's been 24 days since she emerged as the presumptive nominee. And she's not done a single sit down interview, not done a single press conference. She did do a rope line kind of as she got off the airplane.

Some reporters yelled questions and what their questions were are when are you going to do a press conference? And that's when she said hope to have one scheduled by the end of the month. So she's really not had any scrutiny. And this goes into the whole narrative that many people have been concerned about with the way that she was then made the standard bearer of the party when President Biden decided to drop out of the race is that she's never faced scrutiny. She faced a little bit of scrutiny in 2020 when she ran for President and she dropped out of the race before Iowa. So she never got votes. Now she had got to skip the entire primary process where there's a lot of scrutiny on you and is now avoiding more scrutiny as the nominee of the Democrat Party.

But I think we should play for people. This is John Berman on CNN talking to Adrienne Elrod, who is a senior spokesperson. She was the senior adviser and senior spokesperson for the Biden campaign is a carryover.

But let's watch this exchange between John Berman on CNN, of all places, with this spokesperson for the Harris-Walls campaign. The reason I was asking about today is because it seems like she has time if she wanted to do an interview with a member of the media or do a news conference, correct? There does appear to be that time if she wanted. Well, look, she has said on the campaign trail that she would be doing an interview at some point.

She said that, I think, last week during a rope line or when she was talking to reporters. But look, what is important here, John, is that she is taking her message directly to the American people. She hit a number of battleground states.

I think we had 15,000 people in Detroit last week, 12,000 to 13,000 in Nevada. She's been taking her message to the voters and drawing large crowds. So she's actually having those direct conversations. But not today.

All I'm saying is not today. She could do an interview today, I would think, you know, because she's not out there today. Well, look, she's taking her message directly to voters. And just because she doesn't have anything, an interview schedule on her public schedule doesn't mean that she's not taking her message directly to voters about how she's going to improve their lives, how she's going to protect their economic freedoms, how she's going to expand their rights as Americans. In contrast to Trump and J.D. Vance, who simply want to enact the Project 2025 agenda, which would set America back dramatically.

You know, I mean, there you go. It's just a filibustering, right? So she's going to do a speech. She traveled the country, so she was very busy a week ago. She did an event, you know, Monday, and she will do an event Friday, but events are not press conferences. And again, the media here, they clamored to get rid of Joe Biden.

Now they've got Harris. They have made her out to be the savior of the Democrat Party, and yet she is unwilling to spend time with those who are boosting her. And I guess my question, and Will, we could maybe have Todd take a call right now, is do you think the media will actually turn any more than that, or do you think that's about as tough as they're going to get? Which is just talking to random spokespeople right now, most of which were on the Biden campaign, who are just going to push to the same thing. Because we can play you an interview later in the broadcast, later in the day on CNN, different host, different communication, you know, spokesperson, senior from her campaign.

Almost word for word, the exact same response. I mean, that's obviously their strategy right now. We've also heard some, you know, just behind the scenes, how much prep goes into getting her ready for even non-public events when she's meeting with, like, donors in Georgetown and places like that.

I mean, the prep is just unbelievable. And I mean, is it that awkward to go and sit down when you are the vice President of the United States and the Presidential candidate for one of the two major parties? It's going to be you or the other guy are going to be President of the United States. You would think that would carry enough weight to go into any meeting or press conference and feel pretty confident in what you're going to say and being able to answer the questions the way you want to. Especially if you were going to try and distance yourself from any of the policies of Joe Biden, some of which he put on her because he knew they would be the most difficult and unpopular with his party. So immigration and also unpopular nationally, especially with moderates and independents and conservatives, because their border policies have been failing.

That's right. And I think we shouldn't give the media too much credit for actually asking for this, because I think what they're feeling is maybe some betrayal because they carried the water for Kamala Harris to be able to become the nominee by all of a sudden turning on Joe Biden after the debate. After for the longest time saying nothing to see here.

He's great. Everyone that comes from the White House tells us he's more fit than ever. But that's the problem is that the media today, it almost feels like they aren't allowed to report on things until they're given the OK by the White House or by the administration. We saw that last night when New York Times sent out a breaking news tweet.

Hunter Biden sought U.S. assistance for a potentially lucrative Burisma project in Italy while his father was vice President. Records show something I'm pretty sure all of us knew for a long time have been complaining about. New York Times just now feels OK to report on it.

Why? In their article, they say because the White House, after Joe Biden stopped running, released the records. They're not reporting anymore. They're waiting for talking points from the administration. And that's probably why it's making the reporters jobs harder, because they're not getting the talking points from Kamala Harris. I mean, it matters in the sense of, of course, what they did to President Trump and, of course, trying to label him with Ukraine or him with Russia. But what it doesn't matter anymore is that Biden's not going to be on the ticket. His policies are. But, you know, his son, all that. Harris doesn't really have to answer to that.

She could quickly move forward past that. So the Democrats have taken that off the table. And so The New York Times says, oh, we could spill it all out. And I have a feeling that, you know, because he's going on his way out, that Hunter Biden's not going to have to worry about any of these charges, because his one term President's father could easily issue those parts there.

And there's no other offices he's going to be holding in the future. Let me just tell you all this, folks. We're going to talk about this with Secretary Pompeo coming up next as well, someone who does a lot of interviews and did a lot of interviews while he was secretary of state all around the world, on planes, on different time zones, probably sometimes not even knowing exactly what time it was on serious policy issues. But right now at the ACLJ, we know that the Massachusetts, we showed it yesterday, too, is funding that massive media blitz, spreading state sponsored lies and misinformation about what they call anti-abortion centers.

It's a mass deception and it's unconstitutional. Our life and liberty drive was created for cases just like this. So we want you to have your gift doubled now at ACLJ.org.

You responded awesome yesterday. We need another great response like that because we're preparing to file lawsuits against the government and the abortion industry that are smearing pro-life centers as soon as Monday, a lawsuit. That's not like FOIA. That's an actual lawsuit. But we're also going to launch a huge counter campaign in an unprecedented and groundbreaking effort to combat the mass deception, help women and save babies.

But here's the here's the thing. The size of that campaign will directly relate to how much financial support we have to spend on it. So go to ACLJ.org. You can go to mass deception to make sure your donation is going to that counter campaign.

That's ACLJ.org slash mass deception or just go to our Web site. Donate now. It will be doubled during, again, our life and liberty.

All right. Welcome back to secular. We are joined by our senior counsel for global affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary Pompeo. There's a big story now and it's actually making its way not just it's not just in the conservative world, but even CNN twice yesterday, pressing spokespeople from the Harris campaign about her refusal to do any media interview since she became the Democrat nominee. And she did so through that virtual nominating process so that they'll have their convention next week, even with the friendly press that actually I think she could credit for really getting her into this position. Do you think that's a smart political move? I mean, is she is she that worried about speaking to a press that loved her to the point of getting her to that position that that she will not sit down with them?

Twenty three, twenty four days into this major switcheroo. You're not actually the pure politics of it. We can all debate. I think it's not wise politics. I think in the end, people want to hear from candidates that don't want to hear from your vice Presidential candidate. They don't want to hear from your surrogates. They want to hear the candidate take questions to see both the substance that is what the policy positions are that they're going to adopt, how it's going to affect their lives, how it's going to affect inflation.

It's going to reflect the border. But I also think they want to see they want to get to know them and get a chance to touch and see them. Right. And how do they respond? Do they get angry? Are they are they sharp enough to actually answer difficult questions?

Can they speak in full sentences? These are things the American people, just as a matter of common sense, will demand as this campaign moves forward. And I think this gap, this gap where she has just chosen to pretend that she doesn't have a history to walk away from her, some of her long held views that are clearly deeply held on her part. I think this will turn out to be a political mistake.

And Jordan, one last thought. I know it's a terrible mistake when it comes time to govern. The American people will turn to what you said you do during the campaign and demand that you do that properly. So and hold you accountable for that when you leave this wide open in the way that she has, when you don't know who you are as a candidate. I think you make it very difficult to actually accomplish anything were the case that she were that the country was unfortunate enough to have her elected.

Yeah, I mean, we know right now, if you go to her website, you're not going to see you can click on the policy button, but there's no policy there. She has said that she's expected to release her policy platform later this week as we get closer to the Democrat convention. But we've also seen her cater to the extreme left in her party. So, I mean, do you think the reason she's not speaking is because she's trying to walk this fine line of how do I keep the extreme left of the party and not lose kind of middle of the road voters that they think are so key that you could see the states that they hit first. This was middle America and blue collar voters that they are trying to continue to bring back into the Democrat fold. And yet if you go too far left in those policies and have to start talking about them, that's even more that's even kind of sounds worse than when they're just written down in some policy papers or platforms. Jordan, I want to be charitable today to her. So fair enough.

It takes a couple days to get your website squared away. This this, you know, this is this is this is something that makes sense to me. But the fact that you can't answer questions that after a decade plus of federal policy making where you were a Senate Intelligence Committee member, where you served in the United States Senate and took positions, you campaigned for this very election. You were you were a candidate in this very election. And you can't articulate your excuse me in 2020 in 2020 you were a candidate and you can't articulate what it is that you believe in a wide open environment that that says a lot about the fact that you you won't be able to actually lead America forward. You don't know who you are.

You don't know the things you believe in. And instead, you're using a bunch of political consultants. It's also true in this case is that she has to try and mask what she really believes. It played well in San Francisco when she ran for district attorney. It played well in California when she ran for the United States Senate. But that set of policies that she believes at her core, unlike President Biden, who frankly grew up as a centrist Democrat, she grew up as a progressive Democrat, someone deeply committed to all of the ideas that Bernie Sanders holds dear that Howard Dean held dear. She's got these these radical left. She believes those things with all her heart.

And now she's trying to figure out how to put commas in semicolons in a race, a lot of videotape in order to obfuscate this so that she can find a way to get to 270 plus electoral votes. You know, I know you're not afraid of answering questions, even as your time as CIA director and secretary of state and the different time zones you were in and all around the world with different world leaders, a lot of different issues. And again, I mean, it's it's not to say that's just something easy. You've got to you've got to do your homework and you've got to do your work.

And it can be exhausting, but it's part of the job. So I want to turn to some action. The foreign policy we saw, again, a response from Hamas. They have said they will not attend cease fire talks with Israel after several weeks of retaliation threats. Do you think Hamas is falling behind in its propaganda war with Israel? I mean, you know, we've they kind of had like a high point and then it's things have kind of settled down. Or is this just kind of a low period?

I suspect it's a bit of a low period. They have a group of people, including many in the Democrat Party here, many members of the United States Congress. These aren't fringe characters who actually accept that somehow Hamas and Israel are are parallel. They are they are morally equivalent. You know, I hear Secretary Blinken saying, goodness, everybody wants peace.

He said that for the last several weeks. That's true. There's no everybody doesn't want peace. The Iranians don't want peace. If they wanted peace, lay down your weapons. If Hamas wanted peace, lay down your weapons. Release the hostages.

You'll have peace. The mistake that the progressive left makes on national security is the one that you're describing. It's the one that says this is all about propaganda and storytelling, and they want to undermine Israel and the United States of America in a way that gives Hamas more free rein, gives Hezbollah more free rein, and gives Iran the free rein to attack an American base at Al-Assad, injure American service members, and have zero response from the United States. That's really dangerous stuff, Jordan. And so my sense is that the PR effort will only be ramped up and they will find sympathetic ears, not only on our college campuses, but sadly in our halls of Congress as well.

I'll just come back. I do have one more question for you, because we heard about imminent attacks from Hezbollah in Israel. There have been some, but not at the scale that Iran has certainly kind of used in propaganda in their speeches that it would be. Do you think – and there have been reports that Iran is now concerned that if they were too successful in an attack, that that would lead to a catastrophe for them because of the response by Israel and its allies. I'm sure they're worried. I'm sure they're worried about a vicious, at-scale response by Israel. I hope, Jordan, they're worried about a vicious, at-scale response from the United States and our European allies. Every nation that loves sovereignty, loves democracy and freedom should be prepared to respond if Iran has – you called it successful – I'll call it a full-scale attack against Israel and killing innocent civilians all across that country, which is what they have spoken about doing.

If that happens, I hope the Iranians don't just understand that they will have a response from Israel, but from all of us who believe that it is absolutely an imperative that we protect sovereign, freedom-loving nations like Israel from attack crises and authoritarian regimes like the one that sits in Tehran. Secretary Pompeo, as always, we appreciate you joining the broadcast. Thanks for being with us today. And folks, again, we've got this team assembled because of your support of the ACLJ. We're able to go to them through the show and also behind the scenes as well with their expert advice, and they are not afraid to talk and they are not afraid to explain these issues from us and to you. And that's so important because the work of the ACLJ, just think about in the first half hour of the broadcast, all that we've got you educated on. And that's because of your financial support of the ACLJ as well. I mean, part of this show is not just about what the ACLJ is doing, but it's also to make sure you're an expert as well. And if you want to continue that, maybe that's the kind of – what you get from us is the broadcast and becoming an expert. We encourage you to be part of our life and liberty drive.

Donate today, double your impact at ACLJ.org. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right, folks, welcome back to Sekulow. So we've talked about this Harris refusal 24 days in as becoming the Presidential nominee for the Democrat Party and refusing to do a press conference. At best we have got now answers from her communications people that at some point in August she will schedule a press conference. That does not mean she will do a press conference in August, but that she will have a press conference scheduled sometime in August and that'll get on the calendar. We also know she's only agreed to one debate, even though President Trump has agreed to do three debates. One of those – I think the first one is in September.

I guess most would be in September, October. But she's really only willing to go to one of those so far, which is another opportunity for people in the press to ask you questions, not just a candidate versus candidate. But I think also at the end of the day, she's in this position where does she want to make the shift from Biden to where we hear the Harris policies? Now, she doesn't have to just carry the weight of the Biden administration. She's now the lead going into this election.

So we should know what are the Harris policies and how are they different. And of course that would be pretty normal at this point. So Will, I want to go to some calls because I think that's what people are wondering is, is the silent method working? That's right. Let's go to Bruce calling on Line 3 in Colorado listening on the radio. Bruce, you're on Sekulow.

Oh, hi, Jordan. Hey, I was wondering, you know, she's trying to, I think, sound more moderate like Secretary Pompeo was talking about. But, you know, going beyond that, I'm wondering if she's trying to string things along and not be on the record too much so that coming into the debates, she hasn't, you know, put these radical San Francisco leftist ideology kind of policies on record enough that when she debates Trump, he can't nail her to the wall with the indefensible stuff that's behind all that.

Yeah, I think, listen, I get that she is trying to play a fine line, but you know what? She did decide to choose a moderate Democrat, and I mean, I say that kind of in quotes, they're not that moderate anymore, but someone who is seen as more mainstream as her running mate. She decided to go to someone who, Ilhan Omar, this is all I have to say, will post the photo the day, the moment he was chosen, and he says that he smiles every time he's feeling down.

Do we have that sound bite? Every time Walz is feeling down, he's feeling sad. Governor Walz in Minnesota, the VP nominee. All he has to do is think about Ilhan Omar and that she's a Congresswoman, and it brings a smile to his face. And you know, it just makes me sad, actually, because she hates America and she loves our enemies. She's part of the Hamas caucus and calls for the destruction. She uses anti-Semitism.

She started all of that with all about the Benjamins and these attacks on not just Israel, but Jews in general. And she did win her primary, so it looks like she will remain potentially in Congress. But she chose that kind of candidate, Will. You can't choose that as your running mate and then tell a bunch of independents that you're such a moderate. That's right, and Congresswoman Omar won her primary last night, and so she will at least have an opportunity to once again serve her district in Congress if she wins in the general election.

Which, the way that the support turned out for her, unlike other squad members in this cycle, she probably has a good chance at remaining in that seat. But once again, that's who Governor Walz says puts a smile on his face whenever he's having a bad day or at the end of a five mile run. He just thinks about Congresswoman Omar, and it puts a smile on his face. We've got an update for you when we come back, and we haven't shared this yet, that matter with our colleague Tulsi Gabbard and the TSA and the list she's been put on. Congress is getting involved in a positive way as well. We want to let you know what's happening there and what the ACLJ is doing as well, so you don't want to miss that. And as always, again, this work that we do, whether it is that complicated legal work like we are doing for our colleague Tulsi Gabbard, which is at the highest levels of complications when you're dealing with the security apparatus. Or the free speech work, or for the pro-life community. It's all because of your support of the ACLJ.

Donate today during our Life and Liberty Drive at ACLJ.org, and it amplifies all of us. Alright, welcome back to SECIO. We'll take a call in just a minute, but I do want to update you on the matter because it's all over social media. I've seen more and more people sharing it and seeing what happened to Tulsi Gabbard, who you know is a colleague of ours on the SECIO broadcast. Congressman, this is important, Doug Lamborn, who is on the Committee on Armed Forces and also chairs the Strategic Forces Tactical Air and Land Forces Committee on Natural Resources.

But he's got a letter out to the Administrator of the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration. And he's got other letters out as well, but I want to go to this one because he says to the Director, I was greatly disturbed to read recent open source reporting that one of my former constituent military commanders, Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard and her husband, have been placed on a domestic terror watch list known as the Quiet Skies Program by your agency. As you may or may not be aware, Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard commanded the 440th Civil Air Battalion, which is garrisoned in my district at Fort Carson, Colorado Springs and supports multiple special operations unit through the Indo-PAC... Indo-PACOM?

I'm saying that. Maybe I'm saying the Indo-Pacific... It's Indo-Pacific Command. Yeah, Indo-Pacific Command. The military loves their long acronyms.

That is one right there. And in that role, she was solely responsible for the combat readiness of her unit and was required to maintain an active security clearance. She currently commands the 1-354 Regiment Battalion Garrison in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Yet according to the TSA website, the Quiet Skies Program is a tool that allows the Federal Air Marshal Service to effectively deploy law enforcement resources to focus on travelers who may represent an elevated risk to aviation security. This comports with personnel accounts given by Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard who reported that she was subjected to increased screening while recently crossing ports of entry into the United States. And furthermore, according to the same open source reporting, was regularly shadowed by two explosive detection K-9 teams, one TSA explosive security specialist, and three Federal Air Marshals on every flight she boards. And he goes on to say, Yet even more concerning is the possibility that Gabbard's placement into the Quiet Skies program represents an act of retribution and lawfare that has become the hallmark of the Biden-Harris administration's political toolkit.

So he then has these questions. Your agency claims to use a risk-based, intelligence-driven process to identify travelers who may require enhanced screening. What are the specific factors that contributed to TSA identifying Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard as posing a risk to national security? Putting an individual on the no-fly list involves an interagency nomination process that leverages the terrorist identity's data mart environment, TIDE is what that's known, and the terrorist screening database, TSD, is there a similar process for placing someone into the Quiet Skies program? If so, explain who was involved in the interagency decision and what executive agency principal approved subjecting Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard to increased security and surveillance.

Individuals are flagged for enhanced screening at ports of entry in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System. Provide the exact data entry for Gabbard's profile that flagged her for enhanced screening after July 23, 2024. Provide all communications with the Department of Defense and Department of the Army, specifically the Office of the Chief of the Staff of the Army and the Chief of Army Reserve, regarding the placement of one of their unit commanders in the Quiet Skies program, which as of now has not affected Tulsi's service in the military at all. And you would think, as we talked about on this broadcast, Will, that if this reached the level that it has and that we know it did, if it wasn't political, I mean, the military would have been informed and probably would have taken some action.

That's right, Jordan. And this letter from Congressman Lamborn is a very important piece to the multi-prong effort that the ACLJ is taking on. If you remember back with the IRS targeting scandal, it took not just us filing litigation, filing FOIAs, pressing agencies for answers about why they were targeting conservative Americans over their viewpoint. It also took the engagement of Congress, who has that very important oversight role of the executive branch, to figure out some of the more detailed things that those executive branches are just going to stonewall the American public on.

So early in this process, we're just now finding out, obviously, what, 10 days since this report broke about Tulsi being placed on the Quiet Skies program, the fact that we have someone who is on the Armed Services Committee, is a chairman of a subcommittee, putting this in writing to the TSA. They can't stonewall Congress as easily as they can stonewall a FOIA request. They can put you in litigation. They can draw it out over years. They can claim privacy protections.

He can get a lot more information. And Congress has a lot more leeway of what they can do with that information once they get it. So this is an important component of our legal strategy, the fact that members of Congress are now engaging this. That way, it puts pressure. Not only are we going to put pressure, but you're seeing members of Congress put pressure as well.

And that's how you get to the bottom of it. When the oversight role of Congress is involved, when the external legal strategy takes place, as you are so heavily involved in, this is a massive moment to expose the Deep State and their targeting of people who don't fall in line with their ideology of the Deep State. We have already fired off our first round of four FOIAs on this matter. We are preparing more as we speak right now. We were handling and working through that yesterday evening and other legal options presenting to our colleague Tulsi Gabbard.

And also, you know, in this situation, to prepare for how the administration could respond. Remember the nastiness that's come around Tulsi Gabbard when she ran for President as a Democrat. Remember, you know, it was Hillary Clinton who called her some Russian agent. This is why none of it makes sense, right, because she has risen to this level of commander. She was the person, as Landborn says, Congressman Landborn says in his letter, to prepare her unit for military readiness. I mean, so she is very active in the military as we speak and has been very active for over two decades in the military and takes that very seriously.

And yet these slurs that continue, and I expect, could be coming yet again. And that's why our work to protect the free speech of those individuals like Tulsi and that they can go, they can go speak, that they're not going to be followed around by TSA agents and treated like terrorists because their speech doesn't compart with the speech of the current regime in the White House. So not only are we fighting the Foyas, we're preparing lawsuits to stop the weaponization of government against our colleague Tulsi Gabbard and ready for the incoming as well. It was Hillary Clinton who launched that first salvo that, oh, she's just a Russian agent. I mean, really, have you seen Tulsi lately on our broadcast and, of course, on other broadcasts as well?

She's just a very effective spokesperson against so many of the extremist leftist policies that led her to leave the Democrat Party. And when you have someone who left your party and becomes an effective spokesperson, you have to try and kind of make their life miserable, which is what they did through this program, follow you around with TSA agents, treat you like you're a terrorist. So we're not going to just stop with FOIA. There will be additional legal efforts as well.

But we need you. These are like those Tea Party cases. But this one is like that on overdrive because you've got very high profile individual and some of the toughest agencies in the federal government to pierce the veil of to get information from. But you can do it when you have the right team and enough resources. We've got people like Rick Renell who can review this before it goes over to the director of national intelligence. We have Mike Pompeo who can review this before it heads over to the State Department or the CIA and say, you know what, make an edit here. Make a little change here.

Utilize this. So don't just think we bring these people on so that they can come on this broadcast. That is great. Like I said, for some of you, this show may be that may be the big part of why you like our work is that it's a great place to get deeply educated on the issues in an hour or less of your day. But that is not the only reason these individuals are on our team. They are doing substantive work that you don't see while you're watching or listening to the broadcast. So that is being done right now.

More can be done always if we have resources available. And I think this one, we're just at the tip of the iceberg on. And we know people are appalled at what's happened to Tulsi Gabbard. And they are wondering, you know, how long is it until it starts happening to more of us who share her views and share it publicly so they try to silence us. They're not silencing her.

She is fighting back. And usually it's individuals like that, like it was with those Tea Party cases, who were the impetus to make sure it would not happen to other groups. And, you know, that lasts about a decade or so that you get a new regime in. They want to try to do the same thing that we see the Democrat Party is the anti-speech party. We saw that email yesterday. It was just a phone call between Donald Trump and Elon Musk that you got to listen in on on X if you wanted to. And they demonized that.

They've demonized Donald Trump yet again, even after he was shot as one of the worst people in America. Listen, we've got massive cases and massive cases require massive resources. And as we launch these unprecedented legal efforts, including combating what is happening in Massachusetts with pro-life pregnancy centers, not just on the legal side, but also on the communications side, we want to launch a huge counter campaign. So your donation right now during our Life and Liberty drive, if you can make a $100 donation, that is like $200 to the ACLJ. But any donation matters.

$25, $10, $500. Make it now while it doubles the impact. And we have resources to fight back at ACLJ.org. All right, folks, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. If you want to get on the show, you've got to dial that right now. And Will, let's get to one of those calls.

That's right. We're going to go to Carrie calling from Montana on Line 1. Carrie, you're on Sekulow. Thanks for holding on, Carrie. Thank you. I just challenge all of our champions. I'm a champion. Thank you.

I hope that – oh, thank you. I hope that we start lighting up the switchboard at the White House itself. I'm kicked off YouTube right now. I am furious because Kamala Harris is refusing to give any media address at all. And I think we need to use an out-of-the-box method of burning down their switchboard at the White House. I've called the White House many times. When Donald Trump was in office, they answered every time. In the three-and-a-half years with Harris-Biden, they never answered. And the two times that they did, it was – believe it or not, this is going to shock everybody – it was the health department, they said.

Interesting. You know, listen, Carrie, it is – I mean, listen, they are supposed to respond to constituents. They have an entire department that's supposed to respond to the American public. I mean, if you call the White House, you might not always get the response you want, especially if you've got policies that are different.

But I think, again, the media is allowing her to dodge it. So now the only question they really have for her right now when they're able to even shout one out, and we played it during the break, is when are you actually going to do an interview with us? Because that's all they've got time to ask, and all she says is, I'll get one scheduled by the end of the month. That means by the end of the month, we'll get something scheduled. It doesn't mean, when I read that, that it's going to be in August. Like, it's going to be right after the Democrat primary – I mean, the Democrat convention next week.

And I think that is what's key. She believes that not doing these press conferences is helping her, and that might be true right now. But ultimately, she at least is going to be in one debate with Donald Trump. And in that debate, it's not going to just be her and Donald Trump. There's going to be questions about foreign policy. There are wars going on.

There are huge domestic issues involving the economy. And doing those press conferences preps you for that, because you're on your feet, usually no notes. You can do as much prep as you want behind the scenes, but nothing is as real as having the cameras and the reporters in your face. That's right, and let's go on and take another call. We've got Tim calling from Michigan on Line 5. Tim, you're on Sekulow. Hey, how are you doing?

Great work as always. My question is something that a lot of people aren't really getting into with the vice Presidential pick, and that is he's been to China 30-plus times. I mean, you don't get asked to dinner in China.

You have to, if I understand this correctly, multiple hoops to get there and permission from the government. Well, I mean, I think, listen, we did one event there once where we were brought in by a legal group to speak at a university one time. And it was about religious freedom in the United States. And it was clear that we were not supposed to be talking about religious freedom in China. And so we kind of wanted to get a sense of what was this like, because we talk about these issues.

And that was that. We've done some things there before. We don't really talk about those. And it kind of ebbs and flows, but right now, there's certainly an ebb because of the hard line like Putin in Russia, where we've had to no longer have the SCLJ working, thinking that we could do that kind of work in China.

But you're right. Let's play the bite from Waltz where he talks about taking his, I think he talked about like spending every summer there with his family. So he's been there over 30 times and they don't have to be an adversary. But as Mike Pompeo and Rick Rinnell and others have said, they have decided to be an adversary. So until they decide not to be, we must treat them as such and beat them at their games, whether it's economic adversary or military adversary. But take a listen to Waltz.

He thinks they're great. We've been focusing on and I lived in China. And as I said, I've been there about 30 times. But if someone tells you and they're an expert on China, they're probably not telling you the truth because it's a complex country. But it's critically important for us. I don't fall into the category that China necessarily needs to be an adversarial relationship. I totally disagree. I mean, that'd be wonderful if that was the real world. Right.

But it's not. China is a horrible human rights abuser. They have, they run concentration camps against the Uyghur Muslims.

So not just the attacks on Christians, but other religious faiths. And they have become more hard-line and also more spending on their military than ever before to where they are seen as really the top concern. I mean, if you've got China, Russia, and Iran, and I think China is way ahead of Russia and Iran when it comes to the lethality and the ability of their weapons to both be effective and work in a very dangerous way. And so, again, do we want to prevent actual conflict with China? Absolutely. Are they an adversary? Yes. And do they have to be an adversary right now?

Yes. They can change course, but right now they are an adversary of the United States. And we need to maybe be taking in policies that get us away from that adversarial relationship, Will, so that we're not so reliant on goods made in China.

So we're not so reliant on the chips made in China so that if we needed to one day cut off China from our economy, we could actually do it. Well, honestly, it reminds me a lot of the approach that the Biden administration took with Iran. They didn't come right out and say they're not an adversary, but the way that they tried to negotiate, you had people that were leading that charge, like Robert Malley, who ended up losing his position and his security clearance for being a little too cozy with Iran. When you have people that don't see adversaries for what they are and treat them for what they are, you end up with an emboldened adversary who is able to instigate and perpetuate wars and destruction, whether economically or militarily in a region, and it ends up coming back home to roost.

It's not a good way to look at our adversaries. Let's take one more call for today. Let's go to Susan on line two from Kentucky. Susan, you're on Sekulow. Hey, Susan. Hello. Hey, you're on the air.

Oh, hello. My question would be if President Joe Biden is incapable of standing trial, then who is actually running the United States right now? At this point, I mean, Harris is running for President, so she's probably not. It's a team of advisers and he signs off on things. And you know what, the press is now just dumping off the Hunter Biden info because it's no longer really relevant to the Presidential election, right? So Hunter was doing things with Ukraine. He was trying to solicit business when his dad was vice President.

On and on it goes. But again, I think it's what we all do, which is a bunch of advisers who didn't do a very good job, which is why ultimately it wasn't just the debate that led to Joe Biden being pushed aside. It was the fact that his policies weren't working either. You combine the two and the Democrats said, we got to get rid of it, but we've got to keep the money he's raised.

So our only choice is to go to Harris. Let's prop her up and not let her have to talk to the media. And that's what we're seeing right now.

Let me just remind you about this, though, this last minute of the broadcast. Our life and liberty drive was created for cases just like the one where this attack on pro-life pregnancy centers, what Massachusetts is calling anti-abortion centers. They've got this massive campaign going on in the state of Massachusetts. We are going to fight back legally, but also with a counter campaign in an unprecedented and groundbreaking effort. We're going to combat this mass deception, help women and save babies.

And the more resources we have, the bigger that counter campaign will be in Massachusetts and wherever else they take a campaign like this. We need your support. We need your donations during our life and liberty drive. Win your donation will be doubled at ACLJ.org. And don't forget, don't forget, we've got the FOIAs that have already been filed on behalf of our colleague Tulsi Gabbard.

There are more coming. There will be other legal work there. It is very intensive and we need your support there financially so we can bring the best of the best to defend our colleague and make sure her rights are being protected. Donate today at ACLJ.org right now.