“I Shouldn’t Have Said That” - Kamala Harris

Today on Sekulow, Kamala Harris makes some wild claims in interview with Oprah, then realizes she shouldn't have said it. 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, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your calls.

1-800-684-3110. You heard that right. In a campaign event sitting down where it kind of looked like Harris was on the set of the old Oprah show, she was answering these questions. These are friendly questions. It's not an interview. Because remember, it's an official campaign event. So whatever Oprah asked was pre-approved, pre-done. Harris knew what she was getting. But yet still, even in that setting, so I mean, whether or not you think she did good in the debate because she was a prosecutor memorizing basically every line, not answering the questions, sticking with kind of the legal strategy of I don't care what to ask at these appellate courts as a prosecutor or anyone else, I'm going to respond with my four biggest points always so I keep driving those home. That doesn't always work in, you know, interview settings on policy, but this one wasn't about that.

This was a forced bizarre error. Take a listen and watch. I'm a gun owner, Tim Miles is a gun owner.

I did not know that. If somebody breaks in my house, they're getting shot. Yes, yes. I hear that. I hear that. Probably should not have said that.

My staff will deal with that later. I mean, it's interesting with the heavy criticism on gun violence and the banning of guns, but yet it's for you, not me, as for Kamala Harris. So for her, you know, she's got, she's strapped, she's ready to kill somebody, walk to her office. Now, listen, when she was prosecutor in a big city, that again, you're a law enforcement official, it makes sense.

We saw yesterday that horrible situation where a sheriff killed a judge in the courtroom. So understanding that, but the idea that the American people cannot be trusted with firearms, that's the Democrats' main policy. Well, and I also think what is bizarre about that clip is that what you don't see when you're talking to conservatives and people that believe in a strong Second Amendment is them laughing about shooting people.

No. The whole cackle and laugh and the crowd laughing with her is like, yeah, maybe there are some people that should not own guns. It's people that are making light of having to defend yourself against an intruder in your home.

That is not something to just joke about and laugh at. No, it's why the majority of people own weapons. The majority of gun owners, especially gun owners who are not enthusiasts or hunters, usually have a handgun, and the reason why is because if their home was invaded while they're there, they want to be able to protect their family. It's a simple weapon.

It's not something that you see used in a lot of these other horrible events. But typically, you know, they want to start with rifles and then move on from there. I mean, you know, the gun-free zones that they would love to declare all over the country, not just in the places that, you know, make sense. So when I look at that, I also think, well, if she said it seriously and didn't say, uh-oh, I shouldn't have said that, that could have actually been, like you said, that could have actually been a point that was popular in the Midwest. The people in the Midwest would say, oh, she kind of does think like me. She's not as bad on this as I thought. But by making a joke of it and saying, you know what, now my campaign is going to have to cover up and say I misspoke. Right. And I think that's the problem, too, is that is that how she's going to lead is say something proverbially, shoot first, ask questions later, say something and then have your staff handle that after the fact.

I think it was it was a blunder, but it was also kind of concerning. All right, folks, we'll continue to take your phone calls. Rick Renell is joining us next. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about the state of the campaign.

I mean, you know, people are already voting. We've got a lot to talk about today. We want to hear from you, too. And Rick loves hearing from you. He loves taking calls. 1-800-684-3110. So if you want to get in a question with Rick Renell as well, get those calls in now.

1-800-684-3110. Let me encourage you, you know, as we get into this point of the year, the battles are raging. And even as you know, on leading up to Election Day, on Election Day and sometimes even after Election Day, those legal battles rage. We're always asked to get involved. We can do those cases because of you. Donate today.

Become an ACLJ Champion at ACLJ.org. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. And folks, the phone lines are filling up. And as I said, if you want to talk to Rick Renell in this segment, you got to call now.

We'll get a couple of those. Try to find the phones, guys, of people with specific questions for Rick. And Rick, we've got something to play for you, Will.

Tell people, again, we just played it, but a lot of people are just joining. We want you to really pay attention to what Harris said to Oprah. This was not an interview on like an Oprah show. This was at a campaign event where the questions are pre-written. And still, Harris, again, just makes a bizarre, takes an easy question and makes it bizarre. That's right, Rick. We want to get your take on this. This is from the Unite for America event that Kamala Harris sat down with Oprah Winfrey, a featured speaker at the DNC.

So I'm sure that she's very non-biased in her journalistic ethics when it comes to these questions that were probably pre-approved. Let's go ahead and roll this bite by two. I'm a gun owner, Tim Miles is a gun owner.

I did not know that. It's somebody racing my house and getting shot. Yes, yes. I hear that. I hear that.

Probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later. Okay. So, Rick, I want to go right to you on that. One, the tone she used and the way she ended it, I think was the most bizarre and destructive part of that answer. I think if she had just stuck with it and said it seriously, like, yeah, I'm a gun owner because I want to protect my family. And, you know, as a prosecutor, probably had to carry a gun so I know how to do it.

And if someone enters my home, you know, I know that I've got that safety. Not laughing about it and then, like, almost apologizing for it, then saying, you know what, which I think this is a preview, Rick, of the entire, what a Harris administration would look like is, my staff will clean it up. Yeah, look, I think the reality is, is that she is the panderer in chief. She'll change her talking point to say, you know, I'm going to shoot somebody who comes into my home. And then, you know, immediately say, because the base she knows is not going to be happy.

I've seen this all over social media. Her base is not happy where she says, oh, I probably shouldn't have said that. This is absolutely typical Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.

They want to pander when it's two months, three months before an election to pretend like they're not against fracking anymore. But the reality is, is that Kamala has spent her entire life trying to deny and mock gun ownership. And so the idea that she suddenly has a gun, you know, if we had a real press corps, somebody would say, when did you get the gun?

What kind? Where did you go through training? Like, there's a whole bunch of questions that we need to be asking, but she just issues press releases and our media just regurgitate the press release and act like this is somehow vetting. She is un-vetted. She's been un-vetted since she came to California.

Yeah. I mean, Rick, I look at this, I look at these kind of statements and it's like, you know, she can have the gun. You know, they're talking about handguns here. They're not talking about the rifles that they always want to ban. But, you know, the majority of American gun owners, you know, they may have a plethora of guns. They may have one gun. And if they do have one gun, it's usually maybe either a shotgun they inherited from a grandfather or a handgun to protect their family. And those are the kind of people who get really nervous when the Democrats start talking about seizing weapons and buyback programs. It's people who are lawful, law-abiding gun owners who hope they never have to use that weapon.

Yeah, for sure. I mean, these are serious issues. The Second Amendment is one of those issues that we feel very strongly as people who are skeptical of government. And Kamala Harris is not skeptical of government. She loves big government. And so the idea that somehow she's on our side because she jokingly said with Oprah that she owned the gun.

And by the way, let's be clear, Oprah was even surprised that she owned the gun and was shocked. And this is, you know, so pandering, so typically political. And I just have to go back, Jordan, this works in California. It does not work in swing states. People know that she is a panderer.

By the way, if she really, truly owned a gun and was proud of it, she would have already said this, you know, not just six weeks before the campaign. Yeah. I mean, I want to go to the phones, Rick, as well, because, again, I think people are trying to interpret this one both ways. And we're fair and we know people want to talk to you. So let's go to Mike in New Jersey on Line 1. Hey, Mike, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Yes.

Hi. I think you guys are taking a wrong shot at this. I mentioned that she and Tim Wall were gun owners at least a week ago. OK. And there's nothing wrong with owning a gun. OK. Just don't have a full weapon where a 14 year old or 20 year old can take a shot at a President or massacre his schoolmates.

Well, let's say this. We need better school security. Parents need to start being punished as they are. I'm a big fan of punishing parents of minors who allow their children access to those kind of weapons and don't have them in super sealed environments.

And they're constantly changing the code. You certainly wouldn't give a kid like this who his dad did a weapon like this when he's already being investigated by the FBI. So I think the problem there is mental health and the family. And I think the key to preventing these school shootings in the future is letting it be known very clearly, Rick, that these parents who are responsible for these minors are the ones making gun owners look bad. And second to that, it's not so much, Mike, that she says she's a gun owner and walls who was in the military as a gun owner. It's the fact that they laugh about killing people and yet they mock so many of us who are gun owners.

Like, you can't have it both ways. I don't think she's laughing about killing somebody. I mean, what are the chances of somebody breaking into your house? And even if you do have a gun, you having that gun ready and available, OK? I think a lot of people actually, Mike, that I know at night and evening do make sure. It's still in a lock.

It's still near them. That is the point. So, I mean, you might not be a normal gun owner, but those normal gun owners, that's exactly how they prepare at night. And I think many of us in our office and many people listen to this show do exactly that. Now, Rick, I want your thoughts on it because, again, I think some people who are not gun owners don't realize that there's a lot of safety measures to put in place.

And the unfortunate bad events that we see are usually things that parents and family members are responsible for as well when they know their children have a streak of violence or psychological issues. Look, let's be clear whether or not she decided to announce her gun ownership seven weeks or eight weeks a week earlier. Either way, it's political.

I, you know, I'm a Californian. I did not know this about her. She should have been clear about this a long time ago. But again, if we had a press corps, we would know when did she get the gun? When did she go through training?

When did she get her permit? All of these issues are important. But I think, you know, if Mike's point is we should be happy that she owns the gun, I am. But I just find it very suspect that she all of a sudden is doing this eight weeks before an election when she has her entire career mocked us and worked against the Second Amendment her entire career.

Right. And yet and I think that's why she laughed about it and said her staff's going to have to clean it up, Rick, is because, you know, she doesn't she realized in that moment that she represents a party that doesn't like hearing that people. There's a chunk of people that don't like hearing that the candidate would even have a gun themselves, that that would be wrong or somehow against the party platform. I do want to go to another issue, unfortunate issue. We represent the Nevada Green Party in a last minute effort to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. We did get to the U.S. Supreme Court, Rick. We got to Kagan.

But Kagan, after a round of briefing and a reply brief by us, referred it to the entire court. All you get, and I'll put it on the screen, I sent it to Rick earlier, is a one pager with one basically two sentences. You want to read that out, Will? Can you read it out? Yeah, it says the application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the court is denied.

Yeah. So, Rick, I think if I had to write the opinion and they don't hear, I think there were two issues. And, you know, Supreme Court is always the place of last resort. We got we got it to the justices.

Usually that doesn't even happen. But there were two issues here. One is the timing.

The Democrats filing so late that it made it difficult for the ballot printing. And two, I think, Rick, this is a big reminder for conservatives listening to this show right now. Even if you go to the secretary of state's office and they tell you, no, don't use this form, use this form. And here's the rule book.

Make sure your attorneys go through the rule book before you start using any form the secretary of state's office gives you to make sure it has everything that rule book says it must have. Because unfortunately, Rick, we can no longer trust our government officials in these positions, especially when they've got a D next to their name. You know, look, I think that this is such a amazing moment for ACLJ. You know, to put this in perspective, the Green Party of Nevada was kicked off the ballot. Green Party is obviously a far left organization and they were kicked off the ballot in Nevada.

Very few people were willing to take this case and say, this doesn't fit well. That's not about that's not democracy. That's not pro democracy. But ACLJ and our amazing lawyers jumped in to say, you know what, we're going to defend them because it's the right thing to do. And so this I'm so proud to be a part of this organization because we do the right thing and we're not as political as people think we are. And I love working with the lawyers and the whole team.

But I have to say, Jordan, that takes money. Obviously, we stepped out. I don't even think we had time to fundraise to do something like this, but we stepped out. We immediately did the right thing. We worked very hard over the last week, taking it to the Supreme Court.

The fact that we didn't successfully make it in the Supreme Court, there's only one organization in all of America. Welcome back to Sekulow. Rick, you had just about finished. Sorry, you went right into a break.

I wanted to give you 30 seconds to finish your thoughts. Yeah, look, we have so many organizations across the United States that talk. And what I'm proud of with ACLJ is that we do. And we jumped in to help in Nevada.

The Green Party, not necessarily a conservative party, but it was the right thing to do because it was a pro democracy move. And our team jumped in. We did the right thing.

We didn't even ask about the cost. We just knew it had to be done. And that's why I'm proud to be a part of this organization. I hope people will absolutely recognize that we're out on the front lines, not just talking, but doing, and I hope that they'll support us. Thank you, Rick.

As always, we appreciate you being part of a team. And right to another great member of our team, former Secretary of State and CIA Director and member of Congress, Mike Pompeo. Secretary Pompeo, I want to go to your first on Israel.

There's a lot of news going on there. Obviously, Israel's put enormous pressure on Hezbollah this week, and U.S. officials are criticizing that it could cause a broader war to break out. We saw Iran back down from revenge over the death of the Hamas leader after Israel showed their strength and resolve, working with the United States to knock that rocket and missile brigade down where it didn't cause the loss of life. I don't think of any Israelis.

There might have been one person. But do you think that Israel's actions this week could actually cause Hezbollah to rethink any border conflict with Israel instead of inflaming it, since at this point they have, I don't know how they're communicating with each other? Look, I think that's undoubtedly true.

And by the way, I'm sure they paid your company's issue to recall at this point. Look, the Biden administration and Vice President Harris in particular misunderstand how it is you decrease the risk that the Iranians will attack Israel or Europe or the United States or our Gulf state allies. They think that you appease them.

They think you turn the other cheek. They think you sit in a conference room in Brussels or Doha or Egypt and Cairo and negotiate with them. And what has proven time and time again over decades is the Iranians understand one thing.

That is power. And what Israel has been prepared to do is accept the risk of escalation and demonstrate their resolve to actually impose real cost on Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. And if the United States would simply demonstrate that same kind of resolve and acknowledge the Iranians as the center point of the threat and impose real costs on them, the risk that Hezbollah will escalate, decrease, not increase. You know, we saw Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, she was outraged by the pager attack on Hezbollah. She said that Israel's violating international humanitarian law.

She's demanding a full accounting of the attack and whether any U.S. assistance went into the development of the deployment of the attack. But it's interesting because Hezbollah is responsible for the death of U.S. soldiers and fired on a soccer field with kids playing on it just about a month ago, killing many of those young children and their parents. This kind of, again, attack on Hezbollah, I mean, attack on Israel with not acknowledging the danger that they pose and the violence that they pose to the average Israeli citizen, not IDF soldiers or troops, but to people who were just playing a game of soccer.

And that's why you've got to get creative in taking their communications out. They are a terror organization. Jordan, this is perhaps not surprising, but indecent and immoral to equivocate, to create any moral balance between the Hezbollah attacks on civilians, innocents, kids, nonmilitary targets, by the way, unprompted in the sense of they're the aggressor, not the victim, and the Israelis' response to the attacks on them by the Iranian regime directed at the terrorists themselves, the folks who are holding Hezbollah communications devices in their hand for a congressman to have done what she did, I think ought to be something that Speaker Johnson considers sanctioning her for. And we all ought to acknowledge that it is hard to explain this other than a deep anti-Semitism, a deep disdain for the Jewish people and their rightful homeland in Israel and a pro-Islamist mindset, which is clearly demonstrated by what it is the Iranians are doing and what her comments reflect about how she thinks about Israel's right and, frankly, America's right to support Israel, which is what she's going after, right?

Was the U.S. support and America's right to support our ally and our friend in the region. It's disturbing, Jordan, but we've seen this before. It's not gaslighting.

She actually believes this. Mr. Secretary, the FBI in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence this week revealed that hacked Trump campaign material was given to members of the then Biden campaign by Iran. And I just wanted to know, are you surprised that Iran is trying to help the Democrats defeat Trump? And also, why aren't we seeing Iran, Iran, Iran collusion on every headline and every television network in America right now? I'm laughing because it just brings back memories of my time as secretary of state and CIA director when we were all living under the Russia hoax narrative. And President Trump in particular was being falsely accused of being a Russian asset.

And we, of course, knew fundamentally differently. Now we have the Islamic Republic of Iran clearly having not just not just posted a bunch of memes or comments on X or Instagram or TikTok or wherever, but having actually hacked into former President and the team around him, stolen information and distributed to his opponent. I can completely explain why they want President Harris or Vice President Harris to be the next President of the United States.

She will continue the Obama Biden legacy of appeasement and giving Iran billions and billions of dollars. They they hold an American hostage. The Americans write a check under the Obama Biden Harris theory of the case.

That's why they want them to win. But for America, the failure is that we haven't responded. What what cost have we imposed on the Iranians for having stolen this information? Biden administration has failed and we're less safe for it. Secretary Pompeo, as always, we appreciate you so much being part of our team at the ACLJ to break all these issues down for us so that the people listening to this broadcast are able to get out to their friends and their families.

The correct information, the right information, because there's just a barrage of anti-Israel attacks, the information on Russia, the information on who's doing the hacking. And they need this now probably more than ever because they're getting, you know, if they're politically active, they're getting a lot of questions at home. So, Secretary Pompeo, thank you for joining us like this.

And we need your help and assistance. I know the team does and the listeners do as we get closer to Election Day. And folks, again, that's kind of what we're going to be trying to do here as we get closer to Election Day.

Of course, update you on the latest news, update you on the latest ACLJ work, but also make sure that you are you are ready to go as new issues arise. You are ready to go in defending those policy positions when you want to defend them, to attacking bad policy decisions so that you just don't say, well, I like this person more because they want to cut taxes and inflation will go down so that you can go a step further. And with your policy, we have a really smart base of listeners. And I love that about the secular broadcast and when we hear it every day, the questions in the comments, when I meet people at events who listen to the broadcast, you're really educated on the law, on policy and the way our country works.

And you know that it can be working a lot better for the American people. That's what we are trying to do at the American Center for Law and Justice. So today we encourage you to make a donation online at ACLJ.org for all the work that we are doing here in the United States. And folks, become an ACLJ champion today. Final day to do it. And your first donation will be doubled.

So join that team. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, so we went through a lot of phone calls, even with those guests.

So I want to encourage you, we've got phone lines open at 1-800-684-3110. What do you think about those comments Harris made about, you know, being a gun owner, laughing it off about killing someone, but then she'd have no qualms going to the next speech and telling people, we've got to take away people's guns. I mean, it's just this back and forth. You realize what they're trying to do. She's trying to appeal to middle America, that she, again, she thinks you have to, again, the lessers, I guess, because, you know, if you don't live on the east or west coast, so she'll say, well, I own a gun, so I'm just like you. Except for when she talks about it inside a group that is friendly to her, she laughs about it and makes a joke about it because she realizes she's in a group that, like her policy positions, usually demonizes a gun owner's will. And I mean, that's the true issue. But it didn't get better for her. That's right. And again, I've got to remind you, if you're watching this, you might be thinking, oh, she did another interview and she did it with Oprah.

So that would be a lot of softballs anyway. But this was a campaign event where Oprah was just kind of like the emcee. So she had everything prepared. Harris had everything, knew exactly what the questions would be. And still, still has not become the Harris that we saw in that one debate. I mean, let's play this one for folks.

That's right. This is an audience member asking a question about lowering the cost of living. And these are questions she's getting over and over again. It's what voters want to know what her plan is. And her response is very similar in the other response. It's bizarre.

Let's play Bite Five. What would be specific steps to strengthening the border? So it's a wonderful and important question. I, you know, my background was as a prosecutor and I was also the elected attorney general for two terms of a border state. So this is not a theoretical issue for me. This is something I've actually worked on. I have prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs and human beings. I take very seriously the importance of having a secure border and ensuring the safety of the American people.

So a question from the audience. What specific steps will you be taking to strengthen the border? And her answer is, I take very seriously the importance of having a secure border.

What? There's no specifics there. Once again, this is something that she has been pressed on for the entirety of her very short campaign. And they still can't give one specific.

And the entirety of her time as VP because she was the border czar. And yet no specifics on what they're going to do to stem the tide of illegal immigration. And look, when you saw that cut in the interest rate by the feds, you see the stark market over 40,000. Guess who's interested in crossing the border? Because they think people are about to start spending money, building new projects, building new buildings, more labor work available. People who want to cross that southern border illegally, who get paid in cash and oftentimes are not treated the same way as American workers would be. And so they take American workers' jobs because they get paid less, they're off the books, they're not getting any kind of benefits. And they come, you know, they don't come when the economy is really, really bad.

They come when the economy is getting better and people are building. And Rick, I think that is the bottom line here with these statements is that either she just doesn't want to tell us the policy because it's so liberal and so leftist. It's basically let everybody come in so she just won't answer.

That's right. And that's what we're seeing over and over again. Wait and see what I do. Well, and I think she's afraid that if she were to say something, she'd also have to follow it up with, I'll have to have my staff fix that later. There's another case we're working on internationally, by the way. Another innocent Christian has been sentenced to execution by hanging under Pakistan's blasphemy laws because of his faith in Jesus. We have an office in Pakistan. I always like to remind people that you might be new to the broadcast. We have offices all over the world and we are taking urgent action through that office to overturn this injustice before it's too late.

And that Christian is executed by hanging in the country of Pakistan. So support the work of the ACLJ and the work that we're doing all over the world by donating today at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. I first want to go to Harry Hutchinson, Director of Policy. This was just one, Harry, that I think I just wanted your insight on because do we have the sound from Nancy Pelosi?

Yes. So playing some of our, again, Nancy Pelosi don't love playing sound bites for him, but sometimes, you know, you just got to because this is another one that you may have missed. And it was just so rich in, again, I don't know how many times we're going to have to say ghost lighting the American people.

Maybe we're going to find the source and find out some other words to start using there because, or maybe even more extreme words, because this is just outright lying to the American people. Listen to Pelosi here about Harris, the Democrat process and the nominating process. You have reportedly said you wanted sort of an open primary when Joe Biden stepped down. Did you change your mind because you saw all the excitement around Kamala Harris?

No, I didn't change my mind. We had an open primary and she won it. Nobody else got in the race because she was politically astute.

Okay. Harry, she locked up all the delegates before they even got to the convention. It was done electronically. All that they, all people saw on the convention floor was show that was already done deal. So there was no time for any other candidates to get in. In fact, they kept RFK junior out intentionally. Second, there was no other choice to make actually because no one but Harris could inherit the 300 million hard dollars that Joe Biden and Harris had raised. So the only way to keep that money in the bank or to have it to spend it, that's the toughest money to raise.

You get billions in super PACs, but that's not the same kind of money. The only person that could do it was Harris. So of course they couldn't have a Democrat process where people could put forward whoever they wanted because, man, RFK junior might have gotten it.

We don't know. What we do know is that it had to be Harris. And they're telling us somehow that there was a, there was an election. There was. And Joe Biden won over overwhelmingly.

Absolutely. So Pelosi is simply the embodiment of anti-democracy. The Democrats like to claim that they are the protectors of democracy when it is exactly the opposite.

They essentially locked out RFK junior. There was a representative, I think Mr. Phillips from Minnesota, who attempted to run. The Democrats have basically adopted a strategy of trying to remove third party parties from the ballot. So I think at the end of the day, listening to Pelosi, who has a master's degree in line, simply I think is very disturbing in part because she is lined so brazenly. There wasn't an open Democratic process.

And basically Kamala was selected. That is really how the Democrats prefer to approach things. And that is one of the reasons they hate Donald Trump so much.

He is a breath of fresh air. Whether you like Donald Trump or not, he is moving the Democratic process forward. You know, I think again, it's just, Will, this idea that we're somehow living in an age of democracy, the Democrats, it's exactly the opposite. We saw that in the case in Nevada, where they waited till the last minute to try and keep the Green Party off. They gave him the wrong form. And let it be a warning now.

We got it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And let it be a warning now. Don't trust the government at all, including the secretaries of states. And that doesn't just mean if you're a political party, but if you're going to run for office and you need to get on the ballot. If they ever come to you and say, or you just ask and say, what's the form I need? You can take it from them, but make sure they also give you the rules of what must be on the form. And if that's not on the form, you need to go back to them immediately and say, you gave me a form.

This says it must be on there. I am not going to take a form from you to use until it is on there. And if they refuse to, then you contact someone like the ACLJ and we make sure they get you the correct form. Because no longer, this case proved it, that we took all the way to the Supreme Court. Can you rely on your own state and federal government officials to get you the right forms if you are politically someone who may be a challenge to their political beliefs? Which is just a sad state of affairs in America.

But wake up call folks. I'm very curious at how historians are going to look back at all the dirty tricks that have been played in this general election cycle. Whether it be horrific things like a failed assassination attempts where some people lost their lives as a result of those attempts, or whether it be the lawfare engaged by the Democrat Party trying to keep their opponents off ballots. Whether it be RFK Jr. not being allowed into the Democrat process early, and then when they fought to keep him off ballots around the country as an independent, and then as soon as he drops out and supports Trump, they fight to keep him on the ballot. Or whether it be trying to get the Green Party off, or just the outright lying when it comes to the condition of Joe Biden and then dropping him and then anointing Kamala Harris and trying to tell everyone.

It's dirty tricks all around, but there is a little bit of a positive note here. Is that, and I wanted to ask Professor Hutcheson about this, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling about something that I know we and our audience have been very concerned about. Remember, we were the only successful legal team post-election, again that was in 2020, post-election that got to stay out of the US Supreme Court on ballots that were found without dates. And we got to stay, I don't believe they were ever counted because they weren't outcome-determinative, but we got that stay from Justice Alito. He was the circuit justice there. So you can win these, and now Pennsylvania, Harry, has clarified it even more.

I think that's precisely correct. So the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that mail-in ballots with missing or incorrect dates will not be counted. But we should also note that the voters' rights groups in Pennsylvania say this is not the end of the road on this particular issue. And they are basically suggesting that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision still amounts to voter suppression. You know, there's breaking news, and it's good breaking news, and it's a sign of bipartisanship.

There were some obviously no votes here, but no one voted against it. In the House of Representatives, a bill just passed 405-405-0 to mandate equal US Secret Service protection for all major Presidential candidates. So that Donald Trump would receive the exact same kind of Presidential protection as Kamala Harris.

That they would all receive the same kind of protection, not less because you're a former, and she's currently in office. That's a huge move, Will, and I hope the Senate can act quickly there, bipartisanly, do the same thing. Because if we can get this done quickly, hopefully we see no more assassination attempts, and what we know is a very tense time in the country right now.

And Jordan, I think some credit needs to go to people like Jared Moskowitz, a friend of yours you've known for a long time. But he, very early, I mean really after the first assassination attempt, but after the second one, was all over TV saying this is ridiculous, something needs to be done. And also an unlikely source of reason on this was the representative Ro Khanna from California, one of the most leftist members of Congress. However, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post just a day or so after the failed attempt and said, protect Trump at any cost. So once again, there are many out there that are still using the language of threat to democracy very vociferously in the media, and using language that oddly could enrage people to a point of doing something horrific. However, there are Democrats, and clearly enough that it was 405 to 0, that still believe that this is a good move to show bipartisanship and to protect the leading candidate for the opposition party.

Any candidate that is a major party candidate will receive the equal protection from the U.S. Secret Service. That is a good thing to highlight today. Yeah, absolutely. I think that, again, I want to thank Democrats who crossed over. I'm sure my buddy Jared Moskowitz, who has been outspoken, he's not afraid to go on Fox News. He's not afraid to vote with, you know, against where his party is trying to whip, and that's a good thing. People should be voting their conscience when they're there and representing their districts more than they are representing their political party elites. You know, I think when we see all of this, just, Harry, going into it, and I mean, we've got a minute left in this segment, but when we see that out of Pennsylvania, it's a reminder for folks to go into this election weary of what you might get from the government, but we have to be happy warriors. That's how we're going to win.

I think that's correct. We have to be happy and optimistic warriors and fight for truth and ultimately for democracy. That's what we do at the American Center for Law and Justice every single day. You know, we're operating, we represent Operation Rescue and pro-life community after the U.S. Army training instructed soldiers, this is great, to view pro-life organizations as terrorists, because that won't cause any problems. And why does soldiers, why aren't members of our Army dealing with this?

They're not policing the streets? Support the work of the ACLJ. Go to ACLJ.org slash champion as well. We've been involved in every major Second Amendment case at the U.S. Supreme Court, free speech cases. We're waiting for you.

We need those champions. Donate today. Double your impact.

ACLJ.org. We need you. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We've got a lot of phone calls coming in, so I do want to take some of those right off the bat. Will, let's head to the phones. Yeah, let's go to Caleb from Texas, who's been hanging on for a while. Caleb, you're on Sekulow.

Hey, so my question, I appreciate you guys. My question is, what would someone consider a safe, gun-free zone? Because I just can't see any gun-free zone that exists that's safe. You know, it exists as a upcharge, criminally.

So that's really all it is. Gun-free zones have guns moving through them all the time. Of course, these horrible school shootings, those are gun-free zones. Not for the security, by the way.

But we know that people, if they are, you know, bent on carrying out one of those horrible attacks, they don't care that there's a sign there. What it is, is it increases your criminal charge. It's a very quick way, and we saw this with even the shooting that happened in Georgia, it's a very quick way to imprison the person who is the bad actor before you come up with all of the different, even bigger charges. You know, the homicide charges, the murder charges, all of those. Because if you do that within a gun-free school zone, it does help the prosecutor so that those bad actors are off the streets. In a preventative way, it's not really, it has never worked. But as a punishment purpose, I hope you understand that's what it does.

It makes it easier for law enforcement to keep those people locked up while they are putting together all the charges that they are going to bring against them. Alright, I want to play this bite before we go to other callers. But callers, we are going to get to you. But this is just one more moment from this town hall with Oprah that I couldn't let this show in without us playing it. This is Bite Six, and this is where a family, a husband and wife, are on screen and they are asking about the cost of living in the United States.

So let's go ahead and play it, Bite Six. We really would love to know what your plan is to help lower the cost of living. Yeah, first of all, thank you both for being here. And yours is a story I hear around the country as I travel. And in terms of both rightly having the right to have aspirations and dreams and ambitions for your family, and working hard and finding that the American dream is for this generation and so many recently far more elusive than it's been.

And we need to deal with that. And there are a number of ways. One is bringing down the cost of everyday necessities, including groceries. So her answer to the question of how are you going to bring down the cost of living is to say, I'm going to bring down the cost of living.

Yeah, including things like groceries and everything else. But how? That's the only reason, that's the only thing people want to hear. They don't want to hear that you want to do it. I would hope that every American politician, regardless of what party you're a part of or no party, every American would want to make it easier for their fellow Americans to purchase what they need.

And to be able to move into the next, you know, to become middle class or even to go past that, have that opportunity. But you got to tell them how you're going to get them there. You can't just tell them, I want to get them there and we will get them there if there's no policy behind it. And right now, what's clear is that the Harris team, whether it's the website or how she gives interviews, they have no policies. They have no core, you know, white papers on how they think they could get us there in, you know, four years or six years or eight years even. I mean, that to me too well, it's kind of like a slap in the face to the American people.

She's acting like they're that stupid. And that they will take that as a real answer. They'll clap for that. I mean, don't clap for that.

Because all that person is saying is, it would be great if your costs were down, but they're not telling you how they're doing it. Right. Let's go back to the phones. Let's go to Michael on line three, calling from Florida.

Michael, you're on Sekulow. My theory with Kamala and her campaign is it is the sleight of hand campaign, meaning there's a presentation of this fluffy nothingness. And we're really not going to know what's going to happen until after we vote her in. It's almost like the old Nancy Pelosi line about Obamacare. We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.

You have to elect Kamala Harris so you can find out what she'll do for you. I do. I agree with you.

It does seem a lot of times like sleight of hand. And that's what we're unfortunately not going to get anything more tangible or specific as we get closer to Election Day. Michael, thanks for calling. Let's go to Shonda calling on line six from Virginia. Shonda, you're on Sekulow. Hi.

Good afternoon. Question for you. I want to know, in your opinion, what happened to the normalcy in running for President? I don't see candidates like Bush one or Bush two or even Bill Clinton.

This is weird to me. We've got someone who's been convicted. You know, whether you like him or not, he's been convicted. He's a convicted felon running for President.

And then we have Kamala who supports things that most past Presidents would not even entertain. So what brought us as a country to this point where we have two candidates like this? Well, I think one is Donald Trump came in because the Republican Party was flat. It was not getting to the American people. There were individuals, there were some good Republicans in the Senate, people like Ted Cruz who could certainly deliver a conservative policy message, be a leader in the conservative movement.

On the left, there were certainly leaders as well, but they weren't really rising to the top. So Donald Trump saw an opening and he said, you know what, we can remake the Republican Party. And he, I think, has done so in a very positive way.

I'm not so worried about the convictions because I think those were purely what we call lawfare. New York would never have gone on the attack against Donald Trump. The people that are attacking him used to attend all of his events. They'd come to his wedding. They would go to his parties.

They would utilize his clubs. It was all for politics when he became a Republican. So he would have never faced any of these legal issues personally. And think about the fact that he had been a builder in New York, one of the most restrictive, toughest places with the most rules and regulations, and he had never had criminal issues at all. But suddenly after being President, they wanted to make sure they could try and do away with him ever running again.

So I just see, he saw an opening. On the Democrat side, there were a lot of people to choose from before it got to Joe Biden. But the party kind of apparatus made sure someone like Tulsi Gabbard could not move to the top, even though you're seeing the widespread kind of support she would have had. Why? Because she would have remade the Democrat party in her own policy image.

And it would have been probably a lot more appealing to even many people who are listening to this show right now. I just want to encourage you folks. This is a time to support the work of the ACLJ. I mean, we are again, we get loaded up with cases and we also have to prepare for all of the election issues that we get called on to handle.

And those are usually with 24, 48 hour turnarounds, sometimes hopping on planes. We'll do whatever we can. Folks, you know that at the ACLJ to make sure the right votes are counted and that bad votes, faulty votes, votes that should be excluded and counted as void, that they are. We have to be ready for all of that. So donate today at ACLJ.org so we are ready for the major battle coming soon. We'll talk to you next week.