Today on Sekulow, a new fight brews in Congress over election certification, and it's not from who you might think. 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. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. Yes, when you hear that there are members of Congress who might not certify a victory of a specific Presidential candidate, you might be thinking, hey, are we talking about the last election cycle and some special committee that's going to be going into action led by Democrats and angry former Republicans who spoke at the Democrat convention? No, we're actually talking about House Democrats like Jamie Raskin, who likes to consider himself a constitutional scholar. You may actually forget that he actually objected to certifying Donald Trump's electors in 2017.
But yet he was someone who led an impeachment against Donald Trump, saying, you know, he was violating the Constitution and not taking the certification of the election seriously because he questioned whether the elections had taken place lawfully and legally. We are in an effort right now at the ACLJ, of course, building up the legal team to ensure election integrity across the country, and especially in battleground states where there are new polls coming out every day showing races getting tighter, especially at the Presidential level, and even polls showing Donald Trump coming up with some new leads in states that, I mean, six months ago, it was not looking so great for any of the Republicans on the ballot. And you've got to be very strong and ready to go in those kind of states because let me tell you what, the Democrats who control those states right now are going to do everything in their power, at least legally, I'll say that, and we'll go further than that right now, at least legally to try and win those elections. And that means you have to be on top of them. That means you've got to have poll watchers.
That means you have to have attorneys ready to go. But the fact, Will, that we've got not just the nuts, and maybe they have become the nuts in Congress, maybe Jamie Raskin, though he's a ranking member of many committees and has been a lead impeachment officer in the second impeachment, which was kind of nutty as well because President Trump was no longer President, but he's right on this list, and he's someone who tried to find one Democrat senator to join him in not certifying the last election President Trump won, and he couldn't find one. That's right, Jordan. These three that Axios points to gave very troubling statements, and we'll get into more of this next segment with Rick Grenell. We've got a packed show coming up, but it's Jamie Raskin who is the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, very powerful committee, very powerful member of Congress for the Democrats. Jan Schakowsky, who is the senior chief deputy whip, someone who is a whip within a party, is in charge of getting the party in line to vote the way that the party wants them to vote.
So a very important position as senior chief deputy whip when it comes to trying to get people to do something as Congress. And then you have Jim McGovern, who is the House Rules Committee ranking member. Also another troubling figure in leadership, a very powerful committee, especially when it comes to certifying elections. So, Jordan, what you have here are three highly ranked Democrat members of Congress who are giving troubling statements about certification of election just 25 days away from the election. That's what our counter right there, if you're watching, 25 days from the general election. You've got these three making statements that are very concerning, especially in light of how far the Democrats went that Republicans and Donald Trump are a danger to our democracy. They won't even say if Donald Trump wins, of course, we do our what they say is a ministerial role and go ahead and certify the elections.
It's scary. We've got Rick Grenell coming up next. We'll take your phone calls. Give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.
Do you think the election will actually be over on Election Day or maybe a few hours into the early hours of the next day? Well, take your calls. 1-800-684-3110. And remember, the ACLJ, we're ready to fight. We're fighting now against the left's undemocratic attacks. We're ready to be in court.
We are in court now. Support our work. Donate today at ACLJ.org. And you can become an ACLJ champion to make that recurring automatic monthly donation at ACLJ.org slash champions. Welcome back to secular. We are taking your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. They're already putting their statements out about will they or won't they certify the election? What will Congress do? And we're talking about congressional Democrats in leadership roles. And we've got Rick Grenell joining us now. He's a member, a team member here at the ACLJ. And he's also out on the campaign trail for the Trump campaign. And Rick, I want to go to you first on this because we've got these are not no names in Congress. These are ranking and subcommittee members and ranking members of committees named House Democrats that they put forward on the Sunday shows. One who led an impeachment against President Trump, Jamie Raskin, who in 2017 did not want to vote against certifying the election.
Couldn't find a fellow Senate Democrat to do that. And now is saying about this election before anyone before any votes have been counted, some people are already voting early in states. He said that, quote, he he definitely can't assume that Trump would use free, fair and honest means to secure victory. He'll do whatever he can to interfere with the process, whether we're talking about manipulating Electoral College counts or manipulating the vote count in Georgia or imposing other kinds of impediments.
Rick, I'd like to make one point very clear to people. Jamie Raskin may be having a flashback issue, but Donald Trump is not the President right now. He does not have the powers of the government. So all that he can do is through the courts is to battle what he believes are and his campaign believes and the RNC believes are illegal moves by states to two that are not securing the vote. And they take those to court.
You win some, you lose some. And Jamie Raskin is calling that again, interfering and imposing impediments to the vote counts. Yeah, this is laughable. What Jamie Raskin and the Democrats are doing is exactly what they accused Republicans of doing. And yet here we go again. They're pointing the finger at us. But look what they're doing. They're undermining the democracy already. They're laying the groundwork that if Trump wins, there's going to be a case by Democrats to say he cheated and therefore the election should not be certified.
I thought we just went through four years of the media constantly asking every Republican, did this election, the past 2020 election come off without a hitch? And the reality is, is that we say we got to look and see how the election plays out. But the people in charge right now are the Democrats. Remember that the Democrats control the White House. They control the majority of county officials in the swing state where this vote is going to be watched very closely. We've already seen in Philadelphia, I'm in Allentown, Pennsylvania now, but I've seen in Philadelphia the officials there have said they're not going to be able to count all of the votes on election night.
So the manipulation is a very real concern and we have to stay focused on it. We have to be able to secure the election and we should be able to agree that having signature verification, having ID is just minimum standards. Except remember, the Democrats do not want voter ID. They do not want voter signature verification in serious forms because they spin it and they say it disenfranchises people, which is ridiculous.
But that's their game. Rick, we also, I think, have to remind people that just a handful of months ago, we had Democrat secretaries of state in Colorado and a liberal court there and courts across the country then and other secretaries of states like in, I think it was in Maine and some others, try and remove President Trump from the primary ballot unilaterally without a vote. They just wanted to take him off the ballot because they determined that he didn't qualify to be on the Republican ballot and then wouldn't, of course, qualify to be on the general election ballot because he wouldn't have been able to get votes. Now, we won that at the U.S. Supreme Court, but talking about interfering with elections at the last minute, that's exactly what the Democrats have been doing this entire race. I mean, they changed the candidate because he didn't do well in a debate to their vice Presidential candidate right after President Trump took part in an early debate that Joe Biden asked for.
Yeah, look, the hypocrisy is really unbelievable. Remember, they spent more than a year talking about how the democracy was on the ballot, right? That's all they kept saying is democracy is on the ballot. Well, they had to drop that phrase because they pushed Joe Biden out and they implemented a candidate, put in a candidate, Kamala Harris, that didn't really deal with democracy, didn't have a democratic process. She was handed the nomination.
And so they had to drop that whole message point. We've also seen, Jordan, you know this intimately, that the Democrats have worked really hard in the legal system to keep Jill Stein, a Green Party candidate, off the ballot while working hard to keep Robert Kennedy on the ballot even though he dropped out. I mean, this is a total hypocrisy when they talk about democracy. They're trying to manipulate the process so that they can win.
Rick, one of the other members of Congress that Axios mentions is the House Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern from Massachusetts. And the quote that they have from him about Democrats certifying the election, it says, assuming everything goes the way we expect it to. We have to see how it all happens.
My expectation is that we would. I mean, you can't give them the benefit of the doubt, but even if you do, you'd think they'd choose their words more carefully than this. But assumes everything goes the way you expect it to sounds pretty ominous. Yeah, it sounds like they've got a plan to manipulate the vote, to not count all the votes on election night, figure out how much they need.
Look, this is very scary because we've seen this playbook before. And again, we need transparency and we need common sense. Common sense means voter ID, voter signature verification means counting all the votes in one night in a transparent way where there's a Republican and a Democrat watching it. You don't close the curtains and shut the door and kick out everybody to count the ballots.
You don't bring in suitcases at the last minute. And so we have to have lawyers. I think the Republican Party has done a better job than 2020. We have really good lawyers watching this process. We still have to be vigilant. I'm still not confident that they're not going to find ways to manipulate the process. But this from Jamie Raskin is really a sign that we have got to get every single person in local communities watching the ballot.
Go show up at the polls and watch this process. It's sad that in the United States of America we're worried about free and fair elections, but we have to be. And to that point, Rick, it's like if we win, they're setting the standard that if Republicans win, they must have broken the law. They must have cheated. They must have done something to violate someone's civil rights.
There's no way they could beat us in a free and fair election. I mean, that's really the kind of tone that they're setting, which is also one that can be very dangerous in the country. When you start putting out there that the only way these guys can win is if they do something illegal. I mean, it's basically what they're saying.
Right. And they've made ideas illegal. So the only way that these guys can win is if we have an election where we know that it's safe and secure. And and if they attack the way that we've set up these elections, then they've manipulated the process.
Look, common sense has to reign the day. The Democratic Party is completely devoid of common sense. We have a Supreme Court justice, a woman on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, who doesn't know what a woman is, who couldn't feel comfortable to answer the question because the Democratic Party is so far left woke. When they lose, they want to add Supreme Court members so that they manipulate the court. When they lose, they want to add new states so that they have more senators. They are manipulating the process when they don't like their candidate at the last minute. They push the candidate out. They don't have a Democratic primary.
They install who they want. And then they have people like Jamie Raskin who go and wag their fingers to say, don't challenge our process, otherwise you are the bad guy. This is devoid of common sense. No one should feel bad about pushing back against this. A closed border and not having two wars is common sense. Gas prices, where we are able to drill in our own country rather than buy dirty Venezuelan oil, is common sense.
They are not for common sense. You know, Rick, I appreciate everything you're doing right now for the country. And I also appreciate you taking that time, as you do a couple times a week at least, to join us here, to update our team, to work with us behind the scenes so that we can be doing everything we can at the ACLJ so that the folks out there know what they should be doing as well, the grassroots level. And folks, you can support the work of the ACLJ. It's very easy to do so.
You make it all possible. You take action with us to defend the integrity of this election at ACLJ.org slash vote. That's ACLJ.org slash vote. As we work to defend your right to vote, we need your support. We're ramping up our election integrity efforts right now, so go to ACLJ.org slash vote.
Get educated and join the fight. Either donate to the ACLJ. You can make a one-time donation at ACLJ.org. Or become an ACLJ champion.
Choose an amount you're comfortable with, donating automatically each month, and donate at ACLJ.org slash champions. Alright, so a packed show for you today on this Friday. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs is joining us. And Secretary Pompeo, I wanted to go right to this because on Tuesday, we had Tim Walz telling donors he thinks the Electoral College should be eliminated. Now on Thursday, he says that's not the position of the campaign. Is it just another extreme Harris-Walz position that they're letting their donors know, hey, wink, wink, this is what we're going to do if we get into office?
Or do you think Tim Walz just got exposed for who he really is? Secretary Pompeo, can you hear us? Alright, we'll try that again in a minute.
I'll try that again. We'll reconnect with Secretary Pompeo. Jordan, I've got you.
Can you hear me now? I got you. Great. Look, I have no earthly idea what Tim Walz thinks about the Electoral College from what he said. I have no idea what the campaign's position from what he said.
But we know this. This is a radical group of leaders in Harris and Walz who want to undermine all the foundational ideas that our republic was built on. And the Electoral College is one of those pillars.
It's been with us since the beginning. Our founders understood why it was important that we have a system that wasn't a straight democracy with a popular vote across the entire nation. And I think your core point is right.
Whatever they tell us in the coming days, whatever gaps they commit, they believe that the nation would be better served by undermining those central pillars of our republic, not supporting and continuing to build on them in the way we have for the last 250 years. And to me, Secretary, that's because for those of us that live in what they consider like these flyover states, that we're our population centers. Yeah, we're growing right now, especially in states like where we are. And we've seen extreme population growth in the last 10 years.
But we're still quite smaller than the coastal elite states. And I think they'd love to just see a straight up vote, which like you said, our founders knew from the beginning would not be the right way to get a representative democracy into the U.S. government. One that people believed was actually responding to them and that also looked like them, that mirrored them and mirrored their and understood their concerns. You've got it exactly right. Look, their mission is really simple. They want the nation to look more like California or New York or Chicago.
Right. So they want the big urban centers to dominate American politics at the national level. They'd love to take away anything that allowed people who were from places like me in Kansas or people from the southern states, people from places that have a set of values that are deeply different than Harrison Waltz's values. They want to eliminate us from the capacity to have to have and to shape political outcomes and getting rid of the Electoral College would do precisely that. And Mr. Secretary, just to reiterate that point for everyone, is that he mentioned in that follow up where he was trying to say that he wants it to be a position where everybody matters in the country instead of the five or six states that they campaign in at the end. When in reality, New York City itself, just the city, has more population than 39 states. So if you're only having to campaign in the largest cities in America, they are gaslighting the American people by saying if it's a popular vote, then everybody matters.
In reality, it's quite the opposite. If there was no Electoral College, nobody would be campaigning in Michigan. They'd be campaigning in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh, but no place else in Pennsylvania. And in New York, they'd be campaigning in Manhattan and not even upstate New York.
No, you're right. It would actually consolidate, diminish the number of places that and political views that would have to be acknowledged if you got rid of the Electoral College. That's why I look if you go back, you read the Federalist Papers.
Our founders were very clear about this. You had an agrarian America, you had an urban America, and you had all kinds of different ideas, and they understood that a direct democracy would only lead to more chaos and an undermining of our democratic values and principles. You know, Secretary Pompeo, you have an article up at ACLJ.org called Biden and Harris Utterly Fail in the Wake of October 7th. And you make the case that Israel and America and the West are rooted in Judeo-Christian values and that contrast between the jihadis and the Middle East. Is this an existential battle between good and evil? I mean, it seems like the right gets this and the Republican Party gets this and most of its leaders understand this.
But on the left, it just kind of goes over their head. This idea and especially the further you get on to the further left you go about just the basics of good and evil, like who the good guys are and who the bad guys are when it comes to what happened on October 7th. For most people, I think you could explain those events. Don't tell the people who was engaged in what side and they could tell you easily who were the bad guys, who were the good guys.
I think that's exactly right. You all know this. You remember many of the listeners and viewers of ACJ. You remember Barack Obama's apology to our back in 2010.
The Harris Waltz team is exactly that. They don't understand that America is a force for good and they get confused. They get confused when they see the innocent civilians in Gaza being killed. They get confused about whose fault it is. They forget that the result of those deaths are the direct result of Iran forcing Hamas to continue its terrorist ways.
They see people killed in Beirut and they say, oh, my goodness, look at the Israelis when in fact this was Hezbollah that caused those deaths. There are there are too few in the bubble inside of Washington, D.C., who are prepared to say there is a bright line between good and evil. We know who the good guys and the bad guys are, and we are going to relentlessly with all of our energy defend the good guys and make sure that the good guys prevail. And we all need to as people who who come from this this understanding, this Judeo Christian tradition here in America, we need to be always on the side of good.
And that means never becoming morally confused about this conflict between Israel and these terrorists. You know, Secretary Pompeo, people are already voting in some states, voting early, absentee ballots are going out. We've twenty five days left as of today going into this weekend to a message to our listeners. They want to know, you know, a lot of them what they can do right now to help good conservative candidates win, whether it's in their state, whether it's at the national level. What would you tell them to do? So I've also already voted. I would urge them if they've got time and the space, go vote now. Get it over. Make sure it happens.
If you have a bad weather day on the fifth, you don't want to be stuck. I want to make sure that every conservative believer gets out there and votes. I'd give them three ideas.
One, go make sure your friends do the same. Get them to vote. Remind them it's time. We're in the middle of this campaign right now.
The election is well underway. Second, pray for our candidates. Pray for their continued courage and wisdom. Pray that their families don't grow tired in these last few weeks. It's going to be tough.
The media onslaught will be very real. And then lastly, never, never forget that this election matters an awful lot. We have to do our best to get it right. And the mechanism by which we do that is to vote, encourage others to vote and then help those leaders be successful. If you can, if you can find a candidate and you can go out and help them, whether that is for city council or county commission or school board, wherever it may be, go encourage them, go help them. And you will benefit from it personally. But more importantly, your community, your state and our country will benefit from that greatly.
Absolutely right. Thank you, Secretary Pompeo, for being part of our team and for taking the time today to talk to the folks out there. I mean, with this 25 days left, it's very important.
And I think what Secretary Pompeo said at the end is truly important. You know, you don't have to say, oh, I've got to go find a Senate campaign or a Presidential campaign that needs my help. Those local campaigns, because getting out those voters for that city council race could be the group of voters. And a couple of campaigns like that could be the vote number that tips the scales for who takes the state for all those Presidential electoral votes. So don't think you're just working with a local election.
You're not in these type of elections. So get out there and volunteer. Make sure you voted as early as you can, I think, in this election. We've seen the weather. We've seen the issues.
Get your friends to do it. Of course, support the work of organizations that are going to be there leading up to the election. And the day after and the hours after, ready to fight if we have to in court at ACLJ.org. You can donate today. We'll be right back. All right, welcome back to Sekulow. We are taking your calls to 1-800-684-3110. It's a packed first half hour because we had Rick Rinnell joining us live, Mike Pompeo joining us live. And now we're going to go to your calls as well. So we've got some lines open for you. We've got some people holding on as well to talk to us. 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk to us on the air today. We've got four lines open for you. We're going to go to the phones right now. Yes, let's go to Barbara calling on Line 2 from New York. Barbara, you're on Sekulow.
Hi. I was calling to ask a question about the certification of the election. If the vice President makes the decision regarding certification, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest if Kamala Harris is in that position? I mean, it shouldn't be in the sense that where the courts have come down and where scholars have come down on the certification so far is that that is a purely, especially when it comes to the vice President. So they don't have the role of objection like a House member and then there's a rule where then the House has to find a Senate colleague as well who could also then bring an objection to certifying the election.
The vice President who plays that role is what we believe is a ministerial role. So they may not like who they have to certify. It could be their opponent that they're certifying that beat them in the election. It could be that they do get to say they're certifying their election. But in a role like that, it is not supposed to be one where they have a power to make decisions. Now, Congress can bring objections. And that's different. And there's a whole mechanism for that. And what you have to see is both action in the House and then co-action in the Senate.
The Democrats that try this with President Trump back in his first election victory, like Jamie Raskin, could not find a senator to go along with them and thus open debate on the issue and slow down what would ultimately still have likely been a certification of the 2016 election in 2017 by the U.S. Senate. So I don't think it is a conflict at this point. We have not seen it become an issue.
That's right. But you know what? We watch all those issues really closely. I don't think we want to say, let's just say, we could say it shouldn't be an issue.
But you know what? Donald Trump being on the primary ballot shouldn't have been an issue either. And we had to fight that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. So I think on this election, like Mike Pompeo just said, we have to be ready for anything because the consequences and the outcome of this election and the importance of this election are so key. And both the left and the right know that. So it's not just one side who understands this. Both know this is an extremely consequential election for the direction of the United States.
And so you could see new hijinks try and be pulled at any moment. It's why groups like us at the ACLJ, while we know what's right, we can tell you the history and we can tell you what we've done in court in the past. We are never surprised by what we have to take to court in the future. And to Barbara's call also, probably the closest analogy of what would happen if President Trump were to win reelection and Kamala Harris had to certify it would be the 2000 election where in January of 2001, Al Gore, who was the loser in that, after a very contested All the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, after that ruling, he did certify the election that he was the loser and George W. Bush was the winner. If there were hijinks to be pulled by the vice President, I feel like that would have been the time for them to happen as it was two candidates and the one who certified it had to certify it against himself after a very contested election. And I don't know that Al Gore still believes he lost that election. Yeah, I don't know if we live in that time period anymore either.
I don't know that would be that smooth either. But I do think it's a good comparison to make. We have gone through that before, even in a contested way. And we saw it go fairly smoothly. It was America was waiting for months and a Supreme Court ultimately said no more vote counting.
That's it. We've got to choose a President now. And America's got to be able to move on and have a commander in chief by the time it is to swear a President in. And you think about the history of that, too, because of the delay and the attacks that came on America not too far after that with the 9-11 attacks.
Was it because the President had less time to put in a transition team and was instead fighting out who was going to be a winner or loser? Well, we can always look back, but we need to look forward as well. Be ready for the fight.
Support us at ACLJ.org. We'll take more calls when we get back. Welcome back to Secula. We're going to try to take more of your phone calls this half hour of the broadcast.
So, Will, who do we have next or what are we going to play next? I think before we get to that, we should remind people of what Representative Jamie Raskin did say earlier this year. Now, this bite was just about a week and a half, maybe two weeks before the Supreme Court ruled on the 14th Amendment case, which was really about whether the secretaries of state could unilaterally remove President Trump from the primary ballots. But what he says there when you couple it with this reporting today about him not giving assurance that he would certify an election with a Trump victory, it's an ominous warning from him about what may be going on within the Democrats in Congress trying to figure a way out, maybe a new insurance plan a la Page and Strzok.
But let's go ahead and listen to bite two. What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly. And the greatest example going on right now before our very eyes is section three of the 14th Amendment, which they're just disappearing with a magic wand as if it doesn't exist, even though it could not be clearer what it's stating. And so, you know, they want to kick it to Congress. So it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified.
And then we need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions, all because the nine justices, not all of them, but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means. So the fact that he's saying they want to kick it to Congress, it's going to be up to us on January 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified and then invokes civil war conditions because of the Supreme Court. And we've heard all along that the threat to democracy are President Trump and MAGA Republicans that want to see free and fair elections, that want to see people strive and have good economic conditions and want to put America first instead of globalism first. And yet he's mentioning civil war conditions and saying it's up to Congress on January 6, 2025 to tell the Trump mobs that he's disqualified. That is a frightening bite, especially in context of the Democrats that Axios is reporting on that won't commit to certifying an election for President Trump. So this is something they've got brewing, obviously, that we need to be on the lookout for, which is that if the election is close, which, listen, close could mean that you win a lot of states, but if you win them by very small vote count numbers, so your electoral college number could be big, it could be tight, too. So either way, they're going to try and say, well, should we try and maybe decertify Trump now as an actual, now that he's won, can we go in and say, well, now that he's actually won and would become President, can we use anything we've got against him to say that he can't actually take the oath and thus we can't certify him to be President of the United States?
And how long can we drag this out? And how much can we take the anger level in America and keep turning it up and turning it up until maybe there's some violence and people get angry at each other and neighbors get angry at each other? And it's not the America you want to live in.
You know what America you want to live in? You want to live in an America where you and your neighbor might vote for someone different. And you don't need to hate each other. You might strongly disagree on some issues. And on other elections, you might come to the conclusion that you do support the same person.
You should be able to talk about it without thinking that that person hates you or that you hate them. Right now in this country, I can tell you just from my neighborhood, it's like a sign war is going on. And it's not the kind of neighborhood that I saw that happen in, by the way, four years ago at all. I was one of the few people because I was involved in even, I think, me and a couple others on my street who were more involved in politics. But this time around, I mean, I see people on both sides who went online and probably, because neither campaign, we're not a swing state where we are, so they're handing them out for free here.
And they're never handing out 120 to you. I've got neighbors on both corners of mine with, let's say, a candidate I like. Probably a hundred of signs on each corner around their house. I've got a neighbor across, I've got a couple in my yard and one for a Senate candidate who I really like here.
And across the street is the largest Harris-Waltz sign you can buy online. Now, do you think if I needed to help those people across the street, I wouldn't? Do you think that if we, as neighbors, that we look at each other and that?
No. In fact, it's kind of a smirk. Now, it's serious. It's a little uncomfortable right now.
That's okay. But at the end of the day, we're still going to be neighbors and we both try to convince each other about why we think this would be better for our country or that would be better for our country. And I think that's the country we want to live in, not a country where we go, you know what, if we lose this, let's see how we can take it from the other side.
Because that's how you get to a level of anger. And I'm not sure the country can go through that again. We're going to go back to the phones, Jordan. We're going to go to Vaughn in Massachusetts on line three. Vaughn, you're on Sekulow. Hello.
Hi, how are you? Good. Can you turn your radio down, Vaughn? Yeah. Hold on. I'll get out of that room. Thank you.
Okay. Here's what I've been waiting to tell you. Aren't we in a constitutional republic? I remember as a kid growing up, I always had this term, conspiracy to overturn the government, the Constitution of the United States in a capital crime. I grew up during the Cold War.
And so we were always on alert for being attacked. At any rate, now everybody's calling it a democracy. Democracy and the republic are two different things.
We have separation of powers, just so that's why we're still here. And I think that nobody's mentioning that. I think there's a language problem too. I mean, people are saying misspoke for basically lying.
If they're transparent, why don't they just tell the truth? We've gotten, they've taken over our language. It's crazy. Yes. I think that the words, we talked about this during the Democrat Convention. The word freedom, they changed the definition of to be things that the government gives you for free. Not actual freedom, not liberty, but what is free. That's different than freedom. To make your own decisions or to try and make it in a way, try to start a small business without the heavy hand of government making it impossible to do so.
Pick the best plan for your family that you think is best and not say here's the one government plan you can have and that's it. When it comes to democracy versus a constitutional republic, we are a constitutional republic that has democratic elements. For instance, inside the House of Representatives, when they vote, it's very democratic in the sense that it's a majority vote. They don't do a lot of super majorities.
It's not all the time, but most of the time. The Senate has a mixture of both. Sometimes it's a majority vote. Sometimes you have to have a super majority. And the Senate can also set rules. Some of those rules are set by the Constitution, like impeachment rules and where the vote has to be there.
It's a regular vote in the House. It's just if you have enough votes to impeach, you can impeach. But to get a conviction, you have to have more votes. If there's a hundred, you have to have the 66.6, that's 67 voting to impeach. That's why we have not seen many impeachments actually go through to convictions in our country.
So, Will, we're definitely a mix and the words get tossed around sometimes loosely. But now we know that they are not being tossed around loosely, that when people say we're not truly a democracy, they are attacking the idea of the Electoral College and the idea of representative democracy that we have in America. That's right. And that's why it gets a little nerve-wracking for people that love our Constitution, love our system of government, when you hear the person who is the nominee for vice President of the United States going after one of the bedrock principles and one of the genius principles, like the Electoral College, of making sure that people in the rural areas and the agrarian economy, as it was back then, to now when there's still manufacturing bases in rural areas, there's not a population center there, but they still count. Their votes should still matter. And when you go to a straight popular vote, no candidate is going to spend money to go to Iowa ever again. Minnesota is probably off.
And we've got a call we'll take in the next segment about that as well. But you think Idaho, Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, maybe because of Atlanta. But when you've got states that populations are sometimes many are under five million people, you start to look at it. It's like, what's the cost benefit analysis for a campaign to go try to hit a lot of places in a state instead of just going to large cities and probably having the same effect?
Anyone who doesn't live in Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, L.A., Dallas and Houston, maybe Atlanta, you're not going to ever see a Presidential campaign make a stop there because what's the point that it's cost too much money to get people there for little return on your investment? The hypocrisy of the radical left. It's outrageous now. They claim to be defenders of democracy, yet they're trying to ban our candidates from the ballot, even stating they refuse, as we've seen today, to certify a Trump victory. At the ACLJ, we're fighting back against the radical left's undemocratic attacks in court next week. We're defending our whistleblower client, Garrett O'Boyle, with a major oral argument in federal court. That's happening next week. We're battling to defend Tulsi Gabbard and all conservatives from the weaponization of the federal government.
If it can happen to her, it can definitely happen to you or me. We've defeated the Trump ballot ban at the U.S. Supreme Court this year, and we're now, as we've said, ramping up our efforts to defend the integrity of this election. Donate today at ACLJ.org.
Welcome back to Secular. We've got more calls to get through on this Friday, 25 days out, and there's a lot you could do, folks, between now and then. As Mike Pompeo said, and he's someone who's run for the House of Representatives before holding those higher offices in the executive branch, get involved in your local elections. If you can, vote early. Vote early. I think this is something Republicans are preaching. Finally, this election, the right time, we used to preach this in previous elections, too, which is get the votes in so that on election day, our candidates, good conservative candidates, have already got a lot of votes in the bank. That's what you call it in the voter bank. And you know, and campaigns will usually track it, too, and you'll see, like if you know a certain area in a county, you know, votes 70% Republican and 65% of votes are already in from that county, you can kind of get an idea of how many votes you've got in from that county already for Republicans or for conservatives.
And that gives you a good idea of what else you need to do in that county so that you're using your resources in the right way across the state, and you can see how you can then extrapolate that out to where you need to be across the nation. It's what the Democrat Party has done a better job of in the last few election cycles. We got away with it in 2016. We got caught, I think, in 2020 and then in those midterms as well with kind of poo-pooing the idea of early voting.
But we have now, and you've heard President Trump embrace it, too, because you can't wait. We see the weather. We see the issues people face, health issues people face, family issues people face. So when you can go vote, go vote and take someone with you, too, and then the next day remind somebody else to go vote. It's easy.
Usually the lines are a lot shorter. And on election day, you could be assisting and making sure you're getting out more voters than having to worry about how long you're going to have to wait in line to vote and then pick up your kids or meet someone or get back from work. So I just encourage you to start thinking, make your plans now. You got the time, 25 days out. It's not so close that you can't figure it out between now and then. And all that info is available for you online.
It's all there. And I just say, make a plan and then decide, what else can I do? Figure out if you've got extra time, how to use it, because we all know how important this election is, and it works from the bottom up.
You know, I mean, all those votes that you're getting out for a local conservative are also helping the conservative at the top of the ticket. Remember that. But Will, we'll go right back to the phones. Yeah, let's go ahead and go to Arthur. He's got an interesting point here. He's on line one calling from Ohio. Arthur, you're on secular. Hi, Jordan.
Hi, Will. If Tim Walz has a good idea about the Electoral College, I wonder what that would do to votes in a national election in Minnesota. Seems to me they might just not ever see a national candidate again. Does Tim have some thoughts about how to value the citizens voting in Minnesota?
Yeah, it's weird. I mean, even Minneapolis, because it goes so far left, I mean, Republicans probably wouldn't spend time there. It's probably not enough Republican votes to send anyone high profile.
Certainly not to choose them to be on the top of a ticket with you, as like a VP candidate. You would go to, if you were looking at the Midwest, you'd go somewhere else. Probably go to Illinois or Ohio, because you've got more than just one or two population centers. You've got a handful to work in that can also affect you in different states. If you're in Ohio, you can hit a little Western PA as well, or Michigan, and you can hit Western Ohio.
I mean, there's all these things you can do. And yeah, I mean, Tim Walz would be in one of those flyover states, likely. Well, and Jordan, we were actually talking about this. Maybe that would be the best outcome of that. We were talking about it during the break, and Arthur's point is great, because a lot of times we talk about the reason your vote counts in what they call flyover states is because of the Electoral College. But also, the candidates you get, you would most likely, as Arthur's bringing up, you would never see someone like Tim Walz on a ticket. Now, it's a double-edged sword for Tim Walz, but you have to think about, you know, Mike Pence was from Indiana. You think of all the states that people were from. I mean, even Ohio, J.E.D. Vance being from Ohio. Donald Trump from New York is a Republican. You would see more people like Donald Trump being from New York, because normally when you pick a VP candidate, you're trying to help pull some support with you.
And if you're going to states like Minnesota, that's not really going to help you in the long run if it's just a national vote. But let's go back to the calls. Wilbur's been holding from Georgia on Line 4. Wilbur, you're on Sekulow. Yeah, how you doing, Dave? We're good, Wilbur.
You're on the air. All right, now, my question to all Americans is, what has the Democrat Party done in the last four years? They have done nothing, absolutely nothing. They have brought chaos after chaos into this country. Says all they have done, what has Kamala done besides laugh a lot. That's all she's done.
I think, Wilbur, I think you're right. I think what they have done has brought a lot of problems to the United States. And they've exacerbated problems that we knew we had and they made them worse, like the border.
They made those situations worse by not taking it seriously. She's a border czar who laughs about that position, then tries to run ads. In the background are President Trump's own walls. She also says he didn't build any walls while he was President. And then in her own ads, she's, you know, in front of, superimposed in front of walls built by President Trump that weren't there before President Trump in states like Arizona. So have they made issues worse, like inflation and the economy?
Absolutely. And guess what? She doesn't want to change anything. Remember, we talked about this a couple days ago, Wil, that was her whole thing is, I wouldn't change anything in this administration. I would have done every, I would have made every decision the exact way President Biden did. So that is really what, you're still voting for whether or not you want Joe Biden to be President for another four years because Harris has got no new ideas and she said it.
That's right. And then we also have yesterday on a Univision town hall, she said this about her record, which is quite surprising to hear coming from her, but let's go ahead and play it. So I will put my record up against anyone in terms of the work I have always done and will always do to ensure we have a secure border.
Which is just ridiculous, ludicrous. Four years she had this title which she could have maximized for Democrats. She could have revolutionized how Democrats took on the border issue. Being from California, being a prosecutor, all those things she talks about, she could have led the charge that really could have actually hurt Republicans. I mean, because she could have said, you know what, I'm going to do something about this issue.
It's going to be a little different, but you know what? My state has dealt with this. It's been a real problem. It does bring a lot of issues, crime.
It's not fair that what we're doing to these communities, it's not being anti-Mexican or anti-Hispanic, but let me lead the charge on this. She didn't. She's just telling you she's going to be tough. But she said she doesn't want to change any Biden policies.
Have any Biden policies improved anything on the border? And the answer to that is no, Jordan. Carol, you have about 20 seconds. You're the last call of the day, but I want to get your question in. Go ahead.
You're on the air. I'm confused about the electoral college. It seems like it's on. Isn't it in the Constitution? Yes, Carol, it's in the Constitution. For election President and vice President, it's in the Constitution, Article II, electing Presidents.
Here's the problem, Carol. Democrats that are talking about this also believe our Constitution was great but isn't so great anymore. And that, you know, it's a flawed document and it might need to go. And instead of saying, you know, that we've made amendments before, certainly as our country, we always want to get things better, many of them now want to just kind of throw it all out and start over. And start over with things like, let's just have direct elections. Let's go to pure democracy.
And it sounds good to people. They'll vote for it. So while it's safe today, is it going to be safe by the next election? You never know. You just never know. And you can't trust the other side right now. That's a sad thing to say. Let's get out and vote. Let's get out and do the right thing.
