NY Judge DENIES Immunity for Trump

Today on Sekulow, a New York judge denies immunity for President Trump. 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, here we go. How long can we keep these cases moving against President Trump so that they can still go into the news and say, well, there's pending charges and Judge Michon did not buy, I guess what, the Supreme Court's argument that the President was immune from the people who went in and testified because of executive privilege. There's all these issues involved in this case. That might be the one that actually takes it down is that so much of the evidence was derived by evidence that the Supreme Court said is not proper or you'd have to at least litigate through each individual's person on whether or not what they shared would be covered by executive privilege.

But in general, in general, what the Supreme Court found is that you assume it is. So it's something that the government, the prosecutors, would have to prove with a pretty high bar that it isn't protected Presidential communication. But, Will, the important part here on this case is not that Judge Michon has, I think, left no room for him to dismiss this case. He still has one more opportunity to do that before more appeals begin. But at the same time, this was a way for him to say, you know what, I'm bound by the U.S. Supreme Court. You guys tried to do this with these federal charges. This is there's immunity questions. There's privilege questions.

This doesn't work anymore. That's right. And this decision was expected early November around November 12th. However, Judge Michon postponed releasing this decision on how the Supreme Court's immunity decision would affect his sentencing and the case. And that's why there's no sentencing yet because there's more cases to come from Michon.

Exactly. There's more chances to dismiss it. However, he postponed releasing this immunity ruling, which he'd been working on, there'd been briefing on, since the Supreme Court released their decision on it. He postponed it from November 12th to now.

It came out yesterday, last night, December 16th. And it's a little odd to me that he did push that back with this outcome. And he goes through in his conclusion, he goes through the exhibits that were in question and says that many, many of them that weren't. He said he just categorically said these communications I don't think were immune because I don't think they were official acts.

So he's making judgments there. But then he also says, lastly, this court concludes that if error occurred regarding the introduction of challenged evidence, so evidence that would have been covered by the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. This was evidence that was introduced that were communications once President Trump was in the White House that under that broad interpretation of you start with the assumption it is covered by this immunity ruling and work back from there. And the fact that he found nothing as is covered with this immunity ruling, I feel like opens the door for an appeal if it even gets there. But an appeal just based off of his judgment of completely shutting down what came out of that Supreme Court ruling in this state lower court judge saying that no, I don't have to throw this out based off that. Now, we know that the briefing and Alvin Bragg gave kind of the two to three options of keeping this alive in the motion to dismiss now that President Trump will be entering the White House.

So we still don't have that ruling, but we'll have Harry Hutchison on next to get more into the details on this immunity ruling in the next segment. Yeah, I want to take your calls on this to 1-800-684-3110 this idea of how long can we keep former President Trump in court and can they try to do it while he becomes President Trump. And you've got those issues there that about like tolling and trying to say, well, let's add a year, let's come out of the Tish James and all these others and say, well, we can add time to it because eventually he's not going to be President and then we can bring these charges. I mean, so they have actually changed laws in the state of New York just to be able to prosecute President Trump.

They added extensions to the separation of powers. Taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110, this is why we need strong attorney generals like Pam Bondi, strong FBI directors like Kash Patel. Be right back on Secula. Welcome back to Secula.

We are going to take your calls on this and look, I know it can sound complicated when we walk through these issues. Here's what's not complicated and I want to make this clear to everybody. We are in the final two weeks of our faith and freedom year in drive. The ACLJ takes on literally, you know this if you're a supporter of the ACLJ, if you've been listening to this show for a long time, but if you're new to us, if maybe just, you know, turned on through the election season or this last year, you may not realize how large really our legal component, which is the driving component of what the ACLJ is all about.

Not just this broadcast. The biggest component of what we do is in court and in the judiciary system, both at the federal and state level, and we've been doing it that way since 1989. But, of course, we also increased our government affairs team presence there in Washington, D.C. and offices around the world. But when it comes right down to it, I just wanted to give you kind of a summary of 2024. And listen, there could be more of these coming between now and the end of the year, but this is where we are right now. We told you about the hundreds of cases, so let's break it down a little. Just in this past year, we've handled 142 religious liberty matters this year alone. That's just in 2024, 142 religious liberty matters.

Just think about that for a second. That's 142 clients, cases, briefs, and really on top of many of those briefs, you're talking about five, six, up to nine. So demand letters fighting back and at no charge to our clients because of our donors. So we can take on more cases. We can also broaden out the cases that we can take. I mean, they have to fit what our expertise is at the ACLJ, but you can add more and more and more complicated cases that you know are going to initially drain some real resources from the ACLJ if our donors are with us. And so we really need your support because this month alone determines kind of how we start the year and our budgeting. So how much do we – we're never going to turn a case down, by the way, because we think it's too expensive.

We're never going to do that. But it's in a much better position to say we're never going to turn a case down because of cost, because we always have the ability not only to handle the cost. We know our donors will step up for us if we need it, and they'll even step up if we need to bring in outside firms to really swarm and win these huge important cases, not just for our generation or your generation, but for your kids, kids, kids, and your grandkids, that these issues will always sometimes be challenged. But we've won so big on these issues that now it usually comes down to much smaller issues, and that's great. But then every once in a while, especially during this woke movement, we're starting to see an uptick in the more traditional style. I'd say 1980s, 90s, probably 70s or 80s style of cases pop back up again because of how the librarians are fighting back and not wanting to put things on poster boards, sending FBI agents to Catholic people's houses because they happen to be at a pro-life rally and they've got SWAT teams there.

The idea, again, that being pro-life likely means that you're part of some kind of right-wing terror group, all those things. We know we've got a lot more fight to go, but here's more numbers. So you've got the 142 religious liberty. How about 175 pro-life legal matters, 197 free speech matters. We talked about the 142 religious liberty matters, 126 legal actions battling the deep state, those FOIAs that initially are, we hope that they will produce documents, but usually after months of negotiation, we have to file in federal court. And then of course, there's lots of cases that don't necessarily fit into those categories as well, and there's hundreds of those.

So these next two weeks are the most critical of our year in drive. We've been saying it, but I hope those numbers together there for you really underscore the amount of legal work the ACLJ is doing just in the United States of America, just in this past year, with all the other distractions going on this past year, Presidential race and the primaries and all of that, that the ACLJ in the main categories why we exist domestically has done hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases that have huge consequences. I want to go to Harry Hudson because another case that will be setting us up to file more in is coming, as we said, out of New York in this, what they call the hush money case. This is another one of those cases where Alvin Bragg was trying to bootstrap a FEC federal election law issue to a state law issue, Harry, and even though he had no jurisdiction to be filing or be charging Donald Trump with federal crimes, so there's a lot of issues with the case. Then President Trump gets elected again, and suddenly there's even bigger issues, so it's not just the Supreme Court's ruling. Now you have to deal with the fact that he's about to be in office, and yet still this judge, at least this week, unwilling to give it up. I think that's correct, and one of the things that's apparent, I think, to most observers is the lawfare against Donald Trump has actually helped him politically. But if we focus on Judge Marshawn's decision in this case so far, he has ruled that Trump does not have Presidential immunity for his campaign finance conviction.

So essentially we have a state action brought to vindicate campaign finance law, which is a federal offense. And so what Judge Marshawn has done at this particular point in time is he has ignored the Supreme Court's Presidential immunity decision, which holds that Presidents have immunity for official acts while President. So to be clear, Judge Marshawn's decision rejected one of several avenues available to him that would enable Trump to dismiss his guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records.

The judge did not explicitly rule on Trump's motion to dismiss on grounds that Trump has now been elected President. So I think if we focus solely on Judge Marshawn's decision, we have a situation in which we have an outstanding Supreme Court decision on immunity, and Judge Marshawn basically saying if evidence was introduced concerning Donald Trump's official acts, first, such evidence was harmless error, but secondly, Judge Marshawn has concluded that no such evidence was indeed introduced. So in some respects, Judge Marshawn is A, not clear, and B, he's contradicting himself.

Well, and Professor Hutchison, you have to look at this and think, one, these things have been drug out so long at this point. That's why a little bit it's surprising that Judge Marshawn took his time, delayed releasing this, and still came up with these conclusions. But you have to think it sets up the President for an appeal, having these rulings across the board that nothing was covered under immunity on such really a subjective thought exercise, if you will. It really begs the question, if Judge Marshawn even was concerned about his legacy as a jurist on the court there, that he would have taken the easy off-ramp instead of setting it up for multiple layers of appeal that could be brought against this ruling. I think you're right, except Judge Marshawn, along with many people in Manhattan, is stubbornly committed to the Trump derangement syndrome.

So I think at the end of the day, he could not persuade himself to basically take the easy off-ramp, if you will. Instead, he is stubbornly insisting that this case move forward. Now, there are several additional moves that the Trump lawyers have made which will enable at least the judge to take an easier off-ramp. But right now, my guess is he is prepared to stubbornly insist that Trump face potential punishment after, for instance, he serves his term as President. So keep in mind, Judge Marshawn is considering a motion from Manhattan District Attorney Bragg involving a controversial novel idea from Alabama, the so-called abatement by death approach, which would maintain the conviction as if Trump had died. So there are many routes for Judge Marshawn to exercise, if you will, his stubbornness. Yeah, I mean, at some point, I think that though, Harry, just briefly, the stubbornness comes to a close, right? He's running out of options to keep this case up.

I think that is true, but I think one of the things that we should keep in mind is that he may still basically try to hold the hammer over Trump's head until Trump leaves office. We're going to be on it, folks. If we need to file there again, yet again, as these go on appeal, we will. Support the work of the ACLJ, as you said, as we talked through these cases, 175 pro-life legal matters just this year, 197 free speech matters just this year, 142 religious liberty matters just this year, 126 legal actions battling the deep state, and then the cases that just don't, hundreds that don't fit into those exact categories. You know why we were able to do all those cases? Because of your financial support of the ACLJ.

And I'd like to be doing even more, even bigger, even more complicated. We can only do that with your financial support, double the impact your donation today. We need that support.

So please, whatever donation you can make, make it today. You see the facts, you hear the numbers, you know we win. Coach, welcome back to Secchio.

Remember, second half hour coming up. We'll take your phone calls to you on all these matters. Maybe we did some of the UFOs.

1-800-684-3110. Did you guys talk about that yesterday? We didn't. We haven't gotten to that yet, Jordan.

We were waiting for you. I think we do have to get to some of that just to, again, get what we do and don't know. But we know that there's Democrats starting to say, enough is enough. We got governors saying, let's pass laws to say we can shoot things out of the sky. Let's make sure they're not airplanes first. Or how do we determine one that is an airplane versus one that is a drone?

There's a lot of issues there. But at the same time, it does feel like the truth is being hidden from us because at this point, they acknowledge there's some of this activity. And what people are seeing is just way too big to be saying, these are not things you go buy at your local Walmart that your kids can play with or do a flyover of a house for a real estate thing that you're kind of used to seeing drones for. And they use them in sporting events and things like that. Those are small. We know drones can look like airplanes.

I mean, they take off like airplanes, especially when you're talking about those that carry deadly payloads. So we'll get to some of that too. 1-800-684-3110. But I wanted to bring in a very good friend of ours.

Basically, since we started kind of dipping our feet into not just Washington, D.C. and the legal system, but into the political world and the executive branch. And that is Tim Gangline. And Tim, we love having you on the show. I'm so glad you reached out to us.

Just a little bit about you two for people. You were the special assistant to President George W. Bush and a deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. You were the President's principal outreach contact, so you can understand how Tim got to know us very well for conservative and faith-based groups. He also helped me, folks, kick off my political career in campaign politics, which is something, again, that led me to work on not just one, but I think it was four total Presidential campaigns.

So, Tim, I will always appreciate you for that. You've got a new book out now. You're currently the vice President of external and government relations for Focus on the Family, and your new book, Stumbling Toward Utopia, how the 1960s turned into a national nightmare and how we can revive the American dream. So my first question for you is this.

Tell everybody about your book and this stumbling toward utopia idea. You bet. I travel a lot, Jordan, and thanks for having me on for Focus on the Family.

Although I live and work in Washington, I travel about a third of the time. I debate. I'm on panels.

I do remarks, speeches. Whether it's a left-wing audience, right-wing audience, non-ideological, people say, Jordan, how in the world did we get into this mess? And in the era that we're in, people don't have to give much more information because we all know what we're speaking about. And after hearing this for three straight years, I decided to write Stumbling Toward Utopia, which is a history of the radical, moral, and social revolution of the 1960s. And Stumbling Toward Utopia, eminently readable, is about how the 60s came about, the revolution in law and legal, the revolution in politics, the revolution in popular entertainment, the revolution in education, the sexual and moral revolution, all of this imposed upon our country, Jordan, by a relatively small circle of progressive social engineers. And we are, all these years later, here we are in 2024, living with the social engineering that the people who foisted this upon us, that we're all living with. And Stumbling Toward Utopia, a single book that explains not only how we got into this mess, but if I may say, how to get out of this mess. And I think that all of us who care about and love this beloved country are together on not arguing the past, understanding the past, but saying, what is the way forward? And I think that's why people will really enjoy Stumbling Toward Utopia.

I mean, we've seen what's happened in other western parts of the world, where they don't integrate new immigrants into society very well, and to kind of prioritize, hey, you are first a citizen of this country, and then whether it's a faith, whether it's this idea that you're not going to be in conflict with a new country, this idea of taking over and changing the morals. And also the woke world that, honestly, any of us with young kids are very concerned about, because you have no idea what these teachers are teaching in classes, and occasionally when the ACLJ is contacted about it, it's jaw-dropping to them. I mean, it really is. It's not even something that you would imagine would be done with people who are, you know, 14 and 15 years old.

They can't go buy an R-rated ticket, but they can go through an R-rated monologue or X-rated monologue in front of their entire class. So, you know, it has its roots in the 60s. So then all these professors now at college campuses, they were kind of trained in this when they were students, and I think that's where we got to this woke movement. Do you agree? Like, it's basically they were building it up through the universities, and it's also why I think the Democrat Party and the left is in a mess, because there's the left and then there's the radical left, and the radical left is where the younger people who are left are, because they were taught by these radicals who have become more and more mainstream. Absolutely. A fellow conservative, Jordan, recently wrote that those who foist Wokistan are like hyenas.

He said they hunt in packs. And that is so true. The overtaking of higher education, the overtaking of high school, middle school, elementary and all government and public schools. It's a very big part of the story of stumbling toward utopia.

But ironically, Jordan, and I'm an inveterate optimist, I mean, I believe that the best days for America are ahead of us. Ironically, the way forward out of this mess is in part through the schools. We now have record numbers of people who are running for school boards, working to design curriculums that put the American experience at the center, the US Constitution at the center, the history of religious liberty at the center. So it's a very important thing that we focus like a laser beam on the rising generation of young Americans.

And we need to go tell a new generation. And what I seek to do in stumbling toward utopia is to provide a roadmap of how people who share our worldview want to move forward, toward American restoration, American renewal, American regeneration. Stumbling toward utopia tells the story of how we got into the mess. But it also says, here's how we can get out of it. And I think it's very important that we all realize that the American dream is a real thing. And it's possible and likely for our children and grandchildren. And if you want to get the book stumbling towards utopia, how the 1960s turned into a national nightmare and how we can revive the American dream, you can get that at FaithfulText.com.

You've heard kind of the roots of the problem now. And if you're interested in that roadmap, go check that out at FaithfulText.com or anywhere you get your books. Tim, I just want to say a big thank you to you for joining us. Keep us updated about the book. I encourage everyone out there to go to FaithfulText.com. Tim, that's the best place people can go. The book is up now, but that's the place people should go to order the book, FaithfulText.com. FaithfulText.com, Amazon, wherever you love to get books.

I mentioned FaithfulText because they're people who share our worldview, but it's available widely. And I hope people will read and enjoy it, Jordan. Absolutely. And they're going to learn a lot. Tim, I appreciate you joining us and working with us on the time. And I know I'm going to grab a copy of that book because you see the protesters there and you say, is that a picture from the 1960s? No.

Those are photos that are happening now again with communists being celebrated and terrorists being celebrated in the streets of America. So we have to get ourselves educated. And what you'll do in this book we don't want to give away is learn how to defeat it.

So get the book so you learn how. Tim, it's always great to have you. FaithfulText.com.

Search Tim Gangland and you've got to grab this book. We'll be right back on Sekulow. Support that work in the ACLJ.

aclj.org. Donate today. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Alright folks, welcome back to Sekulow. Let's get to the phones. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And remember, we don't talk about a lot of books on the air and that's because we really like to know the people who are writing the books before we encourage you to spend time, one, purchasing the book and then taking their advice. But Tim Gangland, certainly he's been in this battle for, especially in Washington, D.C. at the executive branch level and throughout legislators, you heard him, he's on the road most of the time, brought a lot of us into electoral politics by saying there is this role for us and carved that out to the point where, as you see, evangelical influence on the Republican Party still at an all-time high with President Trump and his incoming administration because it's such a key voting block. Tim was part of kind of that movement beginning and doubling down on it in the George W. Bush years when he knew that they were coming up against a tough mid-term, a second-term election, re-election. And I remember Tim is the one who really helped me with others land a spot on that team, on the Bush-Cheney re-elect team, which I had already worked on some campaigns with people like Chairman Ralph Reed when he was the chair of the Georgia Republican Party. So there was a lot, again, of people there, but when Tim writes a book like this, he's a very serious guy and I think the fact that he's got a solution in there is the reason why you should definitely check it out.

Will, let's go to the phones at 1-800-684-3110. We wanted to talk to you about even the drones issue. You know, if you're in New Jersey, the tri-state area, I mean, it's happening all over the place, but you've got the New York governor saying, we've got to get to the bottom of this. You have people trying to say, oh, these are all airplanes. That just can't be the case because you can't have this many low-flying airplanes around, you know, major airports like JFK and LaGuardia, Philadelphia, just randomly.

You know, you're never supposed to be able to fly drones in those areas, those restricted space areas, if you will. And yet the government seems like for now they're going to gaslight us. I have a feeling that if we don't get an answer now, we're certainly going to get an answer when President Trump comes into office.

But that shouldn't have to be the case, Will. We should get the answer now. Let's go to the phones. John in Illinois online, too. Hey, John. John, you're on the air.

We'll check with John and get back to him. John, you know, there's some interesting news, too, over just the power of President Trump and diplomacy. You know, Justin Trudeau in Canada has taken a very leftist move in Canada, so where in the past we were used to actually fairly conservative governments.

When I say that, they're not exactly what we would define necessarily conservative as, but they were more conservative than like the Conservative Party in the UK. Trudeau, very much a leftist. Well, he is actually considering, this is breaking news now, resigning. Because he does not believe he can work with President Trump effectively to help the Canadian people. Now, is he really going to do that?

I have no idea. But it also could be his cover, Will, for why – and the leftists who were probably mad at him – for why he flew down to Mar-a-Lago and took that kind of beating from President Trump. He kept calling him, as he still does, Governor Trudeau. Well, because he said, hey, why don't we just – Canada can be our 51st state. When you look at also what happened in the Canadian government, it's a parliamentary-style government, it's coalition governments. The finance minister went to Trudeau and basically said, hey, these policies we're doing, which she was in charge of, by the way, haven't been working, and with the tariffs maybe we've got to change course. And Trudeau, and she had a fight, and he offered to demote her, and instead she resigned, narrowing his majority in that coalition government that he has.

When conservatives in Canada had made big gains earlier this year, and all the polling shows that when they do call elections, as parliamentary governments do, that Trudeau will be overwhelmed by the conservative support and lose that prime ministership anyways, so he may be trying to look for an easy off-ramp, unlike Judge Marchand, who wants to keep delaying the inevitable. Yeah, right. Folks, again, we want to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. There's a lot to talk about here, and I am willing to talk about that UFO issue. I think it's gone bipartisan, and it's way too long.

We have not gotten the answer. Support the work of the ACLJ. Remember, final two weeks of our faith and freedom drive, the most important time of our year. Donate today. Double your impact. We need your support.

Donate. Welcome back to Sekulow again. We are taking your phone calls, and this is another one that I think is going to be a really fun agency. Sometimes you say, are budget-cutting agencies fun? Well, they are when Elon Musk is running them with Vivek Ramaswamy, and as you see, President Trump keeping both of them close, as well as if you saw the Army-Navy game, you saw our colleague Tulsi Gabbard there as well. You kind of see that that team is coming together. Speaker Johnson, someone we've worked with, again, so long, well, long before he was even in the House of Representatives. So you start seeing that team come together, these different coalitions, J.D. Vance included, too, and you realize when you talk about cost-cutting and you put this group together, it is kind of the opposite of how the Republican Party used to look at it, and I think that, Will, was kind of like the Paul Ryan way, maybe the Boehner way, just a different style, where they really were worried that they couldn't come in and say, you know, or they thought it would be too extreme to say, you know, over time we need to dismantle the Department of Education, and there might still be a DOE, but those people need to be working out in the fields, providing support to the public schools. They shouldn't all be stuck in Washington, D.C. What are they doing there? Just coming up with random curriculum. Why do we have these thousands of people managing public schools who already have management at multi-levels, going up to the state, and if we are going to keep some kind of a federal involvement there, obviously to make sure that everybody is getting the education they deserve and working on school choice issues.

You combine school choice and really taking the Department of Education a totally different route to where these people in D.C. don't just get to sit at their offices and their fancy buildings, but actually have to go and work in the field, and I think that is the new way of looking at things, Will. It's also telling, you know, telling federal workers, listen, only 17 percent of you are showing up at all to work. If you don't show up to work, you're gone, and that's a matrix where I don't think they are protected by. Like, in the past, it's very difficult to remove bureaucrats for anything but cause, and the cause has to be pretty serious, or multiple times.

In this case, not showing up to work after you were mandated to be in the office, I think would be at the top of the list, because you're literally skipping work and disobeying your director, so it's insubordination, and I feel like that group can be let go easily. So I think they're going to call them out and say, are these people going to show up? Do they even live in Northern Virginia anymore?

Because let me tell you, I know folks who are pretty high up in the bureaucracy who joke about it, they aren't still in Washington, D.C. Their position is there, their office is there, because they're living wherever they want off of your taxpayer dollars. So there's a lot to do there when it comes to Doge, but there's even an aspect on life, Will, and I think this is key too, because when people think about Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, they know that they're kind of newer to the Republican Party, but they also have core beliefs, and Elon Musk is someone, as you know, he has a lot of kids, he believes this whole idea of population control is absurd, and so, because there's so many countries around the world where populations are on decline, and that's not good for the economy, because it makes it that much more difficult for the current generation as they retire to be taken care of by the generation that comes behind them if there are much less people in that generation who are earning. So, but they didn't stop there, Will. They went right to the heart of something we have been calling for for a long time, and now that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned, it can be done.

It can be done without a lot of legal challenges at all. And this is cutting the $300 to $500 million a year that Planned Parenthood receives from our taxpayer dollars, half of their budget, they're a billion-dollar-a-year organization. They raise about half good for them.

They can do that on their own. But why should they get another $500 million from your taxpayer dollars? And the Doge guys and the guys at Elon and Vivek want it cut. That's right, Jordan, and we sent this article around from Politico last night because the left's pet projects are under attack now that the Department of Government Efficiency has a mandate to eliminate waste and inefficiency in the government. And remind people, this isn't the Department of Government cuts.

This is the Department of Government efficiency. It doesn't want to get rid of government per se. It wants to make sure that it's doing its mandate for the American people. And Politico put this article out and think the mandate for Doge is the $2 trillion in cuts they want to make. They honed in on the Wall Street Journal article that Vivek and Elon Musk put out, and they mentioned Planned Parenthood.

We were very excited because it's something we've championed defunding for decades here at the ACLJ. There's no law, no rule that forces the American people to have to pay for any organization's work. That is totally up to legislation, and though you can do that, and there are a lot of disaster relief organizations that will partner with the federal government as needed, but in this situation, we're just giving money to Planned Parenthood to do their thing, to expand. So Jordan, this is the article headline as they want to now discredit Doge, the Doge plan that could cost millions. And they talk about cutting the nearly $300 million, and I think that's an underestimate, going to Planned Parenthood. But then it says, it points out that when they study this Congressional Budget Office, if you cut this funding, that it actually will end up costing $130 million more over 10 years of services. So you think it's like, okay, well, first of all, that's only $13 million extra a year by cutting it that you're spending.

So it's not like on the scale of cutting $2 trillion, spending $13 million a year, not that big of a deal. But their rationale is that if you cut Planned Parenthood's funding, as much as 25% of the estimated 2.6 million clients served by Planned Parenthood would face reduced access to care, particularly services that help women avert pregnancies, meaning the number of births in the Medicaid program would increase by several thousand per year. So the left's ideology is saying that if you cut Planned Parenthood, it's going to cost more money because there will be more people. And if that isn't the most sick rationale of saying we need to keep sending $500 million a year to Planned Parenthood, I don't know what is. They're admitting what we say all along is it proves the fungibility of money under Planned Parenthood because if they're saying by cutting their funding, more people will be born, right, that's kind of the goal.

We want life. We are pro-life. But you even have to think about this, Jordan, in light of the assassination on the UnitedHealthcare CEO, where the left cries that the insurance company is so corrupt it only treats people as numbers and dollars, not as human beings. That's exactly the same ideology that they're proving that they're for with government spending because they're not looking at these several thousand number of births as lives. They're looking at it as taxpayer burden. And I don't know a single pro-life person out there that would not want more spending, reusing that spending to help pregnant mothers rather than just spending it to help them end the life. That's the complete brainwashing of the left where they only see births as numbers and a line item in the federal budget. Yeah, and what they forget to tell you is that eventually these children who will be born will be earners. And we need more of those earners.

Why? Well, we just explained it. There's too many groups who decided not to have as many children in our country, and we are being outpaced by others because we bought into this idea of overpopulation, which there are countries in the world where, yes, overpopulation has been a huge issue, and we do work in India, certainly there, the fact that you've got just people everywhere. But there are also, if you drive through India, a lot of areas which are completely open. So there is opportunities to think uniquely and differently, like we did as an early country. We wanted the people to go into the frontier, so we made it easier for them to go into the frontier and say, start a new life. Here's your plot of land.

Here's where you can build your house. And this is the kind of work and jobs we'll have out there. Take advantage of it. So we really need these resources coming in from young people. Now, I don't look at children being born just as dollar signs, but that's what they do.

Realize that. They're just saying, you know what, don't think about the fact that we're killing children. We're going to try to make this a pocketbook issue for you, Will. We're going to try to make it an issue about, you know what, we don't need all these kids because that's going to cost me more in taxes. In fact, if you are someone even within 25 years of retiring and we don't get our population numbers up, it's going to be a lot tougher for the federal government to be paying for your Social Security, for all those different drug plans. I mean, so think about Medicare, if you've got so many less people who are in their working years that are paying those taxes at their employers. I mean, so if you don't do it, I mean, everybody's in serious trouble, except for who, Will?

The elites. And that's exactly why we're initiating that campaign in Massachusetts. It's this ideology that only sees births as government line item budget items instead of changing people's hearts and minds about what their options are. That's why we have this campaign. And you can actually help fund that.

We've shown the video on the show yesterday when Logan was here. But you can go to aclj.org slash save babies, and that will take you to help push this marketing campaign in Massachusetts and around the country that shows that there are options. That's why pregnancy resource centers are so important, because they show options. They give mothers a real choice, not the choice that Politico and Planned Parenthood want you to believe you have. Go to aclj.org slash save babies. Donate today.

Your gift is doubled. I'm proud of my brother, Logan, Will Haines, our production team here, not the production even for just the show, though a lot of that team also worked on really putting together our first issue advocacy ad that will be running in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pushing back on this $8 million campaign that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts partnered with a radical pro-abortion group together to put these billboards and there's commercials. They're on the buses. They're there. They are on your television. They use prime time to demonize these pregnancy resource centers because they offer alternatives other than abortion.

So they want you to avoid them, as you can see in some of this advertising. But if you're listening to the show right now, I want to make sure for those of you who just watched, you saw the ad again during our break. But remember, we got thousands and thousands, probably over a million people right now throughout the day who are going to be listening to this show instead of watching it. And so I want to make sure they hear the content because there's going to be radio components of this, the visual component of it, web ads, traditional television advertising as well. I mean, we're talking billboards and we don't want to just do this in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We know the overall cost to run a full level campaign that we want to do is about, for Massachusetts, is about $500,000. We're well on our way there.

Big thank you to folks who have responded. We then want to say if we can do it there, let's take it to more states. It's not going to be in a lot of red states, but in blue states.

And maybe they're not going to be as big of a market necessarily as Boston and all the cities and states that surround that that you have to make sure your ads get into. But I want you to see, this is just the kind of opening salvo, the first ad we've created to push back in Massachusetts. For those of you who already saw it, watched it on YouTube or Rumble, just take it in, close your eyes, kind of listen to the words if you're not driving, and think about listening it that way, too, about how important the work of these PRCs are. They are not to be demonized. They are to be praised. They are on the front lines of changing and saving children. We can do all that legal work to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but there have to be people ready to help women who are in tough situations make the best decisions at no cost.

So just like our legal work is at no cost, these pregnancy resource centers provide all of this at no cost. Planned Parenthood doesn't like that either because they get either reimbursement money from states or people pay directly for them to have abortions. They're like going up against a business.

They're not just like the nonprofit world. So watch it, really pay attention to the words, and this is just, again, part one of what we want to do in Massachusetts. There's going to be a lot more just to that campaign. We just have to have the resources to run it effectively. We don't want to be running a $200,000 campaign up against $8 million.

But if we can get to that $500,000-ish number, even though they spend $8 million, when you're the state, you kind of throw that money around a lot of junk. We are going to use that money that you donate to us very specifically, very targeted, so it hits exactly the right people. So let's watch it.

Let's listen. I'll never forget that day. Scariest moment of my life. I had just started my business and then this. Pregnant?

Really? I just thought about all of my dreams falling apart. I needed help. I needed answers.

Places I heard of, they seemed to only offer one option. Then I found a pregnancy resource center and they talked to me about my options. She listened. She actually cared about me. No shame. No judgment. I'll never forget that day either.

The day that I realized maybe this wasn't the end of my dreams, but just the start of one I hadn't even imagined. He's there. To find a pregnancy resource center near you, go to choicebeginshere.org. So again, the website people go with is choicebeginshere. And that's what the ad is doing.

Do people go there yet? It is live, but once again, if you want to support this project, you go to aclj.org slash save babies. That link will give people resources to find pregnancy resource centers. So this isn't an ad speaking to our base, people that know about pregnancy resource centers, people that want to support that. Because we're going to Massachusetts to counter the campaign by the state and this abortion group that is targeting what they call anti-abortion centers.

They tell you to be on the lookout for words like hope and things of that nature because it could be a deceptive anti-abortion center. And we filed lawsuit there against because the state's using state funds to support this group. So we're not just trying to run ads. It is new for us, but we think it can be very effective to combat this advertising and also continue the legal battle simultaneously. But we've got to have your financial support. But Will, I know that it's important sometimes to hear from the individuals, hear from the courts, hear from who we're up against here.

That's right. And so we filed this lawsuit saying, hey, you're using government money to target a viewpoint, viewpoint discrimination, pro-life pregnancy resource centers. And they filed their response, their motion to dismiss. So they're trying to get it thrown out of court early before it can proceed. And they are giving the factual background in this motion to dismiss. And it says on March 22nd, 2023, the Massachusetts legislature enacted fiscal year 2023 supplemental budget signed by Governor Healey on March 29th, 2023, which provided that not less than one million dollars shall be expended for a public awareness campaign to educate providers and the public about crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers and the center's lack of medical services.

Provided further that this campaign shall include information on the availability of providers across the Commonwealth that provide legitimate medical and family planning services. So they're only going to consider you legitimate if you offer abortion. It later goes on in their motion to dismiss where they talk about the fact that these medical centers, they don't offer abortion. That's literally what they're complaining about, that they may provide ultrasounds and counseling, but they advertise themselves as full service reproductive health care clinics, yet they do not provide abortion care or abortion referral.

At the end of the day, it goes back to what we talked about with this Politico article. They are so brainwashed into thinking the only way to care for an unexpected pregnancy or anything of that nature is to have the option of abortion. And they will go so far as to use the taxpayers' money of Massachusetts to try and slam the pregnancy resource centers, these centers that give options, that give pre-postnatal care, that give diapers, meals, counseling to people that find themselves in a situation where they think they have no other choice. And they don't want you to have a choice.

They want you to make one choice. What our campaign will do with your help at ACLJ.org slash SaveBabies is to show that there are choices, and there are people to help you with those choices. Folks, we are in the final two weeks of our Faith and Freedom Year in Drive.

And some of you joined this show at different parts of the show, so I want to make sure it's clear. We do thousands, hundreds sometimes cases every year. Just this year alone, we've done 175 pro-life legal matters.

That's just in 2024, and we've still got, you know, days to go here to do more. 197 free speech matters, 142 religious liberty matters, 126 legal actions battling the deep state, and hundreds of others. You're talking about FOIAs, you're talking about the election integrity cases we have done this year. So you need to support the work of the ACLJ. We want to file even more cases to defend your rights. Donate today. ACLJ.org. We need you.