BREAKING: Trump Breaks Silence to Media

We've got breaking news.

President Trump breaks his silence on Mike Waltz after National Security League. 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, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow.

This is Logan Sekulow. Will Haines joining me in studio and former Director of National Intelligence, Rick Rinnell, is going to be joining us a little bit later in the broadcast. Of course, we have to talk about the big news over the last 24 hours as that leak happened. I'm sure you guys have all already heard this was a text thread on Signal that somehow had our top security advisors, our top team, discussing plans for the war with the Houthis. And added to that was the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic. Is that correct? That's right, yes. Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg. So that happened and he waited until after, then reported it, showed the screenshots, and then the fallout happened from there.

How did it happen? We're not sure. We don't know all the details yet. But we do know that there is a lot happening right now. There is currently right now, there is a hearing right now that's already scheduled. Will told me this, already scheduled an intel hearing with all the national security advisors, with Tulsi Gabbard, with Kash Patel, a whole list of people. And of course, this is starting to come up in that conversation of what that's going to look like. What are the ramifications?

What are the consequences, if you will? There's a lot of talk on Mike Waltz, who again has been a friend of this show. I've done work with him, seems like a great guy. But it may have been, you know, if you're going to blame someone, it may have been that he was to blame for this situation. President Trump, though, has made a statement about Mike Waltz. I'm sure that he was talked to. I'm sure this was a discussion that happened. But again, Will, what's that statement say?

That's right. That comes from President Trump to NBC News that Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man. And also that he expressed confidence in his team and said he was not frustrated by the events leading up to the Atlantic story.

And that he said there was the only glitch in two months and it turned out to not be a serious one. So he is standing by his team as the Democrats are like sharks circling, feeling like this is their moment to try and capitalize and tear down some of the Trump administration. They are already pushing for the entire team that was on this thread, which, by the way, had some pretty heavy hitters on this thread. Probably can't get any bigger other than not having President Trump directly on it.

That's right. It had the vice President of the United States, the secretary of defense, CIA director, director of national intelligence, many advisers and the editor in chief of the Atlantic. Now, if we're going to glean anything good off of this, if you read the text messages, the first thing I told Will here was, you know what I like to see? I like to see that these departments and these people are all actually working together and have a cordial relationship and having interesting conversations, are batting around ideas, are discussing plans in a way that I don't think is very Washington. And that's what helps. Look, you're going to have the negative, which is stuff like this is going to happen. But the positive is we can actually look and see on the record. That this group of people, a lot of them under the age of 45 years old, are having real discussions and conversations like you or I would about the protection of our country. Sure, there was a glaring problem that happened. And I want to hear from you.

Give me a call. What do you think about this situation when you read this article, when you heard about this, when you're following all the news? Does it affect the way you feel about the people currently in control? Did you do you think that that's a big problem? Do you think that this needs to be taken care of? What is a solution?

I'd love to hear all your thoughts. 1-800-684-3110. We've got about four lines open right now, so it's a perfect time to call at 1-800-684-3110. Some of you are responding to the breaking news. Again, this is President Trump break silence. A lot of people said, when was he silent? That's a good point.

I'll send that message to our social media team, people that helped pick the titles. When was he silent? Yeah, maybe never. This isn't the Biden administration. But you know what? We brought it up.

But it was on this specific topic. All right. Again, phone lines are open for you, but this is the last week of our March Life and Liberty Drive. This is it, folks. It's your last chance to have your donation matched during this month at ACLJ.org. We are fighting on your behalf from all over the country. We're going to get into all the different numerous ways that we are doing that.

Stakes couldn't be higher right now. We need your help. Go to ACLJ.org.

Have your gift doubled at ACLJ.org. Be right back. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take your phone calls and the phone lines currently are jammed well. I think we've got to restate what's going on. Of course, this all is playing from the last 24 hours where we saw a pretty big leak happen.

Look, I think we got to call things how we call it. You can't necessarily find a silver lining in it, but you can't defend what happened, which looks to be that a editor of The Atlantic. The main the editor in chief was added to a text thread on Signal, which is a secure, allegedly, app for messaging. And that thread, including him, had Vice President Vance and Tulsi Gabbard had a whole group of people, including Mike Waltz, all discussing the plans for the attack on the Houthis, which we know was very successful.

The no Americans were harmed. And the interactions in this gave me a lot of hope because I could see how they're all working together. However, Will, we would not be seeing this if it wasn't for a pretty big blunder from this group.

That's right. So this this group chat was set up on Signal. According to the reporting, it seems to have been set up by the national security adviser, Mike Waltz. And inadvertently or somehow they're investigating how it happened. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor at The Atlantic, was added to that list.

And it was not noticed. And they continued on these deliberations and discussions. One of the big issues, one, and why you're seeing pushback, is that Jeffrey Goldberg has been known to be hyperbolic in his reporting. He has pushed known hoaxes even well after they've been discredited. He's a very partisan journalist. Now, he was put in this group chat and I think any journalist would probably stick around and see what's going on. But he also did the right thing and held off, you know, in some ways, because it could have been something you ruin their plans for this attack.

But he was actually, you know, you got to give him a little respect for his journalistic integrity, if you will, or maybe just personal integrity, going, yeah, I don't need to put this information out immediately. Now, it did happen, of course, the night before this Intel meeting was scheduled. I think the timing of dropping the story yesterday, right before this schedule, this is the annual global security threat hearing that happens before the Senate Intelligence Committee. CIA director, joint chiefs, FBI director, director of national intelligence all testify before this. So I think the timing was perfect for Jeffrey Goldberg there so that this would take over, instead of actually briefing the Senate on the very real global terror threats as the national security team sees them. But one other thing that is littered with innuendo within this piece is that everything, he refers to war plans, he refers to things that appear classified. And the administration is pushing back firmly on that. Even Tulsi Gabbard in his hearing today, as well as the White House, had said no war plans were discussed, no classified material was sent to the thread. I think we have that.

Do we have that from Tulsi? Yeah, and I want to point out one thing as well that's in his reporting is that they even reference, hey, these things will be in your high side inboxes. Referring to, hey, classified material, look out for this.

Not coming through here. The high side inbox is through the secure government system where they can read the classified material. This is a lot of deliberation. Things that clearly are confidential conversations. Things that they would not want to have a journalist sit in on for just deliberative purposes. That's why in many FOIA requests, things are blocked out. They're exempt from being released because it's, and it says deliberative. Meaning sometimes it's not in the best interest for the public to see how the government came to a decision because there is things that go back and forth.

Things that may not be pertinent later that could jade the public on it. Like any business, you're coming up with ideas. You're working things out. You're brainstorming. You're trying to figure out what's the best path. And, of course, you are working with a group of people.

Like I said, I actually think the messages show that this group of people works really well together, but they never should have been seen in the first place. And that becomes a whole different national security issue. We've got some calls related to that. Let's go to Bobbi in Virginia. Phone lines are open, by the way. We lost some callers.

1-800-684-3110. We've got three lines open for you. Bobbi, though, listen in on the radio.

You're on the air. Hi. I think you guys are being awfully cavalier about a major security breach. This is some of the most unprofessional, immature behavior of people who are supposed to be at the very highest levels of government. But I've seen in my lifetime, and I'm a senior, every one of them, I was watching the hearing for a while, every one of them could not remember, could not recall what was on the group chat. Which it seems pretty suspect to me because they had every opportunity to review it before they knew they were going to be asked about it. And not only were they sharing classified information with a journalist, and they were doing it.

Bobbi, Bobbi, I'm only cutting you off because, look, I think you've made your point. I don't disagree, by the way, this is a major security blunder. I think it's something we have to treat seriously and look at it. Now, the content that was shared, though it never should have been shared, and I will agree with you on that, specifically with a journalist. I'm not treating that as a cavalier thing.

I think it's absurd that this thing could happen. Now, has that happened to me? Has it maybe happened to you? Were your texts the wrong person? Yeah, of course, but we're not talking about war plans.

Maybe that's a little different. I'm not saying you're wrong, Bobbi, but where you are wrong is the information that was provided was not deemed classified. As well as that a lot of people are trying to point out that how dare they use Signal, that this was actually put in place by the Biden administration.

Yeah, it was pretty loaded. And I want to hear from the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, about Signal specifically. This is Byte 8. So that we're clear, one of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was Signal was loaded onto my computer at the CIA, as it is for most CIA officers. One of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of Signal as a permissible work use. It is. That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration.

Director Ratcliffe. And here's the thing. They talk about that. They talk about these leaks. Look, this was an unintentional, unenforced error, if you will. This was a mistake. Mistakes do happen.

I hate to tell you, look, sometimes there are consequences for your mistakes, of course. However, you may remember during the first Trump administration and during the Biden administration, there weren't mistakes that were leaked. There were just intentional leaks. A lot of intentional leaks coming from people like James Comey, who was sending out information to the press to get his message across. And how was he held accountable?

He was not. Is it a double standard? Sure. Do I think people should be held accountable for mistakes? Absolutely. But let's not pretend that either side is holier than thou in that sense. OK, we start doing that. It starts to become, you know, like I said, Rosie O'Donnell saying, questioning the results of the last election. You start playing on both sides.

All of a sudden you got, you know, fire coming from everywhere. Let's go ahead and go back to the calls. Let's go to Justin, who's calling from California. Look, I think it's OK for Justin to have his point of view. You're on YouTube and you're watching. Go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. My question is, would it be hypocritical for us to not hold them accountable, at least in some way? I mean, I obviously love the panel or the cabinet and Trump's team here, but I mean, if this happened under the Biden administration, I think they would be under intense scrutiny.

And although this information may not have been truly highly classified, it is still definitely a problem even to have a reporter in that type of chat on an app. Justin, and to your point, I am actually somewhat surprised how strongly President Trump came out in support of his national security adviser. It's not a position that has to be confirmed by the Senate. So if he were to dismiss him, swap, then he can hire someone who doesn't have to go through a confirmation process, which would if you're looking traditional Washington politics, that would be the scapegoat. One is appears could be the one who added him.

But it also doesn't cause you a headache. Two months into your administration, other than bad PR, bad optics and a big blunder to then swap him out. I think it's it's interesting and telling that they do. He does stand behind those team members he's put in place that this what appears to be inadvertent, not a malicious leak, appears to be.

He's like, I still believe in the team. They executed the mission. Well, this wasn't a blunder that ended in the loss of human life.

They've learned their lesson. And let's keep going. Yes, I do think it is easy for the left to try and use this as a gotcha moment. And they are. They certainly are. Hillary Clinton tweeted last night, you've got to be kidding me to the article because of this email server. I think that the politics part of it is going to be messy.

And regardless of which side you're on, you're going to disapprove of what the other side does and the decision they make. All right. Some phone lines are still open for you at 1-800-684-3110. Stay on hold if you're already on hold. I'll try to get to as many of these as we can. We're also going to talk about some work of the ACLJ coming up and how our work in FOIA's Freedom of Information Act request has now uncovered some pretty interesting details of what happened with that blundered, failed Afghanistan withdrawal, which did cause death of Americans and many, many more.

Phone lines are open for you. We're going to discuss that coming up again at 1-800-684-3110. We have a lot of work the ACLJ is doing right now. We're going to break that all down coming up in the next segment because this is the last week of our March Life and Liberty Drive. So be a part of it right now and have your donations effectively doubled at ACLJ.org or scan the QR code.

Welcome back to Sekulow. Again, we're going to keep you updated on what's going on with that leak situation. And look, I think Will and I both brought up and we need to clarify. Remember, there are two different things here.

There's intentional leaks, which we saw all the time, specifically in the last administration or even during the first Trump administration when there were some more deep stateish kind of actors working. Or we saw the Supreme Court of the United States when that opinion was leaked to the press of the overturning of Dobbs, which became or the overturning of Roe vs. Wade via Dobbs. This is not that. Is it a mistake? Absolutely. Is it a big blunder, a face palm emoji, if you will? Absolutely. But it was a mistake, an accident. Should there be repercussions for that?

Sure. But remember, this is different than those who are in the administration specifically feeding the press for their own gain. That's right. That type of leak is a leak that's either trying to discredit the administration you work for or get policy changed or embarrass or tear down your government. That is different than a inadvertent leak. And by leak, it was the wrong person added to the thread.

It wasn't even here's all these documents to you or even I thought I emailed the wrong person and they received it through leak. Those would be looked at differently. There's a different intent.

There's a different purpose. Now, there are there issues with negligence and things that can arise from these under U.S. code. Yes, there are those issues that I'm certain that the White House counsel and everyone looks at and considers in this. But as of right now, the the Trump White House is very much saying I stand with this team. I have confidence in them. They delivered on that action. That was even one of the first statements is they verified that, yes, this does appear to be an accurate reflection of a text thread, a signal chat.

And what it shows is that the players work together and executed a near flawless attack on a foreign designated terrorist Iranian proxy. Let's go ahead and take a call. Then we're going to talk about some of the work of the ACLJ.

But let's let's continue this discussion. Mary Ellen is calling in Illinois on line one. Mary Ellen, welcome back to the show. Oh, thank you. A couple of things.

One just occurred to me as you're all talking. In the Democrat Party, if they make a mistake like Benghazi, Afghanistan, you didn't hear anything much. It was like a lot of things were left. But here we have a transparent administration and we're seeing this all. The other point is the Democrats. Politically, they think long term strategically and their party is falling apart. They have no big leader on the left, but our bench is full of strong leaders.

They will do everything and anything to attack every last one of them because they want to knock them all down before 2028 and go on. Mary Ellen, you're you're definitely right. And I think that you have a point of view that most of our listenership either shares or now agrees with.

Now, I couldn't have asked for a better segue. And it feels like we set you up for this because you mentioned the first thing you mentioned, Benghazi and all of those type of things that happened that it felt like there was no accountability for some of these massive problems that happened. And I want to move our attention to the Afghanistan withdrawal. And I know that it's old news now.

You may be like, Logan, that was 2021. Why are we still talking about this? We're talking about it because people lost their lives and we've been digging and digging and our servicemen lost their lives and women. And we found some pretty interesting new information through our Freedom of Information Act requests.

Again, these things take time, energy, hours to make sure they can happen and they can't do it without you. So we've got to uncover really what's going on, what the truth is. And here's what we got. We got a pretty big update.

Will, I want you to share it. That's right. So if you'll remember, it was a disaster and 13 service members lost their lives at that Abbey Gate bombing. And our FOIA request was trying to get information about how they arrived at this decision to do the withdrawal from Afghanistan in this way. And it just so happened that yesterday, while all of these this signal gate issue was going on on Twitter and on cable news, our lawyers sent this over and said, we just got a new production on the Afghanistan FOIA from the State Department.

And here's what we found. This was a descent cable that was sent to start with what cable it is. So a descent cable is what gets sent from Foreign Service people that are overseas working in country, in this case, Afghanistan. And they have tried to go through the regular channels of policymakers, of people in Washington at the embassies and say, look, we think that this is a mistake or we dissent.

We have a different opinion about how things should play out than what your policy is right now. And if it keeps escalating, kind of the last resort is a descent cable, which is a classified cable. It goes to the very head. It goes to the secretary of state and other key players that is then laying out in a very formulaic and express way of what their dissent is. And we had heard rumblings that there was a descent cable that went, but we didn't know necessarily the widespread players that were involved in this and some of their reaction to it and what kind of the magnitude of what it meant.

We just kind of heard that this happened years ago. But this descent cable was sent to Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon and Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland. Those are the swampiest of the swamp. Obama, Biden, bad actors. And they are policymakers.

They are the ones that were driving the Biden foreign policy and they were carryovers from the Obama administration. And they received this cable on July 13th of twenty twenty one. And it said, good afternoon. We received the descent channel message below expressing concerns regarding U.S. policy towards Afghanistan.

Please let me know if you'd like to provide initial guidance to shape our response on this matter. July 13th is about a month before Kabul fell and about five weeks before the bombing at Abigail. Yeah, I understand that this happened all before. This isn't a during. This isn't, you know, warnings. This happened all before there was clear warning that this was not going to go the way they thought it was going to go. Their content is still classified.

And so it is redacted for the purpose of our FOIA. But I want you to hear this last paragraph that's not classified. It says prior to resorting to this descent channel cable, drafters made every effort to ensure the above alternative foreign policy views were communicated in full and timely manner through regular operating channels and procedures. They were not being listened to. They are the people that were on the ground saying, Washington, you're going to mess this up. And it ended up costing 13 American lives because they wouldn't listen at the State Department. And they had to resort to their last resort a month before the fall of Kabul, five to six weeks before Americans died.

And Wendy Sherman, Brian McKeon and Victoria Nuland faced no consequences. They were ignoring the cries on the ground saying don't do this and people died. And yet you're hearing the left today say that an inadvertent discussion, which cost no American lives, which wasn't classified information and actually ended up being a foreign policy move that was successful. They're saying make them resign now. That's a double standard. The double standard is when the left is fine with these people that wouldn't change their policy because they had it set in their mind.

They wouldn't listen to the people in their own government saying don't do this. And they remained for four years. But now they're saying make these people resign.

That's right. Hey, we've got a second half hour coming up on the broadcast. You want to make sure you're joining us live. It's noon to 1 p.m. Eastern Time if you're listening to us later.

But if you are live right now and you lose us on your local station, find us broadcasting live right now on ACLJ.org, on YouTube, on Rumble, Facebook X and on the Salem News Channel. Look, we've only got about 20 seconds left. This is the time. This is your last chance to have your tax deductible gift doubled on ACLJ.org. Because this is the last week of our life and Liberty Drive. Today we're in court representing pastors in Chicago. Tomorrow is the deadline for an HOA to respond to a demand letter about home Bible studies. We've got what's going on in California with that church on the beach.

So much more ACLJ.org or scan the QR code. Welcome back to Sekulow. Second half hour coming up next segment, we're going to have Rick Grenell joining us, former director of national intelligence, where I talk about that FOIA that we had in Afghanistan and also look, he's dealt with a lot of national security matters. And of course, that's one of the big topics today is that leaked, not even leaked, that accidental text message chain that went to the chief or the editor in chief of The Atlantic, which included a lot of national security higher ups, including the vice President of the United States. And of course, that that thread was about what was going on with the attack on the Houthis and the Houthi rebels.

Of course, we know that was a successful campaign. We know that no Americans were harmed in that campaign, but here we are where somehow a journalist and not so friendly journalist to an editor in chief of The Atlantic got added to this threat. Of course, that's a national security issue. It needs to be addressed and needs to be discussed.

It needs to be broken down. And there are a lot of people are saying, well, we're going to have to hold them accountable. And there's a lot of Democrats saying we got to make sure that these people resign.

Don't take that bait because they didn't do it when their people were actually intentionally leaking. This was an accident. It was a mistake. Do I approve of it? Absolutely not.

Do I think there should be consequences? Sure. But remember, when the people who are calling for the resignations are the people who are just trying to dismantle, as Mary Ellen said, the deep roster that the conservatives have right now that they are very afraid of. Well, and Logan, you know what I think is interesting about Mary Ellen's call is you think about the people on that thread. Tulsi Gabbard, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth. I think all of those could have Presidential aspirations after four years in this administration.

I believe them have already run before. Exactly. So J.D. Vance is not. I know what you mean.

I got it. But yes, he was elected official as vice President. So, yes, three of them have run for President before. Don't think that it's out of their mind that they could potentially run again. And I think Pete Hegseth is maybe a wild card that people may not be thinking about as much of someone who could run for President one day after a successful term as the secretary of defense and in showing leadership to the American people. Now, that, I think, also speaks to the timing of it being released before the hearing today, the timing of who the people are and why.

It's been kind of a slow news time relatively for the past week, which is unsettling in a Trump administration thus far because it has been so fast and furious with all the different angles and stories that it had kind of slowed down. And I think they saw this as the perfect time to drop it, to try and smear these people within the President's administration. Yeah, just make them look stupid. And that's just what the end of the day is, what this whole plan is, because the actual text messages, if you read them, you'd be like, I actually kind of like how these people all talk to each other.

I do. There's thoughts on it. Should they be using emojis? What do I care? These are people who are mostly under 50, some of them under 45, under 40.

Yeah, if they want to use emojis, what do I care? I'm glad they have a cordial conversation. I'm glad they were able to actually have these kind of discussions to go back and forth. I loved seeing that. I don't love that it was leaked to a journalist, but I do love seeing that your government in action is actually getting stuff done and they're having a real conversation.

There was a moment I looked at it and said, was this intentional? Do we even prove that? I don't think so. And I think President Trump was pretty strong on that, said he's learned his lesson. That means, and he's a good man, I have a feeling he got to talking to. And look, I like Waltz. I've interviewed him. I've talked to him many times.

Seems like an upstanding guy. This was clearly a mistake. Clearly, they own the mistake. And now we move on as a country. But as Will said, slow news time. So this is going to overtake the news. And not that it shouldn't be a story.

I don't want to ever act like I'm some hack for one side or the other. Of course, it should be a story. It should be a conversation we're having. No one wants to see our national security information leaked to the press, especially they don't want to see it. You know, then somehow getting involved in a text thread about what we're about to do.

But it happened. And how do we respond? Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us in the next segment. We're going to talk to him. Of course, he is a former director of national intelligence and ambassador to Germany. He's been a member of the secular team for a long time, and he is a special envoy, President Trump. So we'll discuss this as well as what we have discovered in our FOIA request over the collapse in Afghanistan and the warnings that were coming in at the highest level to please, please look at what you're about to do. Because it could be a giant disaster.

Of course, we know it was cost 13 service members their lives. We're gonna talk about that with Rick Grinnell coming up. You can join us also 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. We're joined by Rick Grinnell, who is joining us right now. Sorry about that. I had my mic turned off.

I didn't mean to do that. Rick Grinnell is joining us. He is on. Rick, I wanted to first start this conversation with you. Of course, you're a director of former director of national intelligence. Of course, ambassador to Germany. You've been a member of this team for a while.

Special envoy as well for President Trump. I wanted to discuss, though, something the ACLJ uncovered, and the work is long. The work sometimes takes a long time. It's hard work to get information to our audience, and these FOIA requests take time, the Freedom of Information Act requests. And Will, for those who are just tuning in, we did have a pretty big development, and we uncovered something pretty interesting of what was going on in the months and days leading up to that botched Afghanistan withdrawal.

That's right. And Rick, I sent this to you last night, and this was a discovery through FOIA where, as we looked at the rationale and the disaster behind the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we found out from one of the productions from the State Department that a descent cable was sent from Foreign Service to the State Department and was shared with Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman, Deputy Secretary Brian McKeon, and Undersecretary Victoria Nuland so that they could give initial guidance in how to shape their response. Now, this was, according to the unredacted part of the cable, prior to resorting to this descent channel cable, drafters made every effort to ensure the above alternative foreign policy views were communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels and procedures. So what does this mean when we look at the fact that these Obama-Biden State Department folks were receiving this descent cable and it was in opposition to the stated policy?

Look, these descent cables are troublesome in some ways because while it seems like it's a good idea to give people the ability to form a cable, a formalized communication to complain about policy, I actually think that people should be free to speak up immediately. You should give your opinion about the policy, not from a standpoint of politics but from the standpoint of national security, what's best for the U.S. government. And then have the debate in the room and then when the U.S. policymakers say, no, this is the position and we're going to go with this, you walk out of that room and you suck it up.

If you can't, then you should not be working for the U.S. government. If you can't push U.S. government policy, we have a process in this country selecting officials. They form U.S. policy and if you don't like it, you can't work for a person who is pushing U.S. policy, then you should leave. I don't like these descent cables, which is like a formal kind of process that says we disagree with the stated policy. Well, I kind of don't care if you disagree with the stated policy, but this is something that the Biden-Obama type, they listen to what the bureaucrats say, they change their position according to what bureaucrats say. And I think it's really troublesome. When you see the names like Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland, you've talked about them many times on the broadcast, as the policymakers, when you put it in the context of the Afghanistan withdrawal, knowing that they later were saying things like hindsight's 20-20, when clearly whether or not the point aside of that there were people that were not on board with the policy and that your job at some point is to further the policy, and we see the aftermath of what happened with Afghanistan, and yet they stuck around and were continuing to make the policy of the Biden administration for four years, is that indicative of how it operated and why it was so disastrous for four years?

Look, they get a buy. People like Wendy Sherman, they get away with being wrong because the bureaucracy excuses them and the media excuses them. They're never held to account. Wendy Sherman has been wrong so many times, whether it's on Iran or North Korea. Just pull up her assessments and, you know, you almost have to do the opposite of Wendy Sherman to be right. She literally has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue. And you look at Afghanistan and what she was saying and what she was doing and how she was coordinating the policy. It's no wonder that this is just the latest failure that we add to her resume. You can have Susan Rice to this as well. And Susan Rice was the assistant secretary of state for Africa when we saw genocide go on, and she couldn't get out of her chair to say anything about it. You look at Benghazi for Susan Rice. She has been totally a failure. And in the Democratic Party, there seems to be a failing up policy.

As long as you stick around and you scratch a whole bunch of people's back, you get the bigger job, despite your record. I want to promote also right now for people to call in because we've got three lines open. And in the next segment, we're going to take as many calls as we can. But Rick, I couldn't have you on here and not address, obviously, the news of the day. And you've been posting about it on X. So I wanted to get your thoughts and for your thoughts to be shared with some of our listeners.

Obviously, we're talking about that essentially leak, but not a leak is the wrong word. That accidental text thread that happened via Signal, which included the editor in chief of The Atlantic and some of our top security and national security people, including the vice President of the United States. Obviously, there's a lot being said right now. A lot of discussions are happening. Tulsi Gabbard's making statements.

I just want to get your overall thoughts on what you can share with the American people on on this sort of big moment. Look, it's clearly an unfortunate error that occurred by adding a reporter to what what was a private text chain. But it's clear it wasn't classified information.

And the Democrats, you know, they have nothing left. And so they're trying to create drama out of this. It was a clear mistake to add someone.

I think everyone has admitted that it was unfortunate and inadvertent. However, to to then jump to the conclusion that they were talking about classified information is just not true. There is this thing called SBU, which is sensitive but unclassified. And I think this is what was being done is it was sensitive talk, but it's unclassified as well. It wasn't war plans like what the Democrats were trying to create.

But I will say this. You know, they're they're really looking for something. The Democrats don't have a message. And so they're they're dramatizing every little thing. And that's not helpful for America.

You've got to be able to recognize that our policies of opening up the straits, opening up what is a blockade by confronting the terrorists who are blocking commerce, I think is a very good thing. And they've lost the narrative by pretending somehow that classified information was shared on signal. Just what even it's not. Let's say it was again. This was a mistake, an accident. This is not something that that happened on.

It feels like at least pretty much confirmed this was an accident. Things happen. Not saying there shouldn't be consequences for that. But let's not forget what happened even over the last eight years, which you had people, senior people, including people like James Comey and others, leaking, intentionally leaking, going to the press themselves or going through a friend to the press or calling and disclosing very top what you'd say were classified information. You had a Supreme Court leak get their opinion leaked for the Dobbs, the Roe versus Wade overturning decision months before is available to the public.

No one was held accountable in those situations. So you can't now pretend that the the Democrats are playing some holier than thou game where they're like, how dare this happen? And again, this happened by accident, unlike what was happening so much over the last decade. I think that's a very good point. We have seen purposeful leaks from the other side. And this was clearly an inadvertent leak.

And the difference is enormous. And I think that that the public sees that and the President of the United States said, look, it was unfortunate glitch and we're moving on. And that's exactly the way to handle it. All right, Rick, thank you so much for joining us today. I look forward to hearing from you again as things progress.

So thanks again. Phone lines are open for you right now. By the way, we got two lines open one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. And look, this is the last week of our life and Liberty Drive for the month of March. That means this your last chance to have your gifts doubled during the month of March.

Scan the QR code. Look, I'm going to go through some of the work the ACLU is doing right now from Chicago to L.A. You've maybe heard all of the kind of current war on Christian faith. We talk about that, but it's really happening alarmingly and of course, around the world in ways that are just atrocious and horrendous where people are being murdered. But of course, we're talking about even just things like street preachers in Chicago being arrested. We're talking about banning Bible studies, home Bible studies.

HOA is being thinking they could do that. We have what happened on the church at the beach. And this week, even Los Angeles must respond to our demand letter about that as they tried to shut down that church.

And we're also defending a USPS worker who was banned from going to church on Sunday. We're fighting on numerous fronts and we're fighting for you through all of our lawsuits. You've heard what we can do. And of course, our work in the media. The stakes can be higher.

This is why we need your help. We're still a ways away from our goal. We are short of our goal. There's only one week left. Don't wait until the last day. Go to ACLJ.org, scan the QR code, taking your calls and comments. Coming up. All right.

This is it. We're going to take your calls right now. A lot of you've been holding for quite a while, including James. You can call it yesterday.

It's still been on hold for half an hour. Apologize, James. Let's go ahead and take your call right off the bat. Calling from Virginia. You're on the air. Thanks.

I am a champion and encourage others to do it. My question is, my concern is this law affair that's going on. Can you hear me all right?

We got you. Yeah. And these two, you know, these sort of judge shop judicial injunctions that are occurring. I'm trying to. And maybe it's not a possibility, but is there a way to have approached a conservative? Another district judge to, you know, come come come with a ruling that puts a stay on the previous injunction without having to go through the process of appealing to an appellate court or the Supreme Court.

Yeah. Well, of course, James, James essentially asking, can to play at this judge shopping game? Well, unfortunately, the the people that are suing to have the thing stopped or overturned are the ones suing. The government's not going to sue themselves to do it within a district where they would get a favorable ruling. But also the injunction, it's almost like you can't double negative it that they're not going to put an injunction on the other judge. They'd be putting the injunction on the on the administration.

They just be going back and forth. So they you're out of order. They're not going to put an injunction on another judge in that manner. So really, the appellate process is the way to do it. And that's why they find a favorable judge, because it is going linearly, not horizontally up the chain. And also, many of these aren't appealable within the process. If it's like a TRO, typically, especially because there's a defined timeline, that's not something you can offer an appeal on while it's still being adjudicated through the court. So that is part of the reason why they do it this way to slow roll the actions of the administration. And that's also why some legal analysts and things have said that, you know, the Supreme Court could have weighed in.

I believe is even the Washington Post with one of the first things I believe is on the birthright citizenship issue. They could have ruled and said or given guidance that they believe that administrative actions are appealable on the TRO phase and gotten the TRO on the appeal, but they didn't weigh in there. So it kind of continues the way that it's accepted within the the rules of the judiciary that some of these things have to wait and play out before you can even get to the appeals court level. All right. Hopefully that answered your question. Let's continue on because a lot of calls coming in. Let's go to Eric in South Carolina, listening on the radio. All radio calls today, actually. Eric, you're on the air. Thank you. I love you guys. I want to say what no one I'm not hearing anyone say, but I don't believe this was an accident.

Irresponsible would be a kind way of saying stupid if it was irresponsibility. But I think this was the sabotage or even subterfuge because Trump said that it was one of Mike's people, Mike Wallace's people that added Goldberg. How in the world do you add such a biased journalist?

You know the guys there. It's impossible to just add someone unless you intentionally add someone. This was added intently. And the person needs to go who did that. If it was one of Mike's persons who did it. I'm going to go ahead and kind of defend Mike a little bit.

Hopefully he didn't do the adding. But if Trump knows someone did it by adding this biased guy, they need to fire that person. Eric, of course, when we're even having our meetings, we're discussing what would be the benefit if someone was to do this intentionally, whether that was a member of that text thread or somebody who had access to it.

But Will, you got something? Well, and what Mike's saying is that President Trump did tell NBC in that in that conversation where he said Michael Waltz has learned a lesson. He's a good man. He did say it was one of Michael's people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there. So what I think he's explaining is that potentially when the initial chat was set up now, I'm sure we will learn more about this because people are not going to stop asking about it in context. But it said, hey, set up the chat for me so we can start talking.

Get signal starts adding the numbers. I've heard some speculation from an unnamed sources in the press that were talking to outlets that it was a similar name of a staffer that they were trying to add to the chat. And so therefore it was a pure mix up on names. But then there's there obviously theories are going to abound until we hear an exact explanation from the administration.

That's kind of how this political ecosystem works. So I expect that they will try to clarify as much as they can what actually happened. We actually have a call. Thanks, Eric. We have a call related to the transparency of all this. And look, I think for 24 hours, we're actually learning quite a lot. Let's go to Scott in Nevada online for Scott. Go ahead.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to say that I think this is another opportunity for Republicans to show how serious they are and how transparent they are. All they really need to do, I think, is just give a detailed explanation, maybe a minor reprimand to the person who put the wrong number in there and just show how foolish and unserious the Democrat Party is.

Scott, I think I agree with you for the most part, and I think they've done that for a lot so far, even the fact that President Trump has already made a statement saying that Mike Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man. That means a discussion at least was had. Things have been going on. Now, for the details, that's probably still being uncovered. Well, and to your point, Scott, initially when this story was released, the government agencies, the National Security Council and the White House confirmed that it was it was a genuine thread.

That's not normal. That actually is very transparent, telling the press instead of just not responding to comment, trying to sweep it under the rug and not pay attention. That was a very unusual move to see them confirm that it was accurate. And I think that goes to your point. That is very transparent.

I've also seen memes that say, like, this isn't what we meant when we meant most transparent in history. We're going to have a reporter on the thing. And while that is making light of the seriousness of it, I think it goes to the point, Scott, that they actually do seem serious about being as transparent as they can on this. Thanks, Scott. Daisy, real quick, we are running out of time and I know you've been on hold for a while, but go ahead. Unfortunately, Daisy, I'm going to have to put you on hold and we're going to have to have you another day. So I probably call back tomorrow. We'll do our best to get to you. I know you're on hold for a while. Look, I want to take this next two minutes and again, tell you about the work of the ACLJ and tell you why it's important that you support us during this week, which is the final week.

We're headed to the final week now of our life and liberty drive for the month of March. And we have goals that need to be met to make sure we're making budget. We're able to do this because, look, if you listen on the radio, if you watch on on any of the platforms. On the radio, all those ads you hear, none of that goes to us. We are supported, kind of like if you heard listener supported, we are supported by all of you who decide it's worth kicking in a few bucks because you like this show, because you like our mission. You like what we do from the legal front, from the ACLJ. And we are involved and we are ready for you because when we take on a client, we do it at no cost. We're only able to do that and offer the best and the brightest because people like you decide to support the work of the ACLJ. Again, I'm just going to go through a few of these right now. This is it.

Like you said, it's your last chance. You heard about the fact that we have street preachers in Chicago who were arrested, thrown in jail, and then it happened again. We are there representing them again.

No cost. Tomorrow, we have a deadline for a HOA to respond to our demand letter after they banned home Bible studies. And these are very domestic, very small, if you will. But they are not small in the grand scheme of things.

But they are. We've represented President of the United States. We've represented world leaders. But of course, we can represent you as well.

You heard about that church on the beach that's being shut down. We're involved in all of these right now. The stakes couldn't be higher and we need your help.

So if I'm going to tell you again, I'm going to encourage you to do it. Go to ACLJ.org because we are still short of our goal and we only have one week left for this life and liberty drive. Make sure our team knows that you are out there and you're ready to support us. We've got an incredible team put together, whether it's from legal, whether that is for media.

We have the best and the best, but we only can do that with your support. So once again, I encourage you. Let's throw that QR code back up. It's not that I don't want you to see my pretty face. Of course I do. But go to ACLJ.org, scan the QR code right now and have your donations doubled today. Talk to you tomorrow.