BREAKING: Hakeem Jeffries 'Diabolical' Election Warning

We got breaking news: Hakeem Jeffries issues "quote unquote" diabolical election warning. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments.

For call one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. It is Monday, October twenty-sixth. A week away, will from election day in America.

Week in a day. Week in a day. Yeah, yeah. You got to be precise these days, because if you say you know a just a week, people may think you're having some you know diabolical plot to throw people off. Diabolicals.

Games that are being applied according to what could be. The next speaker, Hakeem Jeffries, and that's happened. Look, a lot of you have already voted. Have you voted yet? I've not voted yet.

That's one of. I'm not saying whether I don't tell people if I vote or not. No, it's normally you don't tell people who you voted. Is that what it is? That's what gets people upset.

I think we need to move on. We need. I get mad when I filibuster here at the beginning. Hakeem Jeffries. Was making the rounds this weekend, talking about election day, of course, in America coming next week, as the midterms are right here.

We are on the cusp of them, and started to use terms that I feel like we always hear around election time, but even more so, saying, "Hey, listen, be careful. I think we're going to win, but they're sneaky." Those Republicans are going to try to steal this from us. Will that's right? And you'd think that at this point we would get past the stolen election narrative. No, no, it's been so long; it's so tiresome.

But here is what Hakeem Jeffries told Manu Raju on CNN just this weekend about his his projection of how they will fare in the midterms, as well as the only way. That they could lose the House by one. There must be something in the back of your mind, though, that says that something could still go wrong on election night. Would you acknowledge that?

Well, you have to assume, as we've done from the very beginning, that Republicans are going to try to come up with any diabolical scheme to prevent November third from being a free and fair election. What do you mean by that?

Well, we've been planning from the very beginning. To push back against all of the voter suppression efforts that they've tried to jam down the throat to the American people.

Now, up until this point, we've successfully stopped their scheming. But are you saying that's the only way they can hold on to power? I've said that from the very beginning. Look, I gotta give it again to Raju for actually pushing back a little bit, saying, "What are you talking about?" Because again, it's tired talking points, but it's also talking points that you feel like someone like Hakeem Jeffries would have wanted us to move past. Which is, how could this happen?

Well, you know, polling could be. There's a lot of different reasons. Why does it always now have to jump to they're gonna pull off some sort of illegal move or they're gonna steal the Republicans and the Democrats? By the way, why does this always have to be the go-to if you're gonna lose? There's no such thing as losing with your head up at all anymore, and now it has to be that an election was somehow fraudulent.

And of course, he then goes into talking about some of the election, what they call suppression efforts. Of course, we're talking about voter ID laws, those kind of things that have been discussed ad nauseum on this show as well. And we know that their side feels that way. And look, you can have that debate, but that doesn't—that's not where it starts. If if the CNN anchor Had not pushed back and said, "What do you mean by that?" It just ends with, "You know, we're stopping their scheming." You know, and I've said this essentially from the beginning.

Of course, this is going to be some sort of nefarious way of winning. Yeah, he legitimately says the only way that Republicans could hold on to the House in this midterm election is if they are successful in their schemes. Not in successful turning out the vote. Not successful in pushing back on the narrative that the DSA is taking over the the Democrat Party and that the things that come with that are not what the American people in the heartland of this country want. No, no, no!

It couldn't be that that that could stop the blue wave, as they describe what they see coming. The only way that they could hold on to power is if they are able to have diabolical schemes that pay off. That's right. Hey, phone lines are open for you. I want to hear from you.

In this sort of news breaks out, we also will have on Rick Grinnell a little bit later, and we have another big story out of California. Again, has to do with elections. Has to do with some more money business. We'll get to that coming up. One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero.

Support the work of the ACLU today. Become a champion if you can. That's a monthly supporter. That's at aclj dot org. We'll be back in just a minute.

Don't go anywhere. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to take some more phone calls at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. Give me a call now if you can, because we're going to have Rick joining us a little bit later. I'd like to take some thoughts on this when you hear this talking point again.

Coming from someone like Hakeem Jeffries, who may be Speaker of the House, Speaker of House elect, I guess you'd say. Sure.

However, you want to say that in a week could theoretically be that way. And how do you feel the elections are actually going in your area? Give me a call. What do you think?

Well, his prediction is that the Democrats take it. The only way they don't take it will is, of course, if someone gets into some funny business.

Well, once again, this was whenever President Trump said that an election. Was stolen. He's trying to tear down democracy and destroy the republic. Whenever they say it, it's just supposed to be taken as gospel truth. That because then they'll just be like, "Well, it's because of the schemes." Well, but we stopped this.

They said they stopped the schemes. Yeah, they've stopped the schemes, but but they've got some other schemes they don't know about. Those schemes could come to fruition. At the end of the day, you start to look at this though, and you think, "What are the schemes that they're concerned about?" Cleaning up voter rolls, going after places like California that is fighting the federal government in court. That says, "Hey, we think these twenty thousand voters may be on your rolls illegally," and and they say, "No, they're not." But we're not going to give it to you.

And then they admit in a court filing, they say, "Well, we don't like actually have a way to verify it. We just take the people's word for it." Yeah, those are the things that that conservatives and honestly, when you look at the polling. Numbers. Most of the country are fine with having voter ID laws. They're fine with having these things that Hakeem Jeffries are calling schemes that they have successfully stopped.

So, what are they actually trying to stop when they say voter suppression? There's not actually been one single shred of evidence or study shown that having a voter ID law suppresses the vote. Yeah, look, he's been saying it since the beginning. That's what his quote said. Look, a lot of you are joining us just right now on YouTube.

I see the numbers going up, so I think we need to you know play this back for those who maybe missed the first segment of the show. Again, this is not a very long soundbite, and if the CNN reporter had not pushed back. On Jeffries, I think you would have had a very bizarre soundbite. I'm actually very thankful that he pushed him a little bit. At least got some clarity, and didn't just take this as a political talking point.

Said, "Okay, what do you even mean?" You know, journalists are starting to become—they're inching a little bit more towards journalism these days. I have to say, I think when you have a company like CNN, which is now obviously a parent company of Skydance, there's though they're going to be operating independently. I think there is that push of like, I gotta, I gotta protect my job a little bit. You had the NBC News anchor last week pushing back on Al Sayed. Right.

I think we are moving into that era a little bit more. And I'm here for it.

Now, this isn't exactly a hardball. I'm not saying that, but honestly, if this had happened two years ago, I would have assumed they would have just said, "You're right. It is just only going to be a scheme." Moving on, let's take a listen. There must be something in the back of your mind, though, that says that something could still go wrong on election night. Would you acknowledge that?

Well, you have to assume. As we've done from the very beginning, that Republicans are going to try to come up with any diabolical scheme to prevent November third from being a free and fair election. What do you mean by that?

Well, we've been planning from the very beginning. To push back against all of the voter suppression efforts that they've tried to jam down the throat to the American people.

Now, up until this point, we've successfully stopped their scheming. But are you saying that's the only way they can hold on to power? I've said that from the very beginning. So the only way. They could hold on to power is if their failed schemes happen to.

I'm just trying to get into the logic here because he pushes back and say, "So what is this? What are you talking about? The schemes we're talking about the voter suppression." Now, thankfully, they say we've been able to stop those schemes, but then there may be some schemes that you don't know about, we don't know about because we've been able to stop the schemes.

So that means the only way they're going to win is. If it's fair and a proper election, like I don't, this is where the the whole narrative falls apart. And when you get beyond one line, which is you know the one line that opened this, what was exactly I want to get the quote just so I have it. We have to assume that Republicans are going to try and come up with any diabolical scheme to prevent November third from being a free and fair election. Free and fair—that's all I say.

A free and fair election. And then when he gets pushback on it, the answer is, well, they haven't been able to do any of these schemes.

So we'll see. We got to.

Well, I just. I also want to go back to the issues that we're having here. One, I think we should also say that, yeah, if you're a rational or honest. Political observer, yes. Traditionally, the opposing party in midterms take the back control of the House.

The Senate can be, if he depending on how the maps are divided up. But that's not what he's saying here. Is that we assume? But you know, strange things have happened. He's saying the only way.

Which, in some ways, disenfranchises voters as well as saying that hey, you don't even need to worry about it because as long as we stop their schemes, doesn't even matter. That that in and of itself could be a voter suppression style speech if you want to push back on what he's saying. And then you also look at the weirdness that happened last week that we talked about with all these polling companies that have now come out and said, look, we're fake. We are fraudulent. There was one in the in the primaries.

The second one was early last week, and then a third. There are all these questions surrounding that we talked about later in the week. I think it was Friday.

SoCal Strategies that went dark took all their presence offline when they were starting to get questioned about some of the data in their polls.

Now, why is he not saying? You know, there's a lot of sketchy things going on here. No, it's only the only way that we would ever lose is if Republicans had their way and did diabolical schemes, and that's what you've seen even from 2016. As soon as President Trump won, it wasn't a free and fair election. It was Russia.

It wasn't even a legitimate President. Then, as soon as as another election, because we've gotten in this back and forth situation where neither side is building up our faith in our elections. You start to see, oh well, now President Trump—he's an insurrectionist. We got to ban him from being on the ballot. It's a back and forth.

At some point, this back and forth has got to stop. If either party wants free and fair elections. Yeah, absolutely. I want to go ahead and take a quick phone call, real quick, and hopefully this inspires you to call in as well, Ronald, in Georgia, on line one. Ronald, go ahead.

Yeah. What's your opinion on? Is it a done deal? If That Democrats take back the House, that Hakeem Jeffries will be the speaker. I was thinking if some of these socialists get in there, is are they going to get Hakeem to be their speaker?

I just so Ronald, I think Hakeem Jeffries would have the Plurality of his party, he has to have a majority of the House. He would have the majority of his party. The big question is: what you are saying is, will some of the DSA candidates that are that will be in the next Congress, regardless, because of some of the districts that they unseated incumbents in in the primary? Yeah, I think he's going to have issues. No, I was not surprised.

That this is a talking point. I was a little bit more surprised it was coming from him because he has been a little bit more of that politician.

Well, I think what he is looking at one hundred percent is he's looking at the insurgency in to the far left of his party, and he's also seeing what happened to Kevin McCarthy for the Republicans. How quickly you don't want to be that guy in the middle. You had the Marjorie Taylor Greens and and the Thomas Masses, and decided you know we actually want to exert some. Of our power, and we want to push on the levers of power within our own party. And at first, he became speaker of the house, and then there was that ability to have a new vote for him, and went days without a speaker of the house.

I don't think it's a. I think he most likely will be the speaker. I think he is going to make some major concessions to that far left wing of his party, which is not good for anyone. It's not good for Democrats. It's not good for Americans.

So.

So I think we're going to see that play out. That yeah, that the house most likely, the math is most likely going to be that they get the majority. How wide is it going to be a big blue wave? We don't know, but the math is math. When you start to look at it, the the odds are is that they will at least take the house, and if they take the house.

Will he be speaker? I would say yes, but it's not going to be without a lot of people causing him a headache in those first few weeks in January when they're holding this vote. When he may not get it first round, it may not be as clean if he has to make a lot of concessions to the DSA. And look, the ACLU work is going to continue as well.

So make sure that when you're following over the next couple weeks, that you know that though the elections will be next week. We'll make sure we have a whole election integrity group that we work with, obviously within our own organization, our our team here. If you want to be a part of that, you can obviously go to our website. I think there's whole sections and articles you can read about that. Rick Rinal is going to be joining us a little bit later because there is some really interesting updates coming out of California.

They have to do when you are voting on some of these propositions to make sure you know what you're voting for, and you know that your voice is being protected, and that you're voting for what you think you're voting for, and how clever, and how Schemy will people can get when they're trying to get you to vote one way or the other. We're going to talk about that pretty aggressively with Rick Grinnell coming up in the second half hour. But I do want to hear from you at one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. I'm going to take some calls on the next segment. If you do call in, so hopefully you don't have to wait too long.

Again, that's at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. And look, the legal battles, the ACLU—we're moving fast right now. Two major Supreme Court battles happening right now. New cases, critical filings ahead, and we need your support.

So when I ask you to donate, know that it's going to support the whole organization—whether that's this broadcast, our legal work, whether that's the individual, whether that's the Supreme Court case, whether it's our offices in Europe. You're seeing what's happening all over the world right now. All of it. Is by you donating? Whether it's a ten dollars, twenty dollars.

Again, most of our donors give once a year, fifty dollars, seventy-five dollars. No, that's great. You can also become a champion. That's like an automatically renewing membership. Of course, you can cancel at any time, and it really helps us out.

Getting our legal team ready, getting this media team ready. That's at aclj.org/champions. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow. We do have a few lines still open.

One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. One eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. We talking about election news? Obviously, we are one week away. From one week in a day, one week in a day away from the midterm elections, we're going to have all that sort of coverage.

You know, as much as we can, kind of our perspective, a little bit different than what you're going to be getting on mainstream news, because there's also other ways that these elections have big consequences. The ACLU team is always working on different things. You may remember this, and well, I know you wanted to to touch on this. This is something that the ACLU team has been working on pretty aggressively because we have always, and I think you've probably been one of those people who've walked into a ballot box going, okay. I know I am voting for this candidate, this candidate, and I know there is these propositions that are up.

I am going to vote this way and this way, and then you start reading the proposition and you start realizing that maybe you are unclear on if I should be voting yes for this or no for this, or or to approve this or not because of the way that it is, let's say, creatively written, that it doesn't quite land like it did maybe in the press, or doesn't quite land the way the candidate. You know, suggested it may, and you become nervous to make sure you are voting the way that's proper, because slight little words, as you know, can change the meaning to everything. And we've uncovered this actually time after time that this has been happening, and we know this has been happening, and it's done in a way that is intentional. And it's not to stoke fear. I'm not trying to like create some sort of controversy here or some kind of conspiracy theory.

We kind of know this that these things aren't. They could be worded very easily and simply. There's a reason they're not, and we know that this is happening. And we have a very specific instance where this is happening. That's right.

So the the language that changed, if you'll remember, and this is a ballot initiative that is in this cycle here in California.

So folks in California are currently voting on or are Planning to vote on on election day, this very language, and it was the change where this is for Prop 39, Proposition 39, that is a voter ID law for the state.

Sounds like a scheme. And the attorney general originally this title for this ballot initiative said it establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements. That's pretty descriptive. That lets you know that there are no no requirements right now for voter ID, and this establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements. I think I understand what I'm voting on.

This is adding rules, right? It's establishing additional requirements. No need to change that language. On July third. Almost a year after that original language, leading up to this now being voted on, the attorney general's office changed the language as as is their prerogative to clarify it.

This is a part of the way it works. But here's what the attorney general changed the language to: prohibits citizens from voting. Unless they present government-issued identification, we spent a lot of time on the the change in tone, the change from being a establishing something that's a positive language to a negative of saying citizens are prohibited. It's if you just read those first three lines because you're perusing and you don't know what the all the ballot measures are, you didn't prepare. You're a low propensity voter, and you see prohibit citizens from voting.

No, I don't want that. The the whole thing is a scheme. If you want to put it there, not illegal. This is what they do, but it is a scheme in and of itself.

So we started doing an investigation, and we sent state FOIA requests as we've done to California. We've been getting a lot of information actually out of California with these requests, which is good for them for following their state laws and sunshine laws and giving us the information we're requesting. But here's what's interesting. When you say this isn't a political scheme, like Hakeem Jeffries is talking about, saying the Republicans are doing that are diabolical, who does it appear may be behind this? And we're going to keep digging to make sure we can keep going.

We found out that the ACLU, as well as Newsom connected lawyers, got meetings with the Attorney General about this issue. As little as three days before he changed the language, so now we we got all this information because we were asking for any records they had about the name change, and they are the ones that told us that the attorney general was meeting with the ACLU and with these Newsom connected attorneys that all of a sudden meet just days before he changes the name.

Now. We know more records to keep looking for because the ACLJ doesn't stop when we find out something like we've just uncovered that. Yeah, these are the groups that are going and pushing for wanting this to be defeated. We know their political position on voter ID, but they're the ones getting meetings with the attorney general, who is the one who changes the language three days later.

Now we have more questions.

Now we keep going, and folks, on Wednesday we're announcing some. Big things when it comes to our voter integrity project, and so I want you to all be following this week because as we lead up to this midterm election, the ACLJ is working hard, and we are uncovering things almost daily that are are very dramatic. And this is what is different between our show and what we do here, and really everyone else is we don't just report to you what we what you know is happening in the news. We don't just give you our commentary. Of course, that's part of it.

But we also have a team that can go and do the work. It can actually uncover.

So we don't just say this seems fishy; someone should do something. We say this seems fishy. I've got a legal team ready to jump on it. It's going to submit FOIA requests. It's going to do what they can to uncover all the information on where this this kind of wording got changed, how it got changed.

Was there nefarious means to it? What was the plan? We can find all that out because we have the team of experts who can do it, and I you know push that a lot because I want to make sure you understand that this goes so far beyond. This show is somewhat an advertisement for the other work that we do, because as much as I hope you find it very entertaining, hope you find Will and I to be yo your best friends in your ears or on your eyes, yo that you're able to also look at the work that we do. And go.

I really love what they do because they take a a concept, we break it down for you, make it easy to understand, but then we can activate a legal arm to go and do the hard work, and that's what we've been doing for 40 years now. And that is what really the history of the ACLJ is. This show has been around for nearly 30 of those 40 years, which is pretty wild. But because people like you support the work, we're able to do so much more. Again, when you listen on the air, maybe you're listening on terrestrial radio.

You've listened on terrestrial radio for 30 years.

Now, there's always going to be a move towards digital. A lot of things are happening. But you hear those advertisements.

Well, they're making ad money. No, that money goes to the networks. A lot of times, we pay to be on this because I want to make sure that no one can tell us what we can and can't talk about.

So, if that's the case, understand that ad revenue doesn't come to us. If you're watching on a on YouTube, maybe you saw an ad like, "Oh, well, there's an ad on there." They're they're fine. Understand that the amount of revenue that comes in for that doesn't cover more than maybe, you know, some server space. I mean, not not enough to matter. I mean, it's great.

We're very pleased. Thank you for for watching. But in terms of the budget that we have to spend on this organization. Ninety nine point nine nine percent of it, you know, that's not even being hyperbolic, is coming because people like you support weather on a one time gift.

Sometimes that's thirty five dollars, seventy five dollars, or those of you that become ACLJ champions and give on a monthly basis.

Now we get back. We're going to take some calls.

So we got a couple calls from Georgia coming in. We're gonna take some of those. Three lines are still open: one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. And then we're gonna be joined by Rick Grinnell. As I'm sure, if we're talking about California, we're talking about voting.

There's one person who will always make you entertained and educated. That's our buddy Rick Grinnell.

So again, you want to stay tuned. For him, phone lines are open for you though, at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. If you're watching online, don't go anywhere. If you are listening on terrestrial radio, you can find us broadcasting live twelve to one p.m. Eastern time.

That is on YouTube, Rumble, ACLJ dot org, and of course, archived.

However, you get your podcast, immediately following the show.

So we're right back. Second half hour coming up. Less than a minute. Don't go anywhere. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever.

This is Sekulow. And now your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Second half hour coming up, and we got a few lines still open for you at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. As we start to head towards election night in America, the midterm elections just a week and a day away, we want to hear from you again at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten.

For those just joining us right now, sort of the main two topics that we're discussing: one is work of the ACLU, and one is comments by potentially. Depending on how next week shapes out, the next speaker of the House, Hakeem Jeffries, and of course, hedging his bets a little bit. If the election is to go sideways, I think we should play this again. Again, for a lot of you who just joined us in the second half hour, this is on Manu Raju's segment he did with him, with Hakeem Jeffries on CNN again. When asked what could go wrong here, essentially, let's take a listen.

There must be something in the back of your mind that says that something could still go wrong on election night. Would you acknowledge that?

Well, you have to assume, as we've done from the very beginning, that Republicans are going to try to come up with any diabolical scheme to prevent November third from being a free and fair election. What do you mean by that?

Well, we've been planning from the very beginning. To push back against all of the voter suppression efforts that they've tried to jam down the throat to the American people.

Now, up until this point, we've successfully stopped their scheming. But are you saying that's the only way they can hold on to power? I've said that from the very beginning. It's the only way to stop their scheming. Willie said it from the very beginning.

That's right, and and what you start to see here is when you think about what they consider scheming, the scheming is what you want voter ID laws, or or the federal government wants the voter rolls to be, in fact, filled only with people that are qualified to vote in the United States, and the states are pushing back because they one don't want to clean up their rolls. We've seen that for years, and two. The they are trying to reject any way that a state or a locality or a registrar or or a poll worker can confirm the identity or the citizenship status of a voter now. Here's where the whole scheme thing goes out the window too, because you would think these types of things they could easily just go forward and say, "Look, yeah, we want to clean up our rolls. Sure, we'll work with the federal government on this to be able to clean this up, and then there will be no question." No, but they they sue the federal government for trying to.

They try to block the federal government in court, even in those same filings, saying. Yeah, well, the registrar doesn't actually have citizenship data, so they can't make this determination other than just what the person tells you. What is kind of funny, I am looking at some of the comments coming on YouTube, and people, because, like we've said, Hakeem Jeffries hasn't been the most radical. Of all of the liberal Democrats that are there, he hasn't become like one of the DSA ones. You're saying he's kind of been like a schemer in politics.

How do you get? I like people. Come on, quit lying. You know that's not how. Like they're leaning in on.

You know that you're more rational than this, and you're just playing politics now. It is kind of interesting to see those who have been positioned themselves as this sort of. I don't want to say moderate because in no way is he moderate. But comparatively, I guess on the spectrum of DSA at this point. Reasonable, yeah, yeah.

Someone who actually works with other people, that even our own supporters are like. We don't believe that you even believe this, right? And I think that is kind of the why this is kind of a a shocking statement that he even says diabolical schemes. At the end of the day, too, diabolical schemes.

Someone's saying that we want to make sure the voter rolls are are clean, and yes, maybe are there political operatives that want to go too far and game the system? Yeah, they're doing the same thing too, but to make it seem like you are having all this righteous indignation and the. Only way you could ever lose ever, would be if the other side cheated. There's nefariousness. Ridiculous.

All right, nefariousness is that a word? It is now. I like it. Yeah, we are nefariousness. All right, it's a good band name.

Phone lines are open for you. Will's going to take them coming up towards the end. We also got Rick Grinnell joining us. That's at one eight hundred six eight four thirty one ten. As we head to this segment, you may want to go.

Well, what can I do? We need to go to aclj dot org. All the content on there is free. There's not a paywall in sight. Of course, we want to support.

You can always support financially. Helps us out because that's how we do things without a paywall. If you just want to go on there, get educated, get informed, send stuff to your friends and family. It's a great way to do it. Send friends, family, enemies.

What up? Xlj. dot org. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Sekulow.

Will Haynes here, joined now by Rick Grinnell. And Rick, we always get to talk about California with you because they keep doing fun things for us to talk about all the time. I know it's not as fun maybe for the people of California, but this one is is interesting because. What we saw over the weekend was Hakeem Jeffries say that you know the only way that Republicans could win in November is if they're scheming. But then we looked at California, and what do we see?

A lot of scheming going on, and what we've uncovered now at the ACLJ through state FOIA requests are that. Just three days before Attorney General Bonta changed the language of Prop 39, which is on the ballot, to see if the state wants voter ID requirements in California. He was meeting with like the who's who of the left, the ACLU attorneys that are connected to Newsom, and the list goes on. Does this surprise you that this is who was able to get a meeting that they titled explicitly reaching out to request title summary ballot label meeting regarding the voter measure? Is this surprise at all?

It's not surprising at all. This is what happens in a one-state ruled system where all of the left controls the politicians in Sacramento. It's so outrageous. The backroom deals, but you know what else doesn't surprise me. That ACLJ is literally at the front lines of uncovering this.

Thank God that we pushed hard with our legal team to uncover this. They wanted to keep it secret, and through being experts on FOIA and government transparency, we were able to, with our team, uncover this. and And thank God that we did. I think this is explosive and. California to see the backroom deals that Sacramento is using.

If you are in California, many of our listeners are. You are flooded on TV right now with Gavin Newsom and Javier Becerra. Literally looking in the camera and saying, "Trump is trying to steal an election by requiring voter ID." Think about that—to have an ID in order to vote. The Democrats in this state and the media are just regurgitating it. They are using this argument that Trump.

President Trump is somehow trying to manipulate a vote by making people prove that they're legal citizens and legal residents of California. It's so outrageous, I have to say. Let me be very clear to the voters of California: don't fall for this. Don't be so stupid to fall for this. The one-party system in Sacramento that is controlling every single.

Legislation that comes out of of Sacramento and signed by Governor Newsom is the the same people, the same radical people, and we're catching them, coordinating. On how to manipulate the the marketing of this ballot initiative, the people want voter ID. The politicians should stop trying to manipulate it.

Well, and once again, when you start to look at, you know, conservatives get mocked if we say that something's Orwellian or, or you know, they're authoritarian in their language and their control of language, because obviously the Republicans are the authoritarians. But I mean, this is like straight out of 1984 with the newspaper. That's going on, where they have their in their dictionary that they've created that are terms they can use against their political opponents that don't mean in reality what is going on. And I think this these schemes or the stealing of the election, when they talk about all this, is the perfect example. Why?

Because I think even if you poll inside California, but I know liberals in in Democrats across the board support voter ID. Even before we found out all of these polling firms that have been fake in this cycle, even if you were to say it's twenty points off, the majority of Democrats still favor these types of common sense things when it comes to securing our election. for For too long now, we've heard about the problem with free and fair elections. We got to get back to free and fair elections. Yeah, that's why you've convinced the country.

Right and left, that these are good common sense measures. But all of a sudden, you got to convince now the voting public that it's actually just the schemes of the Republicans that they want these these nefarious things. We know what's better for you. Don't listen to them. If you have an ounce of common sense, you will know that showing an ID, which you have to do, everyone knows, for a variety of different activities or purchases, showing an ID is not racist.

Showing an ID is not elitist. It's not a Donald Trump idea. It is common sense. And so, what we see, our independents and Democrats, of course. Of course, when they look and they look at the ballot initiative and they say, "Should we have a voter ID?" They say yes, overwhelmingly.

But when you have Newsom spending lots of money, and let me call out one group that is funding all of the Newsom Becerra stuff, it's the Nurses Association in California. What has happened? Our nurses need to stand up and say, "No, this nurse association is not speaking for us. They are the nurse association." The union leaders for nurses have so much money, and they're pouring it into far-left radical ideas. They're at the forefront of telling people no voter ID.

Can you imagine that?

Well, and when you look back at what happened in 2024, what did you see? You saw the the union members. Rejecting leadership writ large. That's why you started to see AFL-CIO or the Teamsters President spoke at the RNC. Why?

Because all the bosses didn't want him there, but because the union members themselves are in direct conflict with the people they're paying dues to. You see that in the what is horrible—the teachers' unions and the education unions that are are just platforms to push money for leftist causes, not to make education. Or the the integrity of being an educator. Better, they're not fighting for their members anymore. They're just pushing radical agendas.

Yeah. Look, the the nurses. If you're if you're listening to this and you know a nurse or you are a nurse, they are at the forefront of understanding the problems of emergency rooms and and the healthcare delivery system. They understand it more than anyone. They know that a flood of illegal immigrants, people who are not supposed to be in this country, but are allowed to be in certain states and cities because of this sanctuary policy.

Remember, sanctuary policy means It's a sanctuary from law enforcement when you're breaking the the laws. You get a get out of jail free card. No one is supposed to stop you from breaking federal law. That's what a sanctuary city or a sanctuary state means. Our nurses know the problems of having illegals flood into emergency rooms.

All of us have to sit around and wait long. Our tax dollars are wasted. They know they can abuse the system by going in for free healthcare into an emergency room. Nurses know this. I have nurses in my immediate family who have complained about this for decades.

And so, for the nurse bosses, the the ones who are not delivering the the care but are sitting in a union chair trying to collect the money and then make sure that they're Friends are elected. They are the ones who are abusing the nurses.

Well, and you look at what we saw—an announcement at the end of last week that a two, another two billion dollar fraud scheme was uncovered in in California area. That the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice are now moving forward with prosecution of fifteen individuals that were stealing taxpayer money. You saw more arrests today that were announced by the Department of Justice with people that were. Lessening the integrity of our voting system, they were illegal immigrants or or connected in some way in doing nefarious things around our elections.

The Department of Justice, no matter what Hakeem Jeffries and his like want to say, is actually doing things to give people confidence in their government that their taxpayer dollars are going to the things that the taxpayer dollars are supposed to be paid for, and that the elections are free and fair.

So I think that that they're not going to get the commendation from the Media that they need or deserve, but what are they actually doing at this time? They're still doing the work of a DOJ that is trying to give the American people confidence in our country. Yeah, and let me just quickly say, I know we don't have much time, but the the lawsuit that's going on right now between DOJ and the state of California is literally to demand that the state of California check voter IDs, and they're not doing it, and they're allowing people to vote right now. There's hundreds of thousands of people voting all of the time in the lead up to election, and our judges are our left wing judges in California. Keep delaying a decision because they want more people to vote.

They want the system to be flooded with people who don't have their IDs checked. It's a terrible system. We've got to stop it, and we need DOJ to come in even stronger. And I think take this to the Supreme Court immediately to get California to start checking IDs. Rick, thank you so much for joining us today.

We'll talk to you a little bit closer to the midterms later this week, but folks. We're not going anywhere, and we're going to explain more about our election integrity project in just a couple days. I'm very excited about it. I hope you will continue to follow along. And if you don't subscribe, whether you're watching Rumble on Facebook or on YouTube, subscribe to the channel now, and click the notifications.

Turn those on because you're not going to want to miss what we have to reveal later this week. It's shocking, but it is the work of the ACLU. J holding those accountable where we can. Welcome back to Sekulow. Final segment of the broadcast today.

So give me a call at one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero if you want to be on air. And I'm going to go straight to Charles calling from Georgia on line one. Charles, you're on Sekulow. Yes. How are you doing?

Doing well. When I heard Hakeem Jeffries say what he did. In that interview, the first thing that came across my mind was. Here we go again. He's projecting exactly what the Democrats do in order to cover themselves, so they can blame it on the Republicans when it happens.

I think there, I think there is a sense as well that they are more nervous because now there's these anomalies. Right? One, we know that they, if you saw the break video that or heard the audio, if you're listening, they go ahead and say like you know. Republicans typically have been under polled by a few percentage points over the last like 14 election cycles, and so you know right now the breakaway polling that they would like to be seeing or relying on isn't there.

So yeah, it's going to be a lot closer than they were hoping. I still think they have the edge in the House. The Senate is is what I would consider truly a toss up because they made some roads to get to places that you wouldn't expect at this point. But yeah, I think Charles. That's the point is that he is trying to temper expectations at the same time, blaming it not on our message lost; it's that they cheated.

That's what they blame Republicans of saying, and once again. I think generally both parties need to get away from that being the message, because at the end of the day, the the sanctity of our elections, the free and fair election mantra that he's trying to use here, I think is important. I think it is important for people to get out the vote.

Now, politicians, yeah, on both sides. It is easier to scare people away from voting than it is to get them on board with your message. That's why fear-based politics is so prevalent, especially in an algorithmic age, because that's what's easy to get people outraged, shocked, and motivated by. But it's not. I mean, maybe it is purely and uniquely an American form of political power now.

But I think that we would all be served better to stop saying that the only way the other side can win is if they cheat, because the other side is going to win sometimes. And when they do, then all your voters feel disenfranchised, and that it wasn't that the other side's ideas people actually resonated with. It's that oh, they stole it, and therefore, what good is this? Our hands. Everything is fake.

This this nihilism that has become so pervasive in American politics.

So, Charles, thank you for calling in. Don from Georgia Online Two on Salem News Channel. Don, you're on Sekulow.

Well, I think the Democrats are getting very nervous about the upcoming election. I think they understand that a lot of these polls have been unreliable. And I'm very upbeat and optimistic about the Republican chances on November the third.

Now, Don, I think you're you're probably right to some degree. I think that even if those polls, now some of them they were touting because it really helped what they saw as a trend, but others, I think, even just the specter. Of fake polling could demoralize their base in a way that concerns them. I think their internals show all of these races a lot closer than they thought.

Now, does that mean that a closer race means they're going to lose the ones they expect to win? It does not. Does it mean that the upsets that they think they can get are just have vanished overnight that they can't get them anymore? It also doesn't mean that, but it does mean that even some of the places they chose to spend money may have been a miscalculation if they were doing it. Off of polls that were either the fake polls or the ones that all of a sudden started to coalesce around that poll in the aftermath of it, and people have pointed that out.

And polling companies try to sometimes they they would deny this, but to some degree, you will see polls start to shift around an outlier where they say, "What did what did they get that we didn't?" Instead of saying that's clearly an outlier, we're sticking with our methodology. They start. To try and rewrite the playbook and see what's going on, so you see this drift towards the outliers a lot of times. I think that they may be really nervous. There was an SNL sketch over the weekend, Saturday Night Live, that was making fun of Democrats that are like, "We're gonna win." We hope they're super nervous.

That doesn't sound like those that are really prepared for a blue wave. It sounds like a party. That is very nervous about being able to get forward the promises they made to the voters that we're taking back power, and that's exactly why Hakeem Jeffries is going out there and blaming Republicans for diabolical scheming. Don, thank you for calling Heidi from Texas on line three. Heidi, you're on Sekulow.

Hi, everyone. I just wanted to make a connection between what's going on in France and our elections. What's going on in France is kind of like the ghost of Christmas future for us here in America. And if we don't wake up and change and do things differently, like Scrooge did, our future is going to look like France looks right now. There's a lot of Marxists on the ballot.

There's a lot of Islamists on the ballot, and they want to change our constitution and change our country.

So we need to do things differently. If you don't usually vote and you're conservative, I know there's a lot of churchgoers that listen to this show. You need to get out and vote. If you regularly vote. This time, get your conservative friends, get your churchgoers, remind everyone you know that will vote in favor of keeping our constitution the way it is and keeping our rights the way it is.

You got to get more people out to vote this year. And thank you, ACLU, for all you do to help preserve our rights. Heidi, thank you for calling and thank you for your words. I also want to point out this says this is what Hakeem Jeffries tweeted late last night, posted on on X. Far right extremism is on the run here in America and throughout the world.

That's it. That's the tweet. What what is he talking about? There there, he's saying far right extremism. That's what they consider all conservatives.

That's his message leading up to this midterm. Heidi, you you talked about the ghost of Christmas future in your comments, but I think France is actually the ghost of Christmas past in America. Think about the the summer of 2020 and how the CNN banner that is so seared in our brains, fiery but mostly peaceful protests. We had nationwide protests that that spiraled out of control that were not just peaceful protests. About police policy, they were violent, they were fiery, they were looting, stealing, smashing billions and billions of dollars of damage here at home.

We aren't immune from that happening again. And when you have the leader of the party that's saying they're going to take back the power, saying that the only way, the only way that we could lose. Is if the Republicans cheat? What does that sound like? He's trying to set the country up for right.

I mean, it's right there; it's so obvious. He is hoping for backlash if they lose. No, do I still think that he has? He's the odds-on favorite to take the House. I do.

I don't know if it's going to be a blue wave or if it's going to be a nail biter. But I think he's nervous, and I think he has the odds. I said the odds-on favorite to take the house, historically speaking, would go to the Democrats here. But we do have free and fair elections. That is why you go vote, because it isn't set in stone.

They want you to think it is. They want you to think it's set in stone. There's nothing you can do about it. And if something does happen, you don't really believe in that. It was just cheating.

Don't listen to them. Vote your conscience. Don't let them tell you that we don't have free and fair elections, because the ACLU is going to keep fighting to ensure that we do. And you can support us at aclj.org.