Jack Smith, the special counsel who last week was defeated at the Supreme Court when he attempted to get what’s called expedited, not only expedited review. He wanted to skip the court of Appeals. So here’s how it works. So there’s an issue in President Trump’s main case, and that is this issue of executive privilege or executive immunity, and that is, actions taken while you’re president cannot be the basis of a lawsuit, civil or criminal, which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense.

If not, not every president is subject to ending litigation. I argued a very similar case at the Supreme Court, three of them for President Trump in 2020. So here we are in 2023, almost 2024, they’ve indicted the former president. He has raised the issue at the trial court, which is where you do it first of executive privilege. In other words, I’m immune from this lawsuit because it was official acts while I was president.

Then he lost that before Judge Chunkin, and she put it on hold pending appeal. She did the right thing on the appeal. So he goes to the DC Court of Appeals, which is going to hear argument next month. Jack Smith said, oh, that’s not quick enough. I want to go directly to the Supreme Court and skip the intermediate court of Appeals. So he files a motion for expedited review, which you can do.

I’m filing one today in the case out of Colorado that we filed at the Supreme Court yesterday. There’s nothing wrong with filing it, but you just better be prepared both to argue it quickly or have it denied. And in Jack Smith’s case, it was denied, and they said no. So the DC Court of Appeals is going to hear the case. Then they’ll come out with an opinion. Then it goes to the Supreme Court.

Even if they get it moving quickly, there is no way it’s tried. I don’t think it’s tried in 2024. I think it’s tried after the election. That’s number one. Number two, he files a motion now. And this one you’re talking about violating free speech. This is what he wrote to us, Judge Judkin, through public statements, filings, and arguments and hearings before the court, the defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial.

This is a case about January 6. It’s part of their indictment. So guess what? Politics is part of it. But he also has a free speech right. That is exactly what Jack Smith is attacking. He does not want Trump to be able to speak and defend himself. He’s afraid of that. Here’s what we’re doing. We’re filing. When that one gets mature, which will be in the next couple of weeks, we’re going to file in that case as well.

So that one will file on amicus brief, a friend of the court. Our other case on the Colorado case is now at the Supreme Court. It’s been lodged and filed at the Supreme Court. We now have a case number 23, six, nine six. We have also just filed, just moments ago, a motion to expedite in the same case. Let me read for you what we’ve said, because this will summarize why this is so significant and important.

We said that for the first time in american history, a former president has been disqualified from the ballot. A political party has been denied the opportunity to put forward the presidential candidate of its choice, and the voters have been denied the ability to choose their chief executive through the electoral process. This has ramifications for not just Colorado as the vehicle, but for really all 50 states. Absolutely. So this move has been a long time coming.

Law professors have basically been fertilizing the ground to basically deprive the american people of their right to engage in participatory democracy. Participatory democracy means your ability to vote for the candidate of your choice. And so many law professors who basically hate Trump, they suffer from what might be called the Trump derangement syndrome. They have longed for a vehicle to basically remove Trump from the ballot. They’ve become progressively enraged.

Why? Because each and every attempt to remove Trump has resulted in a rise in his popularity. He has rising popularity among black voters, hispanic voters, you name it. And so the elites in our country are saying Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy. So what have they crafted? They’ve crafted a vehicle which in and of itself is a threat to our democracy. They wish to deprive political parties of their right to select the candidate of their choice and to prevent the american people from voting for the candidate of their choice.

I think the court has to take this case. I’m thinking about this. Can you see a circumstance where they say no here? Absolutely not. It would be ridiculous. This is critical. We’ve got a triple match going on. We’ve never had this in our history. And the reason we’re doing that is so much is going know. We haven’t even touched on what our teams in Europe are doing right now on the Israel ish situation, and we’ve been working on that.

And now you’ve got these multiple cases at the Supreme Court of the United States. And today, just now, our motion to expedite’s been filed. So it is a judicial emergency in a sense. We’ve just filed our most important case at the Supreme Court in our history. We’ve now asked for that case to be expedited. If we lose our right to vote, we lose the constitutional republic that we love.

And because of the historic ramifications of this case and because of your support, frankly, we’re doing something we’ve never done before. And that is giving you an opportunity for a triple match on our online giving. That means if you donate $25, we get 75. You can report for duty today as we go to the supreme Court. And we need you to do that, go to aclj. org, that aclj.

org, faith and freedom. We’re right there on the homepage. You can donate, or if you get our emails, donate that way and it will be tripled. .