Thanking Sponsor Preborn and Discussing God's Role in Government and Life
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time, she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28, and to donate, dial £250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna, Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you, and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
Jenna Ellis Discusses White House Press Secretary Katie's Bar Complaint and Legal Standing
This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning. Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, October 15, and the new White House press secretary, Katy Zakaria, has found herself in the midst of some hot water, as a watchdog group files a complaint against her with the California Bar. So this coming from the Hill. The Campaign for Accountability has filed a complaint with the State Bar of California asking for an investigation into the press secretary over her claims that she is a lawyer after reports surfaced that she is not licensed to practice in any state and according to reports, never has been. So the complaint notes that if reporting is accurate that Zakaria has, quote, repeatedly held herself out to the public as entitled to practice law without a license to do so, then it's an act that California law treats as a crime. the Campaign for Accountability said In a statement, Ms. Zakaria has, or Zacharia, has represented herself as a lawyer repeatedly to buttress her reputation and credibility as a television legal commentator and now as the White House spokesperson. Yet seems it all was a lie. And, late last night, the Wallnua Street Journal came out with an exclusive that, apparently they're reporting that, Katy Zakaria did take the California Bar, but did not pass the bar exam.
Attorney Gerard Felitti Analyzes Implications of Katie's Lack of Bar License and Professional Conduct
So they're reporting that she sat for the California bar exam after graduating law school from Pepperdine University in 2011, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, but she didn't pass. So, there can be some very serious implications here. so let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Law Fair Project. And Gerard, you know, obviously, there are a lot of people making a big deal out of this. And, what, what do you make of this in terms of the claims? Also on her resume, reportedly, she has listed herself as general counsel for a California nonprofit, as well as, apparently saying to, the White House Press that, she had practiced as well in China.
Gerard Filitti: It's amazing how much this week's of another round of lawfare conducted against someone who is not currently holding a legal, job and is a press secret secretary, a, public relations person. Ah, at the end of the day, I think this is an issue because we have to be careful as lawyers, how we hold ourselves out to the public. A lawyer is someone who graduated law school does not mean that they're licensed to practice. That's what an attorney is, an attorney at law.
Examining the Distinction Between Lawyer and Attorney Amidst White House Press Secretary Controversy
And Zachariah has been, I think, careful for most of her career in not describing herself as an attorney, but rather saying that she is a lawyer. so the only question, really, I think, in this complaint is whether people understood general counsel to be that she was holding herself out as practicing law, which is an ethics problem first and foremost, but it might also be a misdemeanor. I don't think we're going to get to a criminal complaint stage, but this is certainly something that someone is looking to bring her down a peg or two through these complaints.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, at minimum, I think that this is a PR kind of disaster that the White House doesn't really need. And, when, you know, President Trump, in his, statements of her, has described her, at least reportedly as an attorney. And so, you know, there are a lot of people who use those two terms, attorney and lawyer, kind of interchangeably. And I think that for, you know, kind of the common, vernacular, people understand them to mean license, ah, to practice law. But you're right that, you know, lawyer and attorney are different. and yet people do need to be careful how they hold themselves out. And so is this something more that just the White House needs to issue a corrective statement, or is this something, that could. Could really be kind of one of those ethics issues that could cause more extensive problems for the White House?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think this is going to. I think the media have picked up on this and it's, it's not going to let go. And unfortunately, and I know Katy, and she is a fantastic person, but I think her first press conference did not do her credit. and because of that, the media has kind latched onto anything it can, and they're using this to target, of course, Donald Trump. So I do see this more as a PR crisis for the White House than anything that will stick to Zachariah, other than, you know, embarrassing her a little bit. but ultimately that's what the goal is. It's to attack Trump. It's not actually about her.
Critiquing White House Messaging and Handling of Press Secretary's Legal Credentials
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and we talked about this yesterday, on air with, Todd Starnes as well, and you know, he had that same opinion, and I do as well that the initial briefing did not. And WSJ and didn't.
Jenna Ellis: yeah, and we'll, we'll make sure that we get Jared back there. But, you know, I had that same opinion that, you know, the briefing didn't go well. And overall, while I don't know Katy personally, this, in my opinion, is something that just the White House doesn't need. And, and if they had perhaps, either vetted her a little bit more carefully or were more careful about their statements in presenting her publicly, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation. And it's one of those things that, that for the Trump White House, there are a lot of instances where if the messaging had been handled better up front, then there wouldn't have to be this kind of reporting and seeming corrective, statements and backtracking and, you know, potential, legal issues. Because obviously, the left is going to go after anything. I mean, they're, they're not going to embr her and they're not going to love Trump for any reason. And so. So the White House needs to be very careful just to not give the left any of these kinds of issues that may potentially, have consequences, just completely unnecessarily. Because. And, and what I'm wondering, Gerard, is when, when reporters asked her, when she was coming out of the White House with Trump and said, what state are you licensed to practice in? And you know, Trump kind of threw the question back to her. Why didn't she just say, I went to law school, but don't have a bar license and I'm the press secretary. I don't need one. I mean, it could have been as simple as that.
Gerard Filitti: You're absolutely right. And this comes back to messaging and even Donald Trump himself saying attorney and not. We all know Trump. He talks off the cuff. He doesn't always preplan. Ah. Or choose his words as carefully as we may want him to.
Best PR Strategy for Press Secretary: Direct Explanation and Vetting Improvement
And that's exactly it. I think that when that question was thrown to her, she could have answered that directly. I think she will need to answer that directly. She will need to Sit down, down and explain, what the situation is. That's the best PR way forward, and that, quite frankly, is the best way out of any ethics issues as well, is for her to just sit and explain, what the situation is, what the words mean, and put out her side, which is that she's really done nothing wrong, and that this comes down to mishap, in language which was not timed very well. But to your point, this also speaks to vetting issues at the White House. This is not something that should have been left to the media to turn out. This is something that the White House should have done a better job preparing for. and I think because she herself has been careful in how she's described herself over the years, this was not unanticipated. So that's really the question. Why wasn't there a better job done of answering that question?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And that just, you know, goes into the further questions of, will she get better as Press Secretary? hopefully. But, you know, the White House really needs better messaging overall, and doesn't need some of these, these types of PR nightmares.
Analyzing White House Kennedy Center Donation Controversy and Communication Failures
And speaking of that, there's also one other story that, is just, in my opinion, again, kind of unnecessary negative PR for the White House. This is coming from Axios, and they report this as an exclusive. The White House probes claims of missing Kennedy center money in a, quote, MAGA blood feud. I think that's a little overdramatic. But, you know, this is Axios, right? And these are. These are people from the left who want to smear and malign, the White House, anyone associated with President Trump at all. And so, why give them any ammo? So this story goes on to say President Trump has directed his White House counsel to examine explosive allegations dropped on him Friday in the Oval Office. Former Trump attorney Elena Haba apparently told the President, according to this article, that another one of his top advisors, former Kennedy center leader Rick Grinnell, failed to deposit a multimillion dollar donation that her billionaire husband, M, made to the center a year ago, according to former four senior administration officials and three insiders briefed on the controversy. Grinnell has denied the accusations as, quote, absurd and, quote, a lie. And Haba and her husband declined to comment, at least to Axios through a spokesperson. And so, you know, Axios talks about, you know, why this matters, and this is, you know, kind of a big deal, what do you make over all of the substance, but also the PR problem that this presents?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it's a Major PR problem, first and foremost. I mean, these are two Trump loyalists who could have had a conversation in private, not even involving the president, yet somehow it ends up both in the Oval Office and now on Axios. So that really tells you that they need to do a better job of communicating with one another, first and foremost. And this is really a binary. I mean, either funds were deposited or they were not. And if they were not, then there should be an explanation. but oftentimes these explanations are very innocent and not something that rises to the level of, you know, let's put this on the front page of a newspaper or splash this all over the Internet.
Discussion on White House Leaks, Internal Drama, and Trump's Leadership Style
So, again, it's a messaging problem, and this should never have gotten out of the White House. Which just, shows you that there are also too many leaks, especially when you have personalities that conflict.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's. That's a really big deal as well, because, you know, when you have, people inside the White House who are talking on the record, but without being named and obviously, airing some of these conflicts that happen, I mean, there. Axios is saying, and, you know, generally, whether you like their reporting or not, I mean, you know, they're. They're saying that they spoke to four senior administration officials and three, insiders briefed on the controversy. this is. This is typical, you know, Trump world, where there's a lot of inside drama going on. And instead of confronting things directly and privately, a lot of the ways that a lot of these administration officials, and even in my day when I worked for Trump, it was just known that the best way to get his attention overall on something is to go to the media and have him read it in print. And that's not the best way, to actually serve your elected official and, actually serve the president. And so part of the reason, I think, at least just in my experience, with Trump world, that a lot of this gets out is because too many people are wanting Trump to read a negative headline, have a perception, and then make a decision based on media reporting instead of settling things internally. because one of. One of the good, but also bad things about Trump's style of leadership is it's him and then everybody else. I mean, there's not really a hierarchy and a structure. And so, Gerard, when you have people that can just, you know, go into the Oval Office and say, I'm complaining about something, as if, you know, you're going into, you know, your. Your father's house and complaining about your sibling, I mean, that's not really the best way for the, administration to run. And it just leads to headlines like this that especially two weeks before the midterms, just really aren't necessary.
Gerard Filitti: Right. And to her credit, Susie Wilds has done a very good job as a gatekeeper for people who are not long time people in Trump's circle. But I think that's exactly it. When, when you have people who predate Wiles, who predate Trump's presidency, who have access to him, they go directly to him or they go to the.
Focusing on Election Messaging and Policy Over Distractions and Political Drama
Gerard Filitti: That's it.
Gerard Filitti: I mean, we're three weeks, less than three weeks away from a major election, which will have very consequential, impact on the way we, the next two years of Trump's term will play out. And instead of focusing on that, we're now distracted by, you know, who did what to whom, kindergarten tattletailing, in, the Oval Office, which is not what we want to see in the press. We want to see a unified message about why conservatives need to put up a good fight this election.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we do have a lot of, I think, strong messaging coming out of other parts of the, gop. I mean, I think, Congressman Brandon Gill has been, you know, one of the best on pointing out the policy differences, you know, between candidates running. You have, you know, a lot of other people, at least, within the gop and hopefully the messaging, from the White House in terms of just the differences in policy, because it always comes down to policy. I mean, when we're looking at individuals, we're looking at the drama, all of that. Okay? We should, as Christian conservatives, set all that aside and say, all right, you know, that's, that's Axios, that's drama, that's whatever, put that aside. Let's look at the policy issues, let's look at who is actually on our ballot and let's look at, the, not just the messaging, but overall what is actually happening in the elections. And let's exercise our vote in the best possible way and let's not get distracted by all of this because that's ultimately, at the end of the day, the left's goal is the distractions and the focus on the drama instead of what's actually going on in the country. And we need to make sure that as conservatives, we are turning out, we're voting our values and we're looking at policy instead of just, the overdramatic headline. So, Gerard Felitti, really appreciate it. And we will be right back with more.
Introducing Listener Support and Discussing America First Legal Actions
Foreign,
Jenna Ellis: Hi. I'm Jenna Ellis.
Jenna Ellis: Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net or forward slgive. That's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of leftist lawfare against, anyone associated with Trump, the America First Policy Institute, or AFPI, and 17America first attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Jon east cert petition to the US Supreme Court yesterday to review his disbarment by the California State Bar. And in full disclosure, I was one of the former Trump attorneys that signed on to this, to this brief. And, have supported AFPI in this brief. So you can read that in their announcement. I also posted it on my social media.
Cleta Mitchell Explains 'Bar Fair' and the Political Weaponization of Ethics Complaints
So, they go on in the announcement to say, in addition to supporting Dr. Eastman's case, AFP eyes brief highlights the concerning use of what they call Bar Fair. you've heard of lawfare? This is bar Fair, the political weaponization of professional ethics complaints against lawyers by their political opponents. This case is ultimately about the inherent fairness of state systems regulating attorney conduct and to the extent those systems can be influenced by partisan organization. So let's welcome in Cleta Mitchell, who is a, who is, a member of the Conservative Partnership Institute, former Trump lawyer, and she also signed on to this brief. Cleta, thanks so much. So let's start first of all with the, petition that Jon Eastman has filed to the Supreme Court and what he is arguing.
Cleta Mitchell: Well, thank you so much, Jenna, for having me on to talk about this really important issue. Jon Eastman, Dr. Jon Eastman, as many of your listeners probably know, is one of the foremost conservative constitutional scholars and attorneys in America. And he has been for a number of years. And he literally, he is brilliant. He has been a law professor as well. He is a constitutional historian. And he was one of President Trump's attorneys after the 2020 election. And what his role really was was because he's just a walking encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. He was, but he's also a fantastic litigator. And he was looking at the history of the Electoral College, the certification of electors, et cetera. And his crime, supposedly according to all of these left wing groups, was that he represented President Trump, but that he also, he wrote a legal memo, a legal Memo in which he outlined the various, historical options that Vice President Pence, as President of the Senate, might have with regard to the certification process for that, he was subjected to a bar complaint in the State of California. It was, I want to say it was a five to six week hearing or trial. And this supposed judge who heard, I watched a lot of it. I don't know Jenna, if you ever watched any of it. But it was absolutely, it was a kangaroo court. There's no way, to describe it other than that the judge would not allow, Jon to bring in evidence of his, of what he actually said that refuted what he was accused of having said. And then the judge ordered him disbarred, basically because they said, well, he didn't controvert, the accusations. Well that's because she didn't let him put on the evidence.
John Eastman's Appeal to the Supreme Court Following Disbarment Ruling
But then he appealed that to the, to the California Supreme Court. And after several months the Supreme Court of California issued a three word order, denied, disordered, disbarred. That's it. Three words. They didn't, he did, he cited all the errors. They paid no attention to any of it, just said, ordered, disbarred. And so he, Jon, has now there's a direct appeal from every, any state Supreme Court order, there is a direct mandatory appeal to the United States Supreme Court that is a direct appeal. And so Jon filed a, ah, petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorary which is asking the United States Supreme Court to take this case on his appeal, to accept the appeal, to hear it, and to reverse the Supreme Court of California order of disbarment. And so this, this friend, of the court brief as you mentioned, was filed by both of us. And I really started working on putting this together a few months ago because I want the Supreme Court to know this case is not just about Jon Eastman.
Concerns Over Bar Complaints Against Lawyers Representing President Trump
These left wing groups filed over 150 bar complaints against lawyers solely because they represented President Trump. And now they're filing bar complaints against lawyers from the Justice Department because they work for President Trump. And this is just metastasizing. And if the Supreme Court doesn't step in, I really do fear for our whole legal, our system of jurisprudence because we can't just as you know, Jenna, what you've been through, in the big cities in America, people who represent President Trump, President Trump himself, we can't get a fair trial. Because the jury pool is tainted. There's even been an active process in Washington D.C. by some of these left wing groups to quote unquote, train people to be jurors. And I mean there's so much wrong with this. But that's kind of a long story. But it is a really scary situation.
Jenna Ellis: I think it really is. And it has a, an intentional chilling effect on the legal profession and is trying to discourage, attorneys from representing these groups, political opponents, and namely Donald Trump. But of course, this will go further than Trump, especially once he's out of office. I mean if they are successful and there is no stopping this, then this kind of lawfare and bar far will just continue. What, you know, what people may not know even about what I went through is how many bar complaints I actually had to defend and pay counsel to defend. I mean I had, I don't even know how many, I mean over well over probably a dozen, you know, 20 or more bar complaints, that were submitted against me. And some of those to the Colorado's bar credit, you know, they just dismissed outright, said, you know, this isn't an issue and just gave me a copy of it. But there were some that I actually had to write a response to. And that takes time, it takes money, it takes effort. And and then when, when the system and in Colorado the one presiding disciplinary judge was very clearly an anti Trump person. And so, you know, people only look at the decisions you make. They don't see the choices that you had. They don't necessarily see all of the situation involved. And you can't also necessarily, while you're in the midst of things, explain the fuller situation, which can be frustrating and can be part of the pr, you know, lawfare as well. And none of these complaints, by the way, against any of us were from our own clients.
The Impact of Outside Advocacy Groups Filing Bar Complaints Against Attorneys
Right? None of the parties to the case. And this is the thing that I think needs to change fundamentally is that these outside advocacy groups should not be able to come for our licenses when they have absolutely no interest as a party. Now if they want, if a party filed, then maybe they could do a kind of a friend of the court situation, but they should not have any standing, that they can go and file a complaint and essentially become an adversary simply because they want to be involved. And that's where the, the essence of this, is so frustrating because all of these complaints were by left wing advocacy groups just to try to distract, use up resources, cost us financially and ultimately cost us our licenses. And so I mean this wasn't even the Bars who are self regulating, they weren't coming after us. I mean, that, that's what's so infuriating to me. And so for the, for the AFPI brief, they, they go on to say, should the Supreme Court hear this case, that its decision could mark a critical steps toward ending the political weaponization of the legal profession and restoring fairness and independence to the attorney. Disciplinary proceedings. That is so needed, Cleta.
Cleta Mitchell: It is so needed. And interestingly, Jim, not sure if you, know this, but there are other, lawyers. There were 17 lawyers on this brief that you and I signed as friends of the court. I had three bar complaints filed against me. Two separate, two in Oklahoma. Oh, three in Oklahoma. Actually, I had four. Now I'm thinking about it. Four, three.
Jenna Ellis: It's hard to count them after they pile up.
Cleta Mitchell: But it's funny, I had forgotten when, I went back and looked at it, I had forgotten that there were these two people who didn't live in Oklahoma. I, I've never heard of. They, they saw a news article that I represent President Trump, and so they sent in a complaint and one of them said the reason for the complaint, and it said, because she represented President Trump. And then I had another bar complaint that was filed by 29 lawyers from Oklahoma. And the bar did accept that one. They didn't accept the first two. They accepted the second, the third one. And I looked it up. Half of them were Biden donors, and none of them, I didn't know any of them, they weren't clients of mine. And I had to, you know, pay a lawyer to, present the briefs and all of that.
Analysis of Bar Complaints Filed by Left-Wing Groups and Political Figures
And then I, had another bar complaint filed against me by this left wing group started by David Brock, the 65 Project. They, they still have on their website, they file a bar complaint against me in the District of Columbia. I never even heard from the DC Bar on that one. They, they just did. They didn't even entertain it, which none of these bar associations should have accepted any of these complaints. But they're, but they up on the website that I have this bar complaint pending against me in the District of Columbia, which I don't even know if it's true or not. I think I'm in good standing there. But in any event, there's another brief. I talked to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school on the 1st of October, and I was there to give a speech to the Federalist Society chapter. And he, is the chapter advisor. And he told me that he had had a Bar complaint filed against him and all of the lawyers in Pennsylvania, who were barred in Pennsylvania had by a congressman from NewSong Jersey, a Democrat. A Democrat congressman from NewSong Jersey filed bar complaints against the lawyers in, Pennsylvania who were representing President Trump. So he put together and filed a separate brief with the Supreme Court in support of Jon Cert petition and said it's getting pretty bad when a sitting member of Congress from the opposite political party files a bar complaint against the attorneys for the head of the ticket on the other party. there are other lawyers, like Jeff Clark. He filed a separate, amicus brief.
Widespread 'Bar Fair' Tactics Targeting Conservative Lawyers and the Need for Reform
Harry McDougall from Atlanta filed. He signed a separate amicus brief. So the point is that there are a lot of briefs, there are a lot of lawyers who have had similar experiences to ours that are on briefs that have been filed with the Supreme Court, even, apart from the brief that we filed as part of 17 people. But it's really bad. These bar associations have been taken over by leftists, even in states that you think are conservative, like Oklahoma. And, it cost tens of thousands of dollars for me to defend myself. They ultimately dismissed it, but not for two and a half years. And so it's really. So I always say to people, you know, until you've had your livelihood threatened or, you know, that's, you know, your family, your livelihood, your life, when they start doing that. But these left wing groups are very clear about this. They say their intent, their intent is to keep anyone from representing Donald Trump again. That's their goal. And they want to keep lawyers. They filed, I think, half a dozen complaints by this point against, Justice Department lawyers. They filed against Pam Bondi when she was Attorney General. They filed against Todd Blanche, they filed against, Ed Martin. They filed, they filed a complaint, ethics complaint against the general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security for a tweet, that he posted, disagreeing with an order of a leftist judge who had barred the Department of Homeland Security from being able to do something that the, had directed them to do. And so, I mean, this is serious and I think the bar association, of course, the ABA is no help. But honestly, the Federalist Society has not been any help. Well, and they should during all of this.
The Cost and Consequences of Politically Motivated Bar Complaints for Lawyers
Jenna Ellis: Right. Because they don't want to be targeted as well. And the, and the frustrating part of this is that for all of these left wing groups, if they file all of these complaints and even a couple stick, like, you know, the ones against, Eastman and, and, you know, and a few others, and they're successful in those mainly, I think because of some of these states, like had I been barred in a different state, honestly, there might have been a different outcome. Right. and so I still have my license. I wasn't disbarred, thankfully, you know, was suspended for, for a few years. But, but, you know, that's a whole other story. But you know, a lot of these were at least dismissed, but I wouldn't have even had to spend the money to defend the ones and go through the whole process that, you know, we're multiple back and forth and it's very expensive. But, but all of these left wing groups, they go through all that, they put us through that to spend the time and effort defending and the financial burden. And then if they're ultimately dismissed, there's no consequence. And that's part of the problem is it's completely, completely free to them. absolutely. And, and yet it's everything to us. And this didn't even start for people who are saying, well, this is just around, you know, the 2020 election and, and you know, that it'll just be around that, what Cletus mentioned about all of the current, Trump administration officials that are going through bar complaints, but this was even well before 2020. I mean, I remember talking to, Jay Sekulow, who is, who is an attorney and was one of President Trump's attorneys.
Examining Jay Sekulow's Bar Complaint and the Need for Standing in Legal Challenges
He had a bar complaint filed by two U.S. congressmen, I think, Ted Lieu and Kathleen Rice, both Democrats, and they wrote a letter to the State Bar of Georgia calling for an ethics investigation into Jay Sekulow only because they, they suggested that he repeatedly made it, made misleading statements to the American public regarding, ah, President Trump's, you know, involvement in whether it was like the Russia collusion or the, you know, the Trump Tower nonsense. I mean, and that was ultimately dismissed. But it costs time and effort and it's always from the Democrats. And so we need to put a stop to this and there needs to be, in my view, there needs to be a rule that only parties involved can complain about the lawyer's work in those particular instances because they would be the ones to have an actual harm. And in any other type of litigation, you have to have standing and have an injury. In fact, I mean, that's one of the, the core, prongs of the analysis. You have to be yourself injured, not just this watchdog group that can go and, you know, file a ton of things against the wall and see what sticks. And so overall, with Eastman's complaint with all of these friend of the court briefs that are, you know, saying this needs to stop. what is your view on, I mean, so the Supreme Court hasn't decided whether or not they will take up Jon Eastman, petition, but what is the, the relief that he is asking me? Is it along some of these lines or, you know, where else can we go to create this type of rule?
Supreme Court's Role in Upholding Legal Representation and Reforming Bar Association Rules
Cleta Mitchell: Well, I think two things. I think that we are going to have to, first of all, the Supreme Court really does need to accept cert on this case. They really need to hear this. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority for attorneys in this country and really the responsibility for protecting basic principles of American jurisprudence, one of which is that everyone is entitled to legal representation. That is a fundamental principle that lawyers are taught that we all believe it's important because we want to uphold the rule of law. And if you're going to uphold the rule of law, which is what sets the United States, has historically set the United States apart from every other country in the history of the world, that ours is a nation of laws, not of men, how many times have we heard that? But if you're. The Supreme Court has a duty to protect the principles of American jurisprudence. And that's one of them. And when a basic. This is a challenge to the notion that everyone is entitled to legal representation, that's what this is, a challenge. This is a challenge to that principle. When these left wing groups say we don't like this client, we don't like this person, his beliefs, his standing, whatever, we don't like that. And therefore we're going to use the tools of the bar association where we think that we have a friendly, friendly forum. And in most cases they do. And so the Supreme Court really needs to take it up and to say no, this is a basic principle and we are going to uphold that principle. And they need to reverse the Supreme Court of California and they need to order him reinstated. Simple as that. And in fact, the other thing I think we're going to have to do is that I think we're going to have to organize to try to get rules changes passed in state legislatures. state legislatures have authority over bar associations.
Proposed Rule Changes for Bar Associations and the Orchestration of 'Bar Fair'
I think we need, the rules of professional conduct, For attorneys need to be changed to create the requirement, just as you said, that only a client or a court referral or an opposing counsel, somebody who has had some immediate injury or interaction with the attorney. You know, the ironic thing for me, Jenna, is that When I was in Oklahoma and practicing law in Oklahoma, I was appointed by the State Supreme Court of Oklahoma and I served on the Professional Responsibility Tribunal for the Bar association of the State of Oklahoma. So I saw the cases that came through the attorneys who stole from clients, forged documents or did various things or missed deadlines that cost a client and all of those kinds of things. that's what the bar disciplinary process is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be the playground of wealthy billionaire left wing backed groups that come in and try to use the misuse and misappropriate the bar disciplinary process, in order to go after, in yet a new and novel way, someone they hate, which is Donald Trump, and they don't really care who gets in their way. But one of the things that we did recently was the Conservative Partnership Institute, where I'm the senior legal Fellow, sponsored a symposium on Bar fair earlier this month. And we had two different sets of research that were presented. One, and the one showing that this is a massively orchestrated, well funded plan that was put into place by these left wing groups to take down Donald Trump, by getting all of his attorneys disbarred. We have another set of research that showed that Jack Smith actually coordinated with through Norm Eisenhower to and a Democratic Attorneys General's association and they actually orchestrated those state criminal proceedings against the Trump electors, Trump lawyers and people associated with President Trump.
The Blatant Lawfare Against Trump Lawyers and the Principle of Universal Legal Defense
All those state proceedings were really orchestrated initially through Jack Smith and his friend Norm Eisen and the Democratic Attorney General's Association. How do you like that one? Wow, it's pretty shocking.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, and again it just shows the absolute blatant lawfare and they're proud of it. I mean they, even in their complaints, you know, and in their public you know, their websites and everything, they're, they are saying the reason that we're doing this is specifically so that we can make sure that no one ever represents Trump, that we can disbar all of these lawyers for daring, you know, to represent political figures. Meanwhile, conservatives like you and me are saying that everyone deserves a defense. I mean Hillary Clinton deserved a defense, you know, all of the Democrats do. And you know we still have the understanding that, that lawyers as a profession have that professional responsibility. And you know we, we've even in the course of, of our practice, I know this is true for every lawyer including you and me, Cleta, you know, we have represented clients that we don't necessarily share their position, but we represent their interests. I mean, it doesn't mean that just because you work for a client that you agree with their position or their interests on everything. That's not what I mean. It's like. It's like a home designer going and going. Well, you know, that's not really the wallpaper I would have chosen, but I'll. I'll do it, you know, for. For these people, because that's my job, you know, and that's. That's part of the profession. But to accuse lawyers and try to take away their entire livelihood, their licenses, simply because they're political opponents, and to be openly proud of that fact absolutely needs to stop. And we also shouldn't have, in America, this whole idea that, the outcome would have been different for Trump lawyers, depending on what state you're in. I mean, for Sidney Powell, for example, I believe the only reason that she wasn't, disbarred and her complaint was dismissed is because she's in Texas. That somehow is still conservative in. Right.
Jenna Ellis: And.
Jenna Ellis: And it shouldn't be that conservative lawyers have to be careful which state they practice in. But that's one of their tactics. They, they don't want to have good conservative lawyers that are arguing policy positions and, and representing political clients in the blue states because they want to keep them blue. And it's. It's entirely unfair, it's entirely unethical, and it absolutely needs to stop. we've got to take a break here.
State-Specific Outcomes in Disbarment Cases and the Need for Ethical Consistency
But, but just closing thoughts on this and. And, what the timeline is.
Cleta Mitchell: Well, one point that you made, Jenna, which is really important, is that depending on the state you're in, that tells whether or not you're likely to be disbarred. And Jon Eastman raised that point with the California Bar as part of the proceedings, and their response was, well, you knew what you were getting into when you, were admitted to the bar in this state. So it's, like, too bad for you, fella.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Like, you know, your fault that you decided to sign up in a blue state. I mean, that's not what the rules of ethics, as you mentioned, and the rules of our profession, dictate. And so, absolutely, this needs to. Cleta, thank you so much for your passionate work and your consistency, your tenaciousness. Cleta has been one that has not given up on any of us. She has, been the foremost advocate. We love and appreciate her. And we'll be right back with more.
Preborn Sponsor Message: Saving Babies Through Ultrasound and Compassionate Support
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a defining moment in history Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At preborn network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a preborn network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Shane Gillis SNL Controversy: Misogyny Accusations and the Nature of Modern Comedy
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, ending on a far, far less serious note. Shane Gillis, was on SNL this weekend, which, it'll be fascinating to see what they put out this weekend. but apparently is in hot water because he made a joke that is, still, according to the Washington Post, roiling viewers because you're not allowed to make, jokes apparently against, you know, women in their fashion anymore. Otherwise you're called a misogynist. Which is ridiculous. I'm not going to quote the joke because it was very crass and I, you know, we don't want to deal with that here. But the point was, he made fun of the way that women dress provocatively going to the gym. And then he also said, you know, I don't look. You're not allowed to look for real because they're filming and I'm in the background of like 10 TikToks right now. Now.
Jenna Ellis: And the point to me of that, you know, it wasn't misogynist at all. It wasn't you know, anything other than his crude delivery. the, the point and the essence of it is, is absolutely right. I mean anything these days, whether it's the gym, it's, you know, just going out to the mall, being on an airplane, everybody has a phone, everybody is filming and everybody seems to be there to be influencing and to just get their content instead of just enjoying life and perhaps even, you know, dressing appropriately. And so, let's welcome in ow Root, who is a flat, a fashion blogger and designer. And then you can follow him on X for some really good commentary. And so ow. This just seems like a controversy that is almost as hilarious as Kelly Clarkson and the $15,000 animatronic bird, which I thought, I thought that was hilarious. it just seems like there are so many things that people complain about instead of recognizing, okay, it's a joke and understand the point and move on.
Fashion Blogger Ow Root Discusses Provocative Gym Wear and Performative Outrage Online
OW Root: Yeah, the thing with this is he's making an observation of something that everybody's noticed. So everybody has noticed this thing and is aware that there are some women who wear very provocative clothing to the gym and they film themselves for influencer purposes. You know, they have an influencer, whatever. And then there is an added layer here. If you're on the Internet, you've seen videos like this where often there might be someone in the background who looks at the woman in question on the camera, then they draw attention to that man in question looking at the woman who's provocatively dressed. And they, the influencer is performatively shocked by them looking at them. And so the joke also, Shane is making a joke about himself as well, obviously, like he's a comic, so he says, I'm probably in 15 of these. So he's making a joke, like a self deprecating joke of him looking. And it's also sort of poking fun at the women who are dressing in a provocative way, pretending to be surprised that anyone might deign to look at them while they're doing so. And I mean, it does highlight a really interestingly absurd thing in our culture where someone will do something that is, that is provocative or is attention grabbing and will essentially performatively be shocked, be like, I can't believe you are shocked by what I'm wearing, or I can't believe you even looked at what I was wearing. You know, and I, don't think it's. I mean it's not strange to suggest that if you're wearing very revealing clothing, you might be, someone might look at you. You know, that's not a surprise.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, I mean the definition of modest is that, you know, you're not drawing attention to yourself. And so, you know, immodesty, in our current cultural definition is something that is too revealing, but it can even be something that is shocking or, you know, maybe wholly inappropriate for the venue. I mean, if I wore A ball gown and high heels and you know, a tiara, which I would love to do, by the way, every day. If I had a job that I could do that, that'd be fantastic. But if I wore that whole entire outfit and as beautiful as it could be over to Publix while I'm grocery shopping, I'd probably get some looks on that. Right? And that's, that is immodest. It's shocking. It's, it's drawing attention. And, and so for these, these influencers, they do that intentionally, as you mentioned, and then they, they feign this shock and horror, especially women, by saying, why are people, especially men, looking at me? And it's all just performative. And I'm just so frustrated with a culture that we have to film everything 247 and we have to do this whole performative nonsense simply for views and clicks instead of having content that is actually advancing a social narrative or engaging in the conversation or doing something meaningful. Absolutely.
OW Root: That's the even bigger story is this sort of self imposed surveillance state in this really weird way. I mean, people, we have this thing where people rightfully are concerned about a surveillance state. We don't want to live in a surveillance state. And we often think of surveillance states as being sort of a governmental enforcement top down. But the truth is we all sort of live in this self imposed surveillance state where now I'm not filming people in public, but many people are. So all these people are kind of filming themselves and filming others. You know, you hear about terrible stuff where people will film someone who just did something embarrassing and then post it and make fun of them. Terrible, awful. Like why would you do that?
The Self-Imposed Surveillance State: Constant Filming and its Impact on Society
You know? And it's like this kind of stuff though, this self imposed surveillance state. We're streaming everything and other people are in it. It's disconcerting and it's, it's. I mean, when you're filming like that, there's a presumption that you're being real, but you're performing. So it makes life itself so much less real, so much less normal. And there are people like, not us, people who are born much later who have grown up in this sort of self imposed panopticon. And it really, this is a big shift in society that is not good, it's not healthy. And it gets to a deeper thing about why people aren't relaxed, why people are almost automatically mad at people and why people feel just very on edge. And it's maybe because they're constantly being filmed in some way. They look around oh, no, someone's filming over there, you know, all this sort of stuff.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we also can't just, you know, relax and enjoy our families and our outings anymore. I mean, I've even noticed that, you know, I notice when I'm out and somebody has their camera out and I kind of turn the other way. Like I don't want to get in the middle of their video. And we have to, we have to be careful about all of those things. And I think it's also a lesson perhaps to all of us to put our phones away. I mean, take your couple of pictures, you know, if you're at Disney World or whatever. But then enjoy the rest of the day and you don't have to film every little piece of content. And we shouldn't be in this hyperimposed surveillance state. We should just live our lives and actually enjoy the beauty of God's creation. But owroot. Really appreciate it and really great comments. And as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net.
Jenna Ellis: PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Thanking Sponsor Preborn and Discussing God's Role in Government and Life
Jenna Ellis: We would like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, PreBorn. When a mother meets her baby on ultrasound and hears their heartbeat, it's a divine connection. And the majority of the time, she will choose life. But she can't do it without our help. Preborn needs us, the pro life community, to come alongside her. One ultrasound is just $28, and to donate, dial £250 and say the keyword baby or visit preborn.com afr Jenna, Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God. Because of truth and the biblical worldview, the U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God, our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you, and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.
Jenna Ellis Discusses White House Press Secretary Katie's Bar Complaint and Legal Standing
This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning. Morning.
Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Thursday, October 15, and the new White House press secretary, Katy Zakaria, has found herself in the midst of some hot water, as a watchdog group files a complaint against her with the California Bar. So this coming from the Hill. The Campaign for Accountability has filed a complaint with the State Bar of California asking for an investigation into the press secretary over her claims that she is a lawyer after reports surfaced that she is not licensed to practice in any state and according to reports, never has been. So the complaint notes that if reporting is accurate that Zakaria has, quote, repeatedly held herself out to the public as entitled to practice law without a license to do so, then it's an act that California law treats as a crime. the Campaign for Accountability said In a statement, Ms. Zakaria has, or Zacharia, has represented herself as a lawyer repeatedly to buttress her reputation and credibility as a television legal commentator and now as the White House spokesperson. Yet seems it all was a lie. And, late last night, the Wallnua Street Journal came out with an exclusive that, apparently they're reporting that, Katy Zakaria did take the California Bar, but did not pass the bar exam.
Attorney Gerard Felitti Analyzes Implications of Katie's Lack of Bar License and Professional Conduct
So they're reporting that she sat for the California bar exam after graduating law school from Pepperdine University in 2011, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, but she didn't pass. So, there can be some very serious implications here. so let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, who is an attorney at the Law Fair Project. And Gerard, you know, obviously, there are a lot of people making a big deal out of this. And, what, what do you make of this in terms of the claims? Also on her resume, reportedly, she has listed herself as general counsel for a California nonprofit, as well as, apparently saying to, the White House Press that, she had practiced as well in China.
Gerard Filitti: It's amazing how much this week's of another round of lawfare conducted against someone who is not currently holding a legal, job and is a press secret secretary, a, public relations person. Ah, at the end of the day, I think this is an issue because we have to be careful as lawyers, how we hold ourselves out to the public. A lawyer is someone who graduated law school does not mean that they're licensed to practice. That's what an attorney is, an attorney at law.
Examining the Distinction Between Lawyer and Attorney Amidst White House Press Secretary Controversy
And Zachariah has been, I think, careful for most of her career in not describing herself as an attorney, but rather saying that she is a lawyer. so the only question, really, I think, in this complaint is whether people understood general counsel to be that she was holding herself out as practicing law, which is an ethics problem first and foremost, but it might also be a misdemeanor. I don't think we're going to get to a criminal complaint stage, but this is certainly something that someone is looking to bring her down a peg or two through these complaints.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, at minimum, I think that this is a PR kind of disaster that the White House doesn't really need. And, when, you know, President Trump, in his, statements of her, has described her, at least reportedly as an attorney. And so, you know, there are a lot of people who use those two terms, attorney and lawyer, kind of interchangeably. And I think that for, you know, kind of the common, vernacular, people understand them to mean license, ah, to practice law. But you're right that, you know, lawyer and attorney are different. and yet people do need to be careful how they hold themselves out. And so is this something more that just the White House needs to issue a corrective statement, or is this something, that could. Could really be kind of one of those ethics issues that could cause more extensive problems for the White House?
Gerard Filitti: Well, I think this is going to. I think the media have picked up on this and it's, it's not going to let go. And unfortunately, and I know Katy, and she is a fantastic person, but I think her first press conference did not do her credit. and because of that, the media has kind latched onto anything it can, and they're using this to target, of course, Donald Trump. So I do see this more as a PR crisis for the White House than anything that will stick to Zachariah, other than, you know, embarrassing her a little bit. but ultimately that's what the goal is. It's to attack Trump. It's not actually about her.
Critiquing White House Messaging and Handling of Press Secretary's Legal Credentials
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And, you know, and we talked about this yesterday, on air with, Todd Starnes as well, and you know, he had that same opinion, and I do as well that the initial briefing did not. And WSJ and didn't.
Jenna Ellis: yeah, and we'll, we'll make sure that we get Jared back there. But, you know, I had that same opinion that, you know, the briefing didn't go well. And overall, while I don't know Katy personally, this, in my opinion, is something that just the White House doesn't need. And, and if they had perhaps, either vetted her a little bit more carefully or were more careful about their statements in presenting her publicly, then they probably wouldn't be in this situation. And it's one of those things that, that for the Trump White House, there are a lot of instances where if the messaging had been handled better up front, then there wouldn't have to be this kind of reporting and seeming corrective, statements and backtracking and, you know, potential, legal issues. Because obviously, the left is going to go after anything. I mean, they're, they're not going to embr her and they're not going to love Trump for any reason. And so. So the White House needs to be very careful just to not give the left any of these kinds of issues that may potentially, have consequences, just completely unnecessarily. Because. And, and what I'm wondering, Gerard, is when, when reporters asked her, when she was coming out of the White House with Trump and said, what state are you licensed to practice in? And you know, Trump kind of threw the question back to her. Why didn't she just say, I went to law school, but don't have a bar license and I'm the press secretary. I don't need one. I mean, it could have been as simple as that.
Gerard Filitti: You're absolutely right. And this comes back to messaging and even Donald Trump himself saying attorney and not. We all know Trump. He talks off the cuff. He doesn't always preplan. Ah. Or choose his words as carefully as we may want him to.
Best PR Strategy for Press Secretary: Direct Explanation and Vetting Improvement
And that's exactly it. I think that when that question was thrown to her, she could have answered that directly. I think she will need to answer that directly. She will need to Sit down, down and explain, what the situation is. That's the best PR way forward, and that, quite frankly, is the best way out of any ethics issues as well, is for her to just sit and explain, what the situation is, what the words mean, and put out her side, which is that she's really done nothing wrong, and that this comes down to mishap, in language which was not timed very well. But to your point, this also speaks to vetting issues at the White House. This is not something that should have been left to the media to turn out. This is something that the White House should have done a better job preparing for. and I think because she herself has been careful in how she's described herself over the years, this was not unanticipated. So that's really the question. Why wasn't there a better job done of answering that question?
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And that just, you know, goes into the further questions of, will she get better as Press Secretary? hopefully. But, you know, the White House really needs better messaging overall, and doesn't need some of these, these types of PR nightmares.
Analyzing White House Kennedy Center Donation Controversy and Communication Failures
And speaking of that, there's also one other story that, is just, in my opinion, again, kind of unnecessary negative PR for the White House. This is coming from Axios, and they report this as an exclusive. The White House probes claims of missing Kennedy center money in a, quote, MAGA blood feud. I think that's a little overdramatic. But, you know, this is Axios, right? And these are. These are people from the left who want to smear and malign, the White House, anyone associated with President Trump at all. And so, why give them any ammo? So this story goes on to say President Trump has directed his White House counsel to examine explosive allegations dropped on him Friday in the Oval Office. Former Trump attorney Elena Haba apparently told the President, according to this article, that another one of his top advisors, former Kennedy center leader Rick Grinnell, failed to deposit a multimillion dollar donation that her billionaire husband, M, made to the center a year ago, according to former four senior administration officials and three insiders briefed on the controversy. Grinnell has denied the accusations as, quote, absurd and, quote, a lie. And Haba and her husband declined to comment, at least to Axios through a spokesperson. And so, you know, Axios talks about, you know, why this matters, and this is, you know, kind of a big deal, what do you make over all of the substance, but also the PR problem that this presents?
Gerard Filitti: Well, it's a Major PR problem, first and foremost. I mean, these are two Trump loyalists who could have had a conversation in private, not even involving the president, yet somehow it ends up both in the Oval Office and now on Axios. So that really tells you that they need to do a better job of communicating with one another, first and foremost. And this is really a binary. I mean, either funds were deposited or they were not. And if they were not, then there should be an explanation. but oftentimes these explanations are very innocent and not something that rises to the level of, you know, let's put this on the front page of a newspaper or splash this all over the Internet.
Discussion on White House Leaks, Internal Drama, and Trump's Leadership Style
So, again, it's a messaging problem, and this should never have gotten out of the White House. Which just, shows you that there are also too many leaks, especially when you have personalities that conflict.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, and that's. That's a really big deal as well, because, you know, when you have, people inside the White House who are talking on the record, but without being named and obviously, airing some of these conflicts that happen, I mean, there. Axios is saying, and, you know, generally, whether you like their reporting or not, I mean, you know, they're. They're saying that they spoke to four senior administration officials and three, insiders briefed on the controversy. this is. This is typical, you know, Trump world, where there's a lot of inside drama going on. And instead of confronting things directly and privately, a lot of the ways that a lot of these administration officials, and even in my day when I worked for Trump, it was just known that the best way to get his attention overall on something is to go to the media and have him read it in print. And that's not the best way, to actually serve your elected official and, actually serve the president. And so part of the reason, I think, at least just in my experience, with Trump world, that a lot of this gets out is because too many people are wanting Trump to read a negative headline, have a perception, and then make a decision based on media reporting instead of settling things internally. because one of. One of the good, but also bad things about Trump's style of leadership is it's him and then everybody else. I mean, there's not really a hierarchy and a structure. And so, Gerard, when you have people that can just, you know, go into the Oval Office and say, I'm complaining about something, as if, you know, you're going into, you know, your. Your father's house and complaining about your sibling, I mean, that's not really the best way for the, administration to run. And it just leads to headlines like this that especially two weeks before the midterms, just really aren't necessary.
Gerard Filitti: Right. And to her credit, Susie Wilds has done a very good job as a gatekeeper for people who are not long time people in Trump's circle. But I think that's exactly it. When, when you have people who predate Wiles, who predate Trump's presidency, who have access to him, they go directly to him or they go to the.
Focusing on Election Messaging and Policy Over Distractions and Political Drama
Gerard Filitti: That's it.
Gerard Filitti: I mean, we're three weeks, less than three weeks away from a major election, which will have very consequential, impact on the way we, the next two years of Trump's term will play out. And instead of focusing on that, we're now distracted by, you know, who did what to whom, kindergarten tattletailing, in, the Oval Office, which is not what we want to see in the press. We want to see a unified message about why conservatives need to put up a good fight this election.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we do have a lot of, I think, strong messaging coming out of other parts of the, gop. I mean, I think, Congressman Brandon Gill has been, you know, one of the best on pointing out the policy differences, you know, between candidates running. You have, you know, a lot of other people, at least, within the gop and hopefully the messaging, from the White House in terms of just the differences in policy, because it always comes down to policy. I mean, when we're looking at individuals, we're looking at the drama, all of that. Okay? We should, as Christian conservatives, set all that aside and say, all right, you know, that's, that's Axios, that's drama, that's whatever, put that aside. Let's look at the policy issues, let's look at who is actually on our ballot and let's look at, the, not just the messaging, but overall what is actually happening in the elections. And let's exercise our vote in the best possible way and let's not get distracted by all of this because that's ultimately, at the end of the day, the left's goal is the distractions and the focus on the drama instead of what's actually going on in the country. And we need to make sure that as conservatives, we are turning out, we're voting our values and we're looking at policy instead of just, the overdramatic headline. So, Gerard Felitti, really appreciate it. And we will be right back with more.
Introducing Listener Support and Discussing America First Legal Actions
Foreign,
Jenna Ellis: Hi. I'm Jenna Ellis.
Jenna Ellis: Did you know that this content is listener supported? Without people like you, this podcast would not exist. And that's why we need you. A generous monthly gift of any amount will help sustain American Family Radio and specifically this podcast. Please consider becoming a monthly financial partner today by visiting afr.net or forward slgive. That's afr.net give. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, speaking of leftist lawfare against, anyone associated with Trump, the America First Policy Institute, or AFPI, and 17America first attorneys filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Jon east cert petition to the US Supreme Court yesterday to review his disbarment by the California State Bar. And in full disclosure, I was one of the former Trump attorneys that signed on to this, to this brief. And, have supported AFPI in this brief. So you can read that in their announcement. I also posted it on my social media.
Cleta Mitchell Explains 'Bar Fair' and the Political Weaponization of Ethics Complaints
So, they go on in the announcement to say, in addition to supporting Dr. Eastman's case, AFP eyes brief highlights the concerning use of what they call Bar Fair. you've heard of lawfare? This is bar Fair, the political weaponization of professional ethics complaints against lawyers by their political opponents. This case is ultimately about the inherent fairness of state systems regulating attorney conduct and to the extent those systems can be influenced by partisan organization. So let's welcome in Cleta Mitchell, who is a, who is, a member of the Conservative Partnership Institute, former Trump lawyer, and she also signed on to this brief. Cleta, thanks so much. So let's start first of all with the, petition that Jon Eastman has filed to the Supreme Court and what he is arguing.
Cleta Mitchell: Well, thank you so much, Jenna, for having me on to talk about this really important issue. Jon Eastman, Dr. Jon Eastman, as many of your listeners probably know, is one of the foremost conservative constitutional scholars and attorneys in America. And he has been for a number of years. And he literally, he is brilliant. He has been a law professor as well. He is a constitutional historian. And he was one of President Trump's attorneys after the 2020 election. And what his role really was was because he's just a walking encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. He was, but he's also a fantastic litigator. And he was looking at the history of the Electoral College, the certification of electors, et cetera. And his crime, supposedly according to all of these left wing groups, was that he represented President Trump, but that he also, he wrote a legal memo, a legal Memo in which he outlined the various, historical options that Vice President Pence, as President of the Senate, might have with regard to the certification process for that, he was subjected to a bar complaint in the State of California. It was, I want to say it was a five to six week hearing or trial. And this supposed judge who heard, I watched a lot of it. I don't know Jenna, if you ever watched any of it. But it was absolutely, it was a kangaroo court. There's no way, to describe it other than that the judge would not allow, Jon to bring in evidence of his, of what he actually said that refuted what he was accused of having said. And then the judge ordered him disbarred, basically because they said, well, he didn't controvert, the accusations. Well that's because she didn't let him put on the evidence.
John Eastman's Appeal to the Supreme Court Following Disbarment Ruling
But then he appealed that to the, to the California Supreme Court. And after several months the Supreme Court of California issued a three word order, denied, disordered, disbarred. That's it. Three words. They didn't, he did, he cited all the errors. They paid no attention to any of it, just said, ordered, disbarred. And so he, Jon, has now there's a direct appeal from every, any state Supreme Court order, there is a direct mandatory appeal to the United States Supreme Court that is a direct appeal. And so Jon filed a, ah, petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorary which is asking the United States Supreme Court to take this case on his appeal, to accept the appeal, to hear it, and to reverse the Supreme Court of California order of disbarment. And so this, this friend, of the court brief as you mentioned, was filed by both of us. And I really started working on putting this together a few months ago because I want the Supreme Court to know this case is not just about Jon Eastman.
Concerns Over Bar Complaints Against Lawyers Representing President Trump
These left wing groups filed over 150 bar complaints against lawyers solely because they represented President Trump. And now they're filing bar complaints against lawyers from the Justice Department because they work for President Trump. And this is just metastasizing. And if the Supreme Court doesn't step in, I really do fear for our whole legal, our system of jurisprudence because we can't just as you know, Jenna, what you've been through, in the big cities in America, people who represent President Trump, President Trump himself, we can't get a fair trial. Because the jury pool is tainted. There's even been an active process in Washington D.C. by some of these left wing groups to quote unquote, train people to be jurors. And I mean there's so much wrong with this. But that's kind of a long story. But it is a really scary situation.
Jenna Ellis: I think it really is. And it has a, an intentional chilling effect on the legal profession and is trying to discourage, attorneys from representing these groups, political opponents, and namely Donald Trump. But of course, this will go further than Trump, especially once he's out of office. I mean if they are successful and there is no stopping this, then this kind of lawfare and bar far will just continue. What, you know, what people may not know even about what I went through is how many bar complaints I actually had to defend and pay counsel to defend. I mean I had, I don't even know how many, I mean over well over probably a dozen, you know, 20 or more bar complaints, that were submitted against me. And some of those to the Colorado's bar credit, you know, they just dismissed outright, said, you know, this isn't an issue and just gave me a copy of it. But there were some that I actually had to write a response to. And that takes time, it takes money, it takes effort. And and then when, when the system and in Colorado the one presiding disciplinary judge was very clearly an anti Trump person. And so, you know, people only look at the decisions you make. They don't see the choices that you had. They don't necessarily see all of the situation involved. And you can't also necessarily, while you're in the midst of things, explain the fuller situation, which can be frustrating and can be part of the pr, you know, lawfare as well. And none of these complaints, by the way, against any of us were from our own clients.
The Impact of Outside Advocacy Groups Filing Bar Complaints Against Attorneys
Right? None of the parties to the case. And this is the thing that I think needs to change fundamentally is that these outside advocacy groups should not be able to come for our licenses when they have absolutely no interest as a party. Now if they want, if a party filed, then maybe they could do a kind of a friend of the court situation, but they should not have any standing, that they can go and file a complaint and essentially become an adversary simply because they want to be involved. And that's where the, the essence of this, is so frustrating because all of these complaints were by left wing advocacy groups just to try to distract, use up resources, cost us financially and ultimately cost us our licenses. And so I mean this wasn't even the Bars who are self regulating, they weren't coming after us. I mean, that, that's what's so infuriating to me. And so for the, for the AFPI brief, they, they go on to say, should the Supreme Court hear this case, that its decision could mark a critical steps toward ending the political weaponization of the legal profession and restoring fairness and independence to the attorney. Disciplinary proceedings. That is so needed, Cleta.
Cleta Mitchell: It is so needed. And interestingly, Jim, not sure if you, know this, but there are other, lawyers. There were 17 lawyers on this brief that you and I signed as friends of the court. I had three bar complaints filed against me. Two separate, two in Oklahoma. Oh, three in Oklahoma. Actually, I had four. Now I'm thinking about it. Four, three.
Jenna Ellis: It's hard to count them after they pile up.
Cleta Mitchell: But it's funny, I had forgotten when, I went back and looked at it, I had forgotten that there were these two people who didn't live in Oklahoma. I, I've never heard of. They, they saw a news article that I represent President Trump, and so they sent in a complaint and one of them said the reason for the complaint, and it said, because she represented President Trump. And then I had another bar complaint that was filed by 29 lawyers from Oklahoma. And the bar did accept that one. They didn't accept the first two. They accepted the second, the third one. And I looked it up. Half of them were Biden donors, and none of them, I didn't know any of them, they weren't clients of mine. And I had to, you know, pay a lawyer to, present the briefs and all of that.
Analysis of Bar Complaints Filed by Left-Wing Groups and Political Figures
And then I, had another bar complaint filed against me by this left wing group started by David Brock, the 65 Project. They, they still have on their website, they file a bar complaint against me in the District of Columbia. I never even heard from the DC Bar on that one. They, they just did. They didn't even entertain it, which none of these bar associations should have accepted any of these complaints. But they're, but they up on the website that I have this bar complaint pending against me in the District of Columbia, which I don't even know if it's true or not. I think I'm in good standing there. But in any event, there's another brief. I talked to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school on the 1st of October, and I was there to give a speech to the Federalist Society chapter. And he, is the chapter advisor. And he told me that he had had a Bar complaint filed against him and all of the lawyers in Pennsylvania, who were barred in Pennsylvania had by a congressman from NewSong Jersey, a Democrat. A Democrat congressman from NewSong Jersey filed bar complaints against the lawyers in, Pennsylvania who were representing President Trump. So he put together and filed a separate brief with the Supreme Court in support of Jon Cert petition and said it's getting pretty bad when a sitting member of Congress from the opposite political party files a bar complaint against the attorneys for the head of the ticket on the other party. there are other lawyers, like Jeff Clark. He filed a separate, amicus brief.
Widespread 'Bar Fair' Tactics Targeting Conservative Lawyers and the Need for Reform
Harry McDougall from Atlanta filed. He signed a separate amicus brief. So the point is that there are a lot of briefs, there are a lot of lawyers who have had similar experiences to ours that are on briefs that have been filed with the Supreme Court, even, apart from the brief that we filed as part of 17 people. But it's really bad. These bar associations have been taken over by leftists, even in states that you think are conservative, like Oklahoma. And, it cost tens of thousands of dollars for me to defend myself. They ultimately dismissed it, but not for two and a half years. And so it's really. So I always say to people, you know, until you've had your livelihood threatened or, you know, that's, you know, your family, your livelihood, your life, when they start doing that. But these left wing groups are very clear about this. They say their intent, their intent is to keep anyone from representing Donald Trump again. That's their goal. And they want to keep lawyers. They filed, I think, half a dozen complaints by this point against, Justice Department lawyers. They filed against Pam Bondi when she was Attorney General. They filed against Todd Blanche, they filed against, Ed Martin. They filed, they filed a complaint, ethics complaint against the general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security for a tweet, that he posted, disagreeing with an order of a leftist judge who had barred the Department of Homeland Security from being able to do something that the, had directed them to do. And so, I mean, this is serious and I think the bar association, of course, the ABA is no help. But honestly, the Federalist Society has not been any help. Well, and they should during all of this.
The Cost and Consequences of Politically Motivated Bar Complaints for Lawyers
Jenna Ellis: Right. Because they don't want to be targeted as well. And the, and the frustrating part of this is that for all of these left wing groups, if they file all of these complaints and even a couple stick, like, you know, the ones against, Eastman and, and, you know, and a few others, and they're successful in those mainly, I think because of some of these states, like had I been barred in a different state, honestly, there might have been a different outcome. Right. and so I still have my license. I wasn't disbarred, thankfully, you know, was suspended for, for a few years. But, but, you know, that's a whole other story. But you know, a lot of these were at least dismissed, but I wouldn't have even had to spend the money to defend the ones and go through the whole process that, you know, we're multiple back and forth and it's very expensive. But, but all of these left wing groups, they go through all that, they put us through that to spend the time and effort defending and the financial burden. And then if they're ultimately dismissed, there's no consequence. And that's part of the problem is it's completely, completely free to them. absolutely. And, and yet it's everything to us. And this didn't even start for people who are saying, well, this is just around, you know, the 2020 election and, and you know, that it'll just be around that, what Cletus mentioned about all of the current, Trump administration officials that are going through bar complaints, but this was even well before 2020. I mean, I remember talking to, Jay Sekulow, who is, who is an attorney and was one of President Trump's attorneys.
Examining Jay Sekulow's Bar Complaint and the Need for Standing in Legal Challenges
He had a bar complaint filed by two U.S. congressmen, I think, Ted Lieu and Kathleen Rice, both Democrats, and they wrote a letter to the State Bar of Georgia calling for an ethics investigation into Jay Sekulow only because they, they suggested that he repeatedly made it, made misleading statements to the American public regarding, ah, President Trump's, you know, involvement in whether it was like the Russia collusion or the, you know, the Trump Tower nonsense. I mean, and that was ultimately dismissed. But it costs time and effort and it's always from the Democrats. And so we need to put a stop to this and there needs to be, in my view, there needs to be a rule that only parties involved can complain about the lawyer's work in those particular instances because they would be the ones to have an actual harm. And in any other type of litigation, you have to have standing and have an injury. In fact, I mean, that's one of the, the core, prongs of the analysis. You have to be yourself injured, not just this watchdog group that can go and, you know, file a ton of things against the wall and see what sticks. And so overall, with Eastman's complaint with all of these friend of the court briefs that are, you know, saying this needs to stop. what is your view on, I mean, so the Supreme Court hasn't decided whether or not they will take up Jon Eastman, petition, but what is the, the relief that he is asking me? Is it along some of these lines or, you know, where else can we go to create this type of rule?
Supreme Court's Role in Upholding Legal Representation and Reforming Bar Association Rules
Cleta Mitchell: Well, I think two things. I think that we are going to have to, first of all, the Supreme Court really does need to accept cert on this case. They really need to hear this. And the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority for attorneys in this country and really the responsibility for protecting basic principles of American jurisprudence, one of which is that everyone is entitled to legal representation. That is a fundamental principle that lawyers are taught that we all believe it's important because we want to uphold the rule of law. And if you're going to uphold the rule of law, which is what sets the United States, has historically set the United States apart from every other country in the history of the world, that ours is a nation of laws, not of men, how many times have we heard that? But if you're. The Supreme Court has a duty to protect the principles of American jurisprudence. And that's one of them. And when a basic. This is a challenge to the notion that everyone is entitled to legal representation, that's what this is, a challenge. This is a challenge to that principle. When these left wing groups say we don't like this client, we don't like this person, his beliefs, his standing, whatever, we don't like that. And therefore we're going to use the tools of the bar association where we think that we have a friendly, friendly forum. And in most cases they do. And so the Supreme Court really needs to take it up and to say no, this is a basic principle and we are going to uphold that principle. And they need to reverse the Supreme Court of California and they need to order him reinstated. Simple as that. And in fact, the other thing I think we're going to have to do is that I think we're going to have to organize to try to get rules changes passed in state legislatures. state legislatures have authority over bar associations.
Proposed Rule Changes for Bar Associations and the Orchestration of 'Bar Fair'
I think we need, the rules of professional conduct, For attorneys need to be changed to create the requirement, just as you said, that only a client or a court referral or an opposing counsel, somebody who has had some immediate injury or interaction with the attorney. You know, the ironic thing for me, Jenna, is that When I was in Oklahoma and practicing law in Oklahoma, I was appointed by the State Supreme Court of Oklahoma and I served on the Professional Responsibility Tribunal for the Bar association of the State of Oklahoma. So I saw the cases that came through the attorneys who stole from clients, forged documents or did various things or missed deadlines that cost a client and all of those kinds of things. that's what the bar disciplinary process is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be the playground of wealthy billionaire left wing backed groups that come in and try to use the misuse and misappropriate the bar disciplinary process, in order to go after, in yet a new and novel way, someone they hate, which is Donald Trump, and they don't really care who gets in their way. But one of the things that we did recently was the Conservative Partnership Institute, where I'm the senior legal Fellow, sponsored a symposium on Bar fair earlier this month. And we had two different sets of research that were presented. One, and the one showing that this is a massively orchestrated, well funded plan that was put into place by these left wing groups to take down Donald Trump, by getting all of his attorneys disbarred. We have another set of research that showed that Jack Smith actually coordinated with through Norm Eisenhower to and a Democratic Attorneys General's association and they actually orchestrated those state criminal proceedings against the Trump electors, Trump lawyers and people associated with President Trump.
The Blatant Lawfare Against Trump Lawyers and the Principle of Universal Legal Defense
All those state proceedings were really orchestrated initially through Jack Smith and his friend Norm Eisen and the Democratic Attorney General's Association. How do you like that one? Wow, it's pretty shocking.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And you know, and again it just shows the absolute blatant lawfare and they're proud of it. I mean they, even in their complaints, you know, and in their public you know, their websites and everything, they're, they are saying the reason that we're doing this is specifically so that we can make sure that no one ever represents Trump, that we can disbar all of these lawyers for daring, you know, to represent political figures. Meanwhile, conservatives like you and me are saying that everyone deserves a defense. I mean Hillary Clinton deserved a defense, you know, all of the Democrats do. And you know we still have the understanding that, that lawyers as a profession have that professional responsibility. And you know we, we've even in the course of, of our practice, I know this is true for every lawyer including you and me, Cleta, you know, we have represented clients that we don't necessarily share their position, but we represent their interests. I mean, it doesn't mean that just because you work for a client that you agree with their position or their interests on everything. That's not what I mean. It's like. It's like a home designer going and going. Well, you know, that's not really the wallpaper I would have chosen, but I'll. I'll do it, you know, for. For these people, because that's my job, you know, and that's. That's part of the profession. But to accuse lawyers and try to take away their entire livelihood, their licenses, simply because they're political opponents, and to be openly proud of that fact absolutely needs to stop. And we also shouldn't have, in America, this whole idea that, the outcome would have been different for Trump lawyers, depending on what state you're in. I mean, for Sidney Powell, for example, I believe the only reason that she wasn't, disbarred and her complaint was dismissed is because she's in Texas. That somehow is still conservative in. Right.
Jenna Ellis: And.
Jenna Ellis: And it shouldn't be that conservative lawyers have to be careful which state they practice in. But that's one of their tactics. They, they don't want to have good conservative lawyers that are arguing policy positions and, and representing political clients in the blue states because they want to keep them blue. And it's. It's entirely unfair, it's entirely unethical, and it absolutely needs to stop. we've got to take a break here.
State-Specific Outcomes in Disbarment Cases and the Need for Ethical Consistency
But, but just closing thoughts on this and. And, what the timeline is.
Cleta Mitchell: Well, one point that you made, Jenna, which is really important, is that depending on the state you're in, that tells whether or not you're likely to be disbarred. And Jon Eastman raised that point with the California Bar as part of the proceedings, and their response was, well, you knew what you were getting into when you, were admitted to the bar in this state. So it's, like, too bad for you, fella.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. Like, you know, your fault that you decided to sign up in a blue state. I mean, that's not what the rules of ethics, as you mentioned, and the rules of our profession, dictate. And so, absolutely, this needs to. Cleta, thank you so much for your passionate work and your consistency, your tenaciousness. Cleta has been one that has not given up on any of us. She has, been the foremost advocate. We love and appreciate her. And we'll be right back with more.
Preborn Sponsor Message: Saving Babies Through Ultrasound and Compassionate Support
Jenna Ellis: We're living in a defining moment in history Today, a woman facing an unexpected pregnancy can order the abortion pill online, often before anyone has had the chance to tell her she is loved, that she's not alone, or that there is hope. That's why you are needed right now. You were made for this moment. At preborn network clinics, mothers are welcomed with compassion, practical support and a free ultrasound. And when she sees her baby and hears that tiny heartbeat for the very first time, fear often gives way to hope. In fact, more than 80% of abortion vulnerable women choose life after seeing their baby on an ultrasound at a preborn network clinic. That one moment can save a baby's life and open a mother's heart to the hope of Jesus Christ. This is our moment to stand. For those who cannot speak for themselves, just $28 provides one life saving ultrasound. $140 helps rescue five babies. Please don't wait. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby. That's pound 250 baby. Or give [email protected] afr that's preborn.com afr Together we can save lives one heartbeat at a time. welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.
Shane Gillis SNL Controversy: Misogyny Accusations and the Nature of Modern Comedy
Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. Well, ending on a far, far less serious note. Shane Gillis, was on SNL this weekend, which, it'll be fascinating to see what they put out this weekend. but apparently is in hot water because he made a joke that is, still, according to the Washington Post, roiling viewers because you're not allowed to make, jokes apparently against, you know, women in their fashion anymore. Otherwise you're called a misogynist. Which is ridiculous. I'm not going to quote the joke because it was very crass and I, you know, we don't want to deal with that here. But the point was, he made fun of the way that women dress provocatively going to the gym. And then he also said, you know, I don't look. You're not allowed to look for real because they're filming and I'm in the background of like 10 TikToks right now. Now.
Jenna Ellis: And the point to me of that, you know, it wasn't misogynist at all. It wasn't you know, anything other than his crude delivery. the, the point and the essence of it is, is absolutely right. I mean anything these days, whether it's the gym, it's, you know, just going out to the mall, being on an airplane, everybody has a phone, everybody is filming and everybody seems to be there to be influencing and to just get their content instead of just enjoying life and perhaps even, you know, dressing appropriately. And so, let's welcome in ow Root, who is a flat, a fashion blogger and designer. And then you can follow him on X for some really good commentary. And so ow. This just seems like a controversy that is almost as hilarious as Kelly Clarkson and the $15,000 animatronic bird, which I thought, I thought that was hilarious. it just seems like there are so many things that people complain about instead of recognizing, okay, it's a joke and understand the point and move on.
Fashion Blogger Ow Root Discusses Provocative Gym Wear and Performative Outrage Online
OW Root: Yeah, the thing with this is he's making an observation of something that everybody's noticed. So everybody has noticed this thing and is aware that there are some women who wear very provocative clothing to the gym and they film themselves for influencer purposes. You know, they have an influencer, whatever. And then there is an added layer here. If you're on the Internet, you've seen videos like this where often there might be someone in the background who looks at the woman in question on the camera, then they draw attention to that man in question looking at the woman who's provocatively dressed. And they, the influencer is performatively shocked by them looking at them. And so the joke also, Shane is making a joke about himself as well, obviously, like he's a comic, so he says, I'm probably in 15 of these. So he's making a joke, like a self deprecating joke of him looking. And it's also sort of poking fun at the women who are dressing in a provocative way, pretending to be surprised that anyone might deign to look at them while they're doing so. And I mean, it does highlight a really interestingly absurd thing in our culture where someone will do something that is, that is provocative or is attention grabbing and will essentially performatively be shocked, be like, I can't believe you are shocked by what I'm wearing, or I can't believe you even looked at what I was wearing. You know, and I, don't think it's. I mean it's not strange to suggest that if you're wearing very revealing clothing, you might be, someone might look at you. You know, that's not a surprise.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, I mean the definition of modest is that, you know, you're not drawing attention to yourself. And so, you know, immodesty, in our current cultural definition is something that is too revealing, but it can even be something that is shocking or, you know, maybe wholly inappropriate for the venue. I mean, if I wore A ball gown and high heels and you know, a tiara, which I would love to do, by the way, every day. If I had a job that I could do that, that'd be fantastic. But if I wore that whole entire outfit and as beautiful as it could be over to Publix while I'm grocery shopping, I'd probably get some looks on that. Right? And that's, that is immodest. It's shocking. It's, it's drawing attention. And, and so for these, these influencers, they do that intentionally, as you mentioned, and then they, they feign this shock and horror, especially women, by saying, why are people, especially men, looking at me? And it's all just performative. And I'm just so frustrated with a culture that we have to film everything 247 and we have to do this whole performative nonsense simply for views and clicks instead of having content that is actually advancing a social narrative or engaging in the conversation or doing something meaningful. Absolutely.
OW Root: That's the even bigger story is this sort of self imposed surveillance state in this really weird way. I mean, people, we have this thing where people rightfully are concerned about a surveillance state. We don't want to live in a surveillance state. And we often think of surveillance states as being sort of a governmental enforcement top down. But the truth is we all sort of live in this self imposed surveillance state where now I'm not filming people in public, but many people are. So all these people are kind of filming themselves and filming others. You know, you hear about terrible stuff where people will film someone who just did something embarrassing and then post it and make fun of them. Terrible, awful. Like why would you do that?
The Self-Imposed Surveillance State: Constant Filming and its Impact on Society
You know? And it's like this kind of stuff though, this self imposed surveillance state. We're streaming everything and other people are in it. It's disconcerting and it's, it's. I mean, when you're filming like that, there's a presumption that you're being real, but you're performing. So it makes life itself so much less real, so much less normal. And there are people like, not us, people who are born much later who have grown up in this sort of self imposed panopticon. And it really, this is a big shift in society that is not good, it's not healthy. And it gets to a deeper thing about why people aren't relaxed, why people are almost automatically mad at people and why people feel just very on edge. And it's maybe because they're constantly being filmed in some way. They look around oh, no, someone's filming over there, you know, all this sort of stuff.
Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And we also can't just, you know, relax and enjoy our families and our outings anymore. I mean, I've even noticed that, you know, I notice when I'm out and somebody has their camera out and I kind of turn the other way. Like I don't want to get in the middle of their video. And we have to, we have to be careful about all of those things. And I think it's also a lesson perhaps to all of us to put our phones away. I mean, take your couple of pictures, you know, if you're at Disney World or whatever. But then enjoy the rest of the day and you don't have to film every little piece of content. And we shouldn't be in this hyperimposed surveillance state. We should just live our lives and actually enjoy the beauty of God's creation. But owroot. Really appreciate it and really great comments. And as always, you can reach me and my team. Jennaafr.net.
Jenna Ellis: PreBorn has rescued over 400,000 babies from abortion. And every day their network clinics rescue 200 babies lives. Will you join PreBorn in loving and supporting young moms in crisis? Save a life today. Go to preborn.com afr.
Jenna Ellis discusses the recent controversies surrounding the new White House Press Secretary, Katy Zacharia, who faces scrutiny over her claims of being a lawyer. Joined by attorney Gerard Filitti, they dissect the implications of her misrepresentations and the potential fallout for the White House. The conversation also touches on the broader issues of legal ethics and the political weaponization of bar complaints against attorneys who represent conservative figures.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
