House to Impeach Wednesday

This is Jay Sekulow.

We've got breaking news, articles of impeachment to be voted on tomorrow. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody.

Welcome to the broadcast. Let me give you a kind of really quick update because things are moving in Washington very, very quickly. If you did not catch yesterday's broadcast or did not catch the news, the House of Representatives has introduced a one-count impeachment resolution focusing in on inciting insurrection. That's the primary focus of the allegation, and that is the President's actions.

And this is what they're saying, that the President's actions incited an insurrection that took place at the nation's capital. Now, there's all kind of legal debates as to whether that speech itself was protected speech under the First Amendment. Alan Dershowitz, a noted First Amendment lawyer, said it is constitutionally protected speech. I think you have to put that aside right now as to what's culpable and what's not culpable and look at the reality of what is happening.

I think you could argue that protected speech is protected speech, but that's not really relevant to this conversation because what's relevant to this conversation is where does it stand. Now, the article of impeachments being introduced has been introduced, and it looks like, and I'm going to go to Thand Bennett on this, it looks like it could go up as vote tomorrow. That's right, Jay. It's scheduled to be on the floor of the House tomorrow after they vote on basically a move to try to push the vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment tonight. Tomorrow, they're going to move to impeachment. Jay, the latest that I'm hearing is that you would probably expect some procedural votes, a vote on the rule around 1030 in the morning. Then you'd have debate throughout the afternoon and a vote sometime late afternoon or early evening.

And Jay, I'll just tell you this. There were 160 Democrat co-sponsors when it was introduced yesterday. The reports now from the lead sponsor, David Cicilline, is that that's up to 220 or more. So essentially what you have on the Democrat side of the aisle is every member or very, very close to it, by the time this is called up tomorrow, will be a co-sponsor of that legislation or that resolution. So you're expecting, what's the total number of people that you think will be sponsoring and what's the breakdown Democrat-Republican? There's going to be 220 or more Democrats. There's 222 Democrats who are sworn into the House right now.

There's still some moving parts on that, Jay. But the total number of co-sponsor, I suspect probably by the time it's called up, every single Democrat member will be on it. At this point, there are no Republicans co-sponsoring. It's yet to be seen how many of them will vote for it. What do you think?

Do you have any idea? Been asking around today, Jay, and the most common number I'm hearing is somewhere between 20 and 25. But I think it's really important as I say that to also say, I think the next 24 hours have a lot to say about that number, both the actions of the President, the actions of Speaker Pelosi. If she moves this into a more partisan realm, Jay, I think that number would go down. Jordan, what's the significance of that if the fact there was 25 Republicans signing onto this? Well, it's not a partisan impeachment. Like the first impeachment that we handled, it was completely partisan in the House of Representatives, not a single Republican, moderate, or it's to the far right or those who may have not liked President Trump thought that what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were doing was correct. So none of them signed on and none of them voted to impeach. Here it looks like you're going to get a sizable number of Republicans. I mean, if you get to 2025, that's bipartisan in this day and age. And it sends a bipartisan impeachment on one count of impeachment to the U.S. Senate. Then the problems arise with when that trial begins and we can get into that later in the broadcast because there's so many issues there as well.

But I think fan is right. I mean, you see the President's comments today. He he condemned the violence, but he said what he said.

He did nothing wrong and what he said was totally appropriate. Does that move more Republicans in Nancy Pelosi's way? And again, you watch her rhetoric very closely because I don't think she wants that many Republicans on this. She wants to use this to hurt Republicans in the midterm elections coming up in two years. Yeah.

So she doesn't really want it bipartisan is what you're saying. Not really. Yeah. All right. We come back. We'll take your calls and comments.

1-800-684-3110. And the question, can a President be convicted when he's no longer in office? The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. All right, so it looks like there's going to be a vote tomorrow on this article of impeachment for incitement. That's the focus of it. There's legal questions also being raised right now about Nancy Pelosi putting forward, fan, a resolution on the 25th Amendment. Has that moved forward? Yes, it is being debated in the House Rules Committee right now, Jay. And essentially what she's doing, just practically and functionally, she's using that debate on that resolution and that vote tonight to make sure that all of the members come back for the impeachment vote tonight. So you're going to see two votes on the floor of the House tonight. The first one probably around 730, which will be a vote on the rule for that legislation, that resolution, and then a final vote late in the evening, maybe 1030, 11 o'clock. And essentially what that resolution does, Jay, is calls on the Vice President to initiate the 25th Amendment.

Now, I'm just going to shoot people straight here. The 25th Amendment, and I know you'll get into the practicalities of it, but that's an executive branch initiated effort. So this piece of resolution, it's a messaging item, Jay, but it really does not move the 25th Amendment forward.

It's a force of impact. The fact that the House passed a threat to Mike Pence that if he doesn't exercise the 25th Amendment, there's going to be an article of impeachment voted on is a threat. I mean, it's a threat in the sense that it's not self-fulfilling, it's not self-executing. And also you have to understand the 25th Amendment.

25th Amendment doesn't just say the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet vote and say the President's not capable of serving and therefore he's out. It's not the way it works. So Andy's looked at this in great detail. Andy, economist, senior counselor for the ACLJ, Andy, there's a process that has to go forward. There is a process. It's initiated by the Vice President. By the way, it was enacted back in 1967 when Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack and there was a question as to his capability to continue to serve as President, or for that matter, any President. And it's initiated by the Vice President of the United States and the members of the executive branch. The principal officers is the word that is used in the constitutional amendment. The principal officers of the executive branch of government. And I don't know how many of those are left right now because there have been so many resignations, Jay, in that area. So you have the Secretary of State, I think, is still there. The Secretary of the Treasury is there.

Transportation is left and I think commerce is still there. But the others are probably being executed by acting persons in that capacity. But the cabinet then has to remove the President because he is unable to serve. And the Vice President becomes, in the terms of the 25th Amendment, the acting President.

But it doesn't end there. Because at that point the President can say, I disagree with you. I take back my position, your position, that I am not able to execute my duties and your action is a nullity and void and I resume my office of President of the United States.

So President Trump would have the ability to do that. What happens then? It goes to the Congress of the United States and then both the Senate and the House have to decide the issue of whether or not the President is in fact to be removed or whether he stays in office. And how many days is it?

Four days. It's a complicated, it's a very complicated process. I read this thing through several times and it's a very complicated process that has to go through.

I just don't see it. I don't see a majority of the cabinet, I don't see the Vice President doing it, Jordan. I don't see a majority of the cabinet going forward with that.

No, and I think it takes two-thirds votes in both the House and the Senate if you get to that problem that Andy's talking about where the President is disagreeing with the cabinet if the cabinet is saying, no, you're not ready to come back. This is a health provision. It was a provision put in place because we've seen Presidents who have been a shock.

We've seen Presidents who've had to go under anesthesia. It is invoked those times when a President is having any kind of surgery and is not able to function as President. So there has to be someone in place that can make decisions, the Vice President.

It is used for that. And that alone is why the 25th Amendment exists. I think this is more of a threat for the President to say resign or be impeached.

But they didn't want to put it that way so they put some formalized language in that they know wasn't going to happen. As Andy pointed out, there's not much of the cabinet left anyways and no indication that Mike Pence is interested in doing this. So what should we expect? I expect an impeachment, bipartisan impeachment of President Trump for the second time tomorrow in the U.S. House. You know, the key word there, of course, what Jordan just said is the word bipartisan, Wes, because in the previous one, it was not. I mean, it was a total partisan vote.

And even in the Senate, there was one vote to convict by Mitt Romney, but only on one count and not guilty acquitted on the other count. This seems to be taking a whole different dimension to it. Yeah, and we are in a time of a national political crisis, no doubt. But there is so much drama as opposed to well thought out reasoning. There is so much of that going on, so much emotion that you just want to cover your ears and say, please make it stop. For example, concerning the impeachment thing, Jim Clyburn suggests the congressman from South Carolina, number three in the House, that we go ahead and impeach him now and then wait another two or three, four months to take the trial to the Senate.

If the goal is a quick rebuke, that makes absolutely no sense. Well, then Nancy Pelosi steps up and says, well, what we need to do is impeach him so that he cannot run for office again. That's going to require two things, a two thirds vote in the Senate and then a separate resolution in the Senate to prevent him from running again. Again, you know, that's that is not only unlikely, it's impossible. And then Nancy Pelosi goes further and says, well, we have to impeach him because he is a threat to national security.

He's dangerous. Well, all of this hoopla in impeachment is not going to be finished until after Joe Biden is President. So that makes no sense either. And there's a lot of emotion, a lot of spitefulness and not a lot of thinking what's good for the country. And impeachment would not be good for America.

I agree with that. You know, Joe Manchin, do we have the sound from Joe Manchin? I want to play this was from Senator Manchin yesterday. Do we have it available? When we have it, let me know, please. OK, I think we're looking for it.

All right. We'll have the sound from Joe Manchin is the Democratic senator from West Virginia. Let me take John's call from California. John, go ahead. You're on the air. Hi, Jay.

Thank you so much for calling. I'm just curious. The whole thing about impeachment is to remove him from office. So they go forward, they do this thing tomorrow and then they can't have a senator until after he's out of office. I mean, that sounds like it's pretty ludicrous, isn't it?

It's got to be illegal, right? No, there's a real legal question on whether or not you could they could certainly they could vote to impeach tomorrow. And they may well.

I mean, it looks like that's where it's headed. Then the question is when they deliver to the Senate. And as was pointed out by Wes and Fann and Jordan, they're talking about waiting. They may wait 100 days so Joe Biden's cabinet can get in. Then you're talking about an impeachment. In any way the calendar goes, you're talking about impeaching a President who's no longer in office.

So then there's a legal question. Jordan, we talked about this yesterday, a jurisdictional question as to whether the Senate, in fact, actually has jurisdiction to do this. The problem is for the courts to get involved is the Constitution says all matters of impeachment rest with the Congress.

Jordan? Yeah, I mean, I think, again, the question if the courts did get involved, and I still think they would probably punt this as a political question, but because it's something new, I don't want to say they absolutely would, is that why does the Senate, why would the Senate still have jurisdiction over a private citizen when the, when it's clear that under these impeachment rules of the Constitution, it is officers of the United States. It is the President, the vice President, other officers and judges, members of the judiciary that are subject to impeachment.

But when they are no longer officers, when they are no longer the President, when they are no longer in office, is there any jurisdiction of the US in or of Congress at all to have a trial to, in fact, bring them back to take away some of their fundamental rights? Now it's because, as Colin pointed out, you're already out of office. So that's not, that's not the key.

We all know what the key is here. It's not because they want to take Donald Trump's stipend away or his travel budget away. That's not going to hurt him so much. What they want to do, what they want to do is disqualify him for potentially running in 2024, which is a very telling that with even all this chaos surrounding the President right now, they're that worried about his comeback in four years.

Yeah. And I think if you look at it, Fan, to me, that is what the aim of this is, a lot of this is to stop him from being able to run again in 2024, if he so chooses. Yeah, I think that's all of it, Jay, even for those who think it's justified on both sides, because look, what is the fastest way to get Donald Trump out of office? Is that, if that's what you're aiming for, it's to let his term expire on the 20th. I mean, Wes talked about how the trial in the Senate would extend past the 20th. It most certainly would. I mean, even if leader McConnell and leader Schumer, regardless of who's controlled in the chamber at the time, decide to bring the chamber back earlier, it's not going to get done before that.

And Jay, I did think it was interesting. Joe Biden has been very quiet on this, but he, even he came out and said, look, I think the idea of punting a hundred days is a really terrible one. If you're going to have a trial in the Senate, I want you to divide your days. I want you to focus on my nominations and my agenda in the morning.

And then I want you to do the trial in the afternoon. That's not the way it's set up in the Senate. The Senate rules do not allow that currently. The Senate rules say you must start the trial at one o'clock in the afternoon. It would take a resolution that says, we're not going to take it up at nine in the morning, like they did in the previous impeachment. They would have to pass a separate resolution that said we're going to do on subsequent days. We're not going to start until the afternoon as well.

All right. So we'll, we'll talk about all of this. We're going to talk about where the Democratic senators are coming out on this because that's where ultimately this will go. We'll take your calls and comments at 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. There's a lot of legal issues surrounding an impeachment of a President or a tribal President who's no longer serving in office.

We'll be back with more in a moment. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Make no mistake that the goal of all of this is to make sure that Donald Trump does not run again for President. So at the end of the day, that is the goal. So wherever you fall on the, whether it was an impeachable act or not an impeachable act or the constitution doesn't allow it to take place after he's out of office, the goal is for him not to, that's why this impeachment is being put forward, is to bar him for life from running for office. Now, Joe Manchin, the Senator from West Virginia has been very cautious on how this plays out and very cautious about the whole idea of rushing to impeachment. Do you think confirmations will happen quickly? I sure hope it does, but this impeachment doesn't help anything.

That's the thing I'm talking about. It makes no sense whatsoever that we would push this impeachment thinking we're going to do a little bit of this, a little bit of that. It doesn't work that way. Let the judicial system do its job. If you still think it's needed for impeachment, do it later. But the bottom line, Joe Biden should want us to put a government together, confirm immediately. All right, so let me ask you this about this, you know, this idea of a delayed trial. Now, do you, well, let me ask you this way first then, do you see any way in which they actually do start the trial? I mean, technically if they get them delivered, they got to start the next day at one o'clock.

Got to start the next day at one o'clock. I mean, as it stands right now, the Senate won't be an imposter to receive them until the 19th. And leader McConnell has said that he is not in favor of changing that. Jay, the only way they could change that would be if leader Schumer and leader McConnell, I want to stress this, Jay, even if leader Schumer takes over control of the Senate, they are out on unanimous consent. So the only way they could bring it back without unanimous consent is if both the majority leader and the majority leader agree to that. Now, maybe they could Jay, but you know, that's still not going to happen until the 16th or the 17th. And then they start the next day.

Let's say that's the 18th, by the way, this excludes Mondays. Are you going to get through an entire trial where the President is allowed to put on a defense and a vote that happens before the 20th? In my view, Jay, the clear answer to that is no. So a trial is not going to finish in the United States Senate before this term ends. Well, that, yeah, the interesting aspect of this, the impeachment proceeding in the house Jordan though, could go through literally tomorrow. They're not going to call witnesses. No house judiciary committee, no testimony, no argument on whether or not this was actual speech that incited violence.

No law professors, no constitutional experts, no first amendment experts for both on either side. Just a straight up here, we're going to have a vote to impeach. There will be some debate as they have talked about. And then by the evening a vote, which is an up or down vote, they have the votes to do it. The only question now is how many Republicans join on into this effort. We won't know that until the vote occurs.

I think because of what's happening today, I think on the one hand balance this. President Trump in his first remarks as he was boarding Marine One said there was nothing wrong in what he said. Does that upset Republicans who wished that he would have said, well, maybe, maybe things were taken out of context or something like that. Does that encourage more Republicans to join? But then if Nancy Pelosi starts making this very partisan and starts attacking all Republicans and say it's never step, it wouldn't stop this President. Well then I think you get less Republicans on this. The real goal of this is to punish not just Donald Trump, but the Republican Party in the midterm elections coming up because Nancy Pelosi sees the numbers are dwindling for her and Chuck Schumer and they're trying to damage already right out of the gate Republicans in the midterm elections. I mean, just imagine this is how political they are knowing that it's pretty uncertain if you can even have this impeachment trial.

And then second, if you do, how hard it is to get to two thirds. Yeah. And that was just interesting. Let's go to D in Oklahoma on line one. D go ahead. You're on the air.

Thank you gentlemen. I'm a listener and contributor and my question is, uh, the impeachment is such a nasty thing. Would it be smart of Trump to resign today? Uh, Pence becomes President and then Pence goes through the process of pardoning him and then it makes us 74 million of us very happy. Well, you can be very happy if the President resigns.

I mean, I'm asking that seriously. D I'd be happy because if he, if he resigned and he is pardoned for his sins, whatever they are, then, um, uh, it would make the left crazy. I love Trump.

I'm one of the 74 million, 180. Yeah. I mean, I look, I mean, Richard Nixon resigned and avoided impeachment. Um, I don't, I can't imagine. I mean, anything can happen, but resignation does not seem to be in Donald Trump's size.

Say makeup. No, I don't think so, Jay. I don't think resignation is his within his DNA or within his constitution.

And I use that in a physical sense rather than in the written word. I don't think he has it in him to do that. And I think that it would not be a prudent thing to do without certain legal protections and other things that would have to fall into place simply resigning as President of the United States. And again, there was, there would be no guarantee of a pardon, uh, whether that, uh, what happened or not remains up in the air.

I wouldn't counsel re resignation. What do you think Jordan on that? I think that, um, that's probably passed at this point. Uh, that, uh, from what we're hearing is that the relationships, they're not great. And, um, again, it just seems like the President's, you know, going to do a border trip today. I mean, that's not what you do if you're resigning, you don't talk to the press and defend your comments. Um, if you think you're just going to resign and kind of be quiet. Um, uh, I don't know how aggressive he's going to be in the next, uh, in these next, uh, you know, eight days or so about defending his, his comments or how much media he's going to do.

Uh, but, uh, and said, certainly he's not able to utilize the social media the way he was in the past. So that's changed a lot about, um, his ability to communicate, but also to his ability to kind of, uh, put out there the statements that kind of irk, uh, the traditional Republicans in the house and the city, which might be a blessing for him if the city is determined to have some kind of jurisdiction over this, even while he's out of office, because I think it will make it that much tougher for them, for them to actually get to two thirds. And so they'd be, it'd be, yes, he'd be impeached twice, but it'd be two failed impeachments of the same pro same President. So I, cause I wonder if, I mean, the problem is the, I think people are talking about him, this resignation idea that that time prime fame probably has passed because if you look at it, uh, just, they're going to probably vote the impeachment article out tomorrow. Once that article is out, you resigning at your own peril. I mean, that doesn't void the impeachment. I don't think, I mean, unless there's some theory I'm missing, what do you think was correct? I really, I really do.

I think Andy's right. You know, resigning is not in this President's DNA, love him or hate him. And there are many people on both sides of that. He loves a fight. The other thing about him resigning is that, as you mentioned, Jay, I don't think it's a given that Mike Pence would pardon him. I don't know that one way or the other, but it would put Mike Pence in a very bad political situation if he's President for eight days, because if he pardoned him, people are going to love him. If he doesn't, people are going to hate him and on both sides, love and hate.

If he is thinking about running for President someday himself, and having a political future, uh, President Trump resigning is not in Mike Pence's best interest. Yeah. So that, I mean, that's a, that's a very good point. All right. We're going to be here for another 30 minutes, but you don't get the whole hour of the broadcast. Go over to Facebook, go over to YouTube, subscribe there too, by the way, same thing on Facebook and also of course, aclj.org and a lot of other social media platforms. You can hear us. We'll be here for a full hour. We'll take your calls and comments. We come back from the break at 1-800-684-3110. You can get comments in on Facebook as well.

And on YouTube, be happy to take some of those. And again, it's work the work of the ACLJ. You can do that by going simply to aclj.org that's aclj.org back with your calls and comments in a minute. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American center for long justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at aclj.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today, aclj.org. Live from Washington, DC, Jay Sekulow live.

And now chief counsel for the American center for law and justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey everybody, we're taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. If you're just joining us, here's what has happened. The house of representatives will be voting fan it looks like tomorrow on the article of impeachment. Yeah, voting tomorrow. They're going to vote tonight on that 25th amendment resolution. They'll vote tomorrow on impeachment. They'll get going in the morning with a vote around 10 30 on the rule.

Then you will see some debate. We don't know exactly how much Jay, but we expect it to take most of the afternoon and then a vote that night, according to speaker Pelosi and David Cicilline, who drafted the article of impeachment. They both say that they already have the votes to pass it. That, that part's not surprising Jay, because as you know, Democrats control the house of representatives. I would expect every Democrat to vote for it. At this point, it looks like there will be some Republicans on it as well.

Although I do think it's important to stress something that Jordan said a minute ago, I actually think that could change a lot over the course of the next 24 hours. I think most of the Republicans believe that pursuing impeachment is not a helpful healing idea. They want to see the President pursue a peaceful transition. They want to see speaker Pelosi move away from partisanship. Um, and I, I think speaker Pelosi would quite frankly like to see Republicans back the President on this. So, you know, the number I'm hearing is 20 to 25 Republicans are expected to vote for it. Uh, but Jay, I think that my number number can move both up or down quite a lot over the next 24 hours before there's a vote. You know, Jordan, you said this earlier, if there in fact is 20 or 25 or more Republicans had joined this, uh, that's gonna, that's a whole different ball game than what we handled last year.

It is. We handled a completely partisan impeachment. So when we went into the U S Senate, that was one of our first, uh, kind of arguments was that the, it was, uh, the, the evidence put forward in the house, which they're not even doing this time, but with all the people that they put forward and all the different witnesses they interviewed, not a single Republican decided to vote with the Democrats. They did it on a, just a Democrat majority, a vote, uh, that seems to be a very different now. So you're not going to go into the Senate having just a completely partisan impeachment. And then second, uh, we know there are a handful, at least Republican senators right now who support impeachment.

We can't get to, I can't count you to 17 yet, but I can certainly count to five, six or seven. And I think the others are going to, would be totally dependent upon how the proceedings went. I don't think it's a slam dunk either way. I also think there's a legal issue again as to whether a President that's no longer in office can be tried. Um, I, I just, I, it's, it's not the way the constitution reads.

Yeah. I mean, I think that is such a, such a big point here and that's why Chuck Schumer I think was trying to float this idea of maybe we could do this in an emergency session because uh, and get and avoid that because they know too that this then brings up an issue, um, of its first time. Uh, they've never tried to do this with someone who's, uh, who's actually uh, finished their term. So the only time they did it with in history, it was a judge, the judge, that's a lifetime appointment resigned. So they, they didn't close the impeachment. They stopped. Wasn't there also a secretary of war? They tried it with end up being acquitted. I don't know if there was a secretary of war who'd be finished.

Yeah. Um, now there's arguments on both sides because of the privileges that come with being a former President, the stipend, the travel budget, the secret service protection, and of course your ability to run for office again. Uh, that to me is the key. They, even with all of this, it's interesting to me because if I was a Democrat and I think many Republicans right now, you look at what's happened, you look at the polling, even from Republican pollsters and uh, President Trump's been very damaged by what has happened the past a week and a half or a week. And they are still worried, so worried that his movement will be the juggernaut that they will have to face in 2024. They are dead set on trying to prevent him from being able to run again if he so chooses to do so. You have any doubt about that? Any that he's going to run again? No, that, that, that's what the, that's the aim here. The aim is to disable him from ever putting together a political campaign again to be President. There's no doubt about that. Then the question is after all this, what's the political viability anyways?

And I, I, I, the country would judge that. So we'll say, all right, we come back from the bread. Full lines are jammed. Keep, keep trying 800 six eight four 31 10.

You get your comments in on Facebook and YouTube as well. We'll be back with more in a moment. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American center for law and justice for decades. Now the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success, but here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times, the American center for law and justice is on your side.

If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work, become a member today. ACLJ.org only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you were saying. When you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called mission life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of mission life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. I think the whole calculation on this really rests on this is the goal here that Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States cannot run to be the 47th President of the United States. And if they want that, whether they delay it an hour or three months will not make a difference because some people say, well, if they delay it a hundred days, like a mansion has said, they'll never get to it. If the desire Jordan and fan is for the President not to be able to run again in 2024, they will move forward.

Absolutely. I mean, they're going to move forward. We know they're going to move forward in the house and there's no one talking about them not moving forward in the Senate. I haven't heard anybody, uh, there only Republicans have brought up the idea, even Republicans, by the way, who may be inclined to vote for this impeachment. Uh, but I, but I heard Senator Ben Sasse say, you know, there's a huge constitutional question about whether or not we'd still have jurisdiction to do this, but I'm not hearing that from Chuck Schumer. I, Joe Manchin didn't bring that up as one of the problems. He didn't say the problem was, um, this is gonna, uh, this is not doable because he's no longer President.

He said it's not good for the country and it's not going to get to two thirds. So it's going to be another failed impeachment that continues to divide the country instead of appealing the country. But, but as Dan keeps pointing out, and I think this is what we have to watch for the behavior of President Trump and the behavior of Democrat leaders. So first we'll start with Pelosi and then Schumer. If Pelosi and Schumer pushed this into just the partisan realm, well, you might get the impeachment vote in the house tomorrow, but you'll never get there in the Senate even if there is a trial.

Uh, and they think they believe that they do have jurisdiction. Second, if you have Republicans start joining and they see this as a bigger effort to kind of, uh, crush what Donald Trump has created, which I don't think they're seeing right now. Right now, I think they're singularly focused on keeping Donald Trump from being able to run for office in 2024, but they don't have the votes to do that right now, even in the U S Senate. Then what do you think?

Yeah, I agree with all that. I think maybe the one layer that I would add is, um, you know, speaker Pelosi has the total control over whether or not she waits those a hundred days to send the articles over once she sends the articles over. Jay, I mean the Senate doesn't have any choice but to move immediately towards it.

So that part of it is in speaker Pelosi's control. Here's the one dynamic though that I do, I do think would change if they wait a hundred days. Jay, I think it would get fewer votes in the United States Senate. I mean, I think right now you would see Republicans that took those articles mandated by the constitution to look at them and they would look at them in sort of that rubric that Jordan just talked about soberly based on the article that was written and then, and then render a judgment either guilty or not guilty based on that. If they wait a hundred days, Jay, I would really wager that there are going to be Republican senators that say, uh, look, I was willing to look at this soberly with you, but you're playing political games. That's not good for the country. I'm not going to go along with that.

I think the votes on, on conviction Jay would be lower a hundred days later than they would be immediately. Yeah. Let's go to Frank who's calling from Florida on line three. All right. Hi guys.

Thank you for taking my call. One question, can a psychiatric evaluation be imposed on Donald Trump for the 25th amendment? And second, can article two section four be invoked on anyone via Congress or anyone? Well, that's not how the, the standard is on the 25th amendment and Andy's our 25th amendment expert. It's really not, it's unable to perform. So I mean, that's really the question.

That's right. What does the language say? The language just says unable to discharge the duties of his office. It doesn't say anything about psychiatric evaluations and we're not in a court of law here.

These are not legal questions. We're not talking about competency, competency to stand trial or in competency to enter a plea of guilty or something like that. What we're talking about is a political decision under the 25th amendment, whether Mike Pence and a majority of the existing cabinet find him unable to perform the duties of his office and if they do and he's removed, he can then turn around and say, that's not true.

I am capable of performing the duties of my office and he's back again and the whole matter goes to the Congress. So we're not do psychiatric evaluations and matters like that. This is a political process. This is not a legal process. This is a political decision and a political process and that's very important to remember. We're not talking about competency and incompetency. Here's an interesting, Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi over the weekend about the possibility that they do this and it ends up in an acquittal again.

Take a listen. There is a possibility that after all of this, there's no punishment, no consequence and he could run again for President. And that's one of the motivations that people have for advocating for impeachment. So that answers the question of why they're wanting to do that is that their concern is that he would run again for President. Now, I'm not going to give the political calculation. I would defer to Van and Jordan on how they do see the politics aligning this up right now, what the political strength of the President would be or wouldn't be. And of course, then you got to look four years from now, it's a whole different world. But I want to start with the predicate. I mean, they're being very clear, Wes, that they want to do this so that he doesn't run for President.

Absolutely, yeah. We were talking during one of the breaks, as Nancy Pelosi gets older, she has less of a political filter. A younger, more astute Nancy Pelosi would not have admitted that, like she would not have admitted that they held up COVID relief until Joe Biden got elected. But she said it and it's true and that is their prime motivation. I think they fear President Trump running again. They fear the movement, the people that are behind him. And so that's their motivation.

And it's something it's out in the news this morning. It's an obscure part of the Constitution. But she's even queried her Democrat caucus on a conference call to research the section three of the 14th Amendment, which was established after the American Civil War, which says a person who is engaged in insurrection can't run for office.

So she wants them to even explore that, even though that's rather obscure. Again, her motivation being that she doesn't want Donald Trump to run again. And that rule, by the way, you know, it was set up so that if in a court, there was a court opinion that someone had engaged in insurrection or rebellion, they could not run again. And there is no court opinion about Donald Trump being an insurrectionist. There's no criminal charge.

Not yet, but that's what she's looking at. And it would have to be something like that before that part of the Constitution be used. But she's working hard at trying whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump from running again.

Those are tough cases. I mean, they've got serious First Amendment issues that are in play there. But it raises the question, Jordan and Thanh, and I'll go to Jordan first, on the political potency of Donald Trump right now.

I mean, how is it viewed? And does the fact that Republicans join in on this impact that? And will it make more of a difference if in fact, even if they fall short in the Senate, but you have Republicans voting for conviction?

So I think short term, politically damaged, the President has been politically damaged. But that's not where Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are looking. They are looking long term and they're looking at the movement that he built.

And you're hearing it from the callers that we call in. And they are saying, if we can get him impeached, we can prevent him from being on the ballot. His movement falls apart. So I think their calculation is, if he so chooses, he can rebuild a movement and a movement that will be one that is very difficult to beat, that will take them to task.

It's beatable. They obviously were able to win this past election, though it's mired in controversy. But they don't want to have to run against him again. They don't want to have to run against his chosen candidates for the House and Senate again.

They don't like this movement just like they didn't like the Tea Party movement. But I think on a bigger scale. So I think long term, they're thinking he could rebuild. He has a family that's very popular politically that can go out and rebuild if they so choose to do so. And then you give him a couple of years and he's a major force in the midterms and then in the Presidential race.

Then what do you think? Yeah, political fortunes change very quickly. I mean, short term, I think we saw the ramifications of this divide down in the Georgia Senate race. But longer term, I think the goal of Speaker Pelosi would not only be to bar the President from running, but to paint all Republicans with the same brush. That goes to the point of why I actually don't think she wants it to be dramatically bipartisan. I think she wants Republicans to support the President in this.

And, you know, I think one of the calculations that will determine which way the pendulum swings over the next 24 hours is what the President says. I mean, I can just tell you, Jay, from having the ear to the ground, the use of the words perfectly appropriate for the speech, that probably drove more votes towards supporting this resolution. Look, I think there are a lot of Republicans that don't think he incited that riot, but I don't think they think that describing it as perfectly appropriate is the right call either.

Yeah, I don't think so. I think that that's Andy and Wes, that's the kind of language issue that he's got to be very careful. Those are the kinds of things that have gotten him in trouble. You don't say that everything is perfect. No one is perfect.

There's no one except Christ to walk the earth who's perfect and therefore to say this was a perfect call or this was a perfect speech doesn't help things. Yeah. His hyperbole and overstating things has been, you know, something that, uh, it's been a, an Achilles heel for him since he took office. Yeah. So we'll, we'll see how that plays out. All right. Last segment, we'll try to get to your calls. Comments coming in too. Does the constitution have rules regarding impeachment after the President leaves office?

This is from Facebook. This was Mel. Mel, you've raised a great question and it's really silent. The question is, would a court entertain a hearing on whether in fact jurisdiction vests in the Senate if the President is no longer in office? And that's, um, that's an open question. There's an open question whether the courts would actually take the jurisdiction to hear the case themselves. So who we don't know. I mean, this is very uncharted territory.

We've never had President that's been impeached twice. And um, based on what Dan's saying, that looks like that could happen tomorrow. We'll take more of your calls when we come back to the last segment of the broadcast. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you were saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org Hey, welcome back. Last time we broadcast, we'll take your calls. Jordan, you've got the call screen in there.

Let's go ahead and take a call. Yeah, let's go to Joni, first in Louisiana, online one. Joni, welcome to JCEC YO Live. You're on the air. Hi, Joni.

Hello. I just wanted to ask, you know, they're going after the President for his speech supposedly inciting riots, but why didn't they go after Nancy Schumer and Maxine when they told Democrats to attack conservatives? Well, it's not the attacking of the conservatives like they're talking about here. They're talking about physical attack on the Capitol. And by the way, the Democrats control the House of Representatives, so of course they're not going to bring impeachment articles or censure articles against their own party for that. Look, this was at a different level.

I mean, we have to be honest here. I'm not casting blame on who did what. I'm just saying, looking at the facts, and this was an attack on the United States Capitol that was real. Those that were involved are guilty of a whole list of federal crimes. They should be in jail for a long time. And by the way, some of the stuff that was out there that this was Antifa and others, that's been proven to be totally incorrect, that the leaders of these groups have already been identified.

They've already, I mean, they were getting their pictures taken and posting it on social media. So that fallacy, this was a group, a mob vigilantism is what it was. And never in our history have we had that on the Capitol and never should we have it again. I do think, and Jordan, this goes to what you said, and I think it's important for people to understand that what the President says today, tomorrow, is going to have a big impact on how this goes. Because if all of a sudden you turn around and you have 30 or 40 Republicans signing on to an impeachment, that's a very different case.

It is very different. I mean, I think his language already today saying he condemns violence but what he, his words were totally appropriate. Whether they were under the legal sense of the terms of incitement to violence, that's not what, the law doesn't govern the impeachments either, by the way.

And constitutional law doesn't govern impeachments. Now I think it, again, if he keeps making statements like that at every opportunity he can, so when he gets to the border later today, he's asked questions about this and he keeps saying how great of a speech he gave and how wonderful the words were. And yes, he condemns violence. That's going to, I think, push more and more Republicans to say, you know what, this is someone who, though we got reports that he acknowledged that Kevin McCarthy, there may have been some issues with what he said and it may have caused some of the trouble, that again, just even talking about it and trying to say that what he did was totally appropriate. I'm not trying to take a position on this.

I'm just telling people the truth here. That's going to push more Republicans who have long-term political futures ahead of them to the Democrats, whether or not the Democrats actually want them or not. That's the funny part. And this is not a funny scenario in impeachment but I don't think Nancy Pelosi wants any of these Republicans around. I don't think they want them in the Senate either, though they would have to have some to actually, to convict. I think this is purely partisans.

They can run ads saying this person didn't do this, especially in swing districts. And that's going to be tougher for them because more and more of those swing districts, middle of the road Republicans who get elected in tougher, more purple either house districts or states are going to say, you know what, I'm going to sign on with this effort because this President continues to stir the pot every chance he gets, even though he's off of social media. Yeah. Than, your thoughts?

Yeah. I mean, I think the best case scenario is that the threat of the attack that we saw on Wednesday is over on January 20th. But Jay, I think it's dangerous at this point for President Trump or Speaker Pelosi or Leader Schumer or Leader McConnell or any of them, Jay, to assume that it's over. I think all of them have an obligation to focus primarily on making sure the threat that was clearly evident and that remains today is quelled. And I think any move to move that in a partisan direction by either side is wholly inappropriate. I think the President should lead on that. I think Speaker Pelosi should lead on that.

And quite frankly, if both of them do that, I think both of them should allow the other one to do it. That's the primary goal here, Jay, is to quell the threat that we saw on Wednesday. I still think that the impeachment is a wrong move for the country.

I'm going to say that today. I just don't think no matter what you view, how you view the facts here, it's just the President's out of office in the eight days. I mean, to put the country through this to me is very risky. Tensions are high. Emotions are high. Why would you fuel it up? 75 million people voted for Donald Trump.

So I mean, I just wouldn't fuel all that up. Lila's calling from New Jersey on line two. Lila, you're on there. You partially answered one of my questions already, so I'm just going to go to the second. The whole nation knew for weeks that there was going to be a dissent of a large group of people on Washington, D.C. on January 6th. Why would they not better prepare and make secure the chambers in every area, considering everything we've been through this past year? I'm going to defer to Andy, who works closely with law enforcement. Let me just say something. The reports yesterday that police officers are being suspended because they may have been working with the protesters, or more than protesters, the anarchists is really scary. And of course, what took place up there was horrific. But the idea that law enforcement, not most of them obviously, but some were involved is just very, very dangerous. Well, I think that I agree with the caller. I mean, it's so obvious that it defies explanation.

You know that there is going to be a huge crowd of people. Where in the world is law enforcement? And that's a good question. Law enforcement should have been there in substantial numbers to protect the Capitol. Barricades should not have been moved. The Capitol should have been surrounded. There should have been precautions taken by law enforcement, federal, state, whatever the jurisdiction is, to have prevented this onslaught onto the Capitol building. And that is a failing that somebody should look into.

Whenever you have protests of this nature, it is obvious that you have a potential tinderbox that could explode. It did in this case. Where was law enforcement to protect the Capitol? It wasn't there.

And I don't think you can blame the President for that. Omar's calling from New Jersey. Go ahead, Omar. You're on the air.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. My question is, what do you think the political ramifications would be on Republican senators that fall behind us? That's a really good question.

And I think it's going to depend on what actually happens, but I'll defer to Jordan Thann on that. So first of all, it depends on what state they're from and how well liked they're in their state. So some are pretty protected by their own entities in the sense that the people in their state really like them. And so they can they can vote to impeach. And that's not going to hurt them as much because they built up their own political machine to the state. If you're talking about if they've got national aspirations, I think that it could it could hurt them because, as you said, 75 million people voted for President Trump. And I think that the longer this goes on, 75 million, which may have been dwindling a bit, may start building back up if they start this impeachment. So I think it's a risky vote for most Republicans, unless you are in places like Maine, like Susan Collins.

If you've already said how you feel, like Lisa Murkowski and Ben Sasse in Nebraska has basically said he would vote to impeach, except for he's not sure constitutionally they've got the authority to do it because it will be after the Presidents in office. So, again, these are these are these are pretty wide spectrum from the far from the more conservative side, to the most moderate side who are considering this this vote, then really quickly. Yeah, I think that's correct.

I think just to give color to it. I work inside that building. I know those hallways. They almost got there, Jay. And I think that's going to inform some of these senators votes when it comes down to it.

The proximity that the those that entered the Capitol to do harm got to the various offices and to the Congressmen senators and their staff was incredible. But anyways, this is the political ramifications. We will know tomorrow where this is going. We'll keep you posted.

Talk to you then. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.