Happening Now: House Impeachment Proceedings Against President Trump

Happening now, House impeachment proceedings against President Trump. We'll talk about that and what happens next in the U.S. Senate. What's the timeline look like today on Secular Radio?

And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. I don't know exactly where it goes next and how it may go next because of comments I talked about in Newsmax last night yesterday that came out later in the day from reports that Mitch McConnell was very upset with the President, supported the impeachment, which then opens the door to whether or not he would join Senator Schumer in bringing back the Senate in emergency session to begin the trial. We still don't think they would be able to finish the trial while the President was in office, which brings up another major constitutional question. But we're not to the Senate yet. We're still in the House of Representatives. And I think the biggest question today is, initially, when we were talking about this with Than, it looked like there could be 20, even 25 Republicans joining in this effort. But we said, we cautioned that and said that Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats will likely try to push Republicans away. They don't want it to be very bipartisan because they want to be able to use this against Republicans in the future. So with their rhetoric, they're going to blame Republicans on the House floor. They're going to make it not even just about the President, but about every Republican. And Than, that is exactly what we're seeing today. We're seeing the Democrats get up and instead of focusing on President Trump, they're attacking the entire Republican Party.

Yeah, it sure is, Jordan. I think three things happened since we were on air yesterday that really drove the Republican votes down on this. Number one, the President has mostly stayed silent. Number two, the vice President put out a letter saying that we need to get to inauguration peacefully.

He's not going to invoke the 25th Amendment. I think that gave Republicans some comfort. And Jordan, I think most significantly, Speaker Pelosi announced her managers. And in that list of managers was not a sober list of people who would conduct this in the mode that she said it needed to be carried out in.

The biggest name in that list was Eric Swalwell. Jordan, there's just no way to describe that other than that she wants this to have a political dynamic to it. So look, it's the United States of America. Impeachment is a political process.

She has chosen to make it a little bit more political today. And in my view, the net effect of those three things, especially that last one, will drive that number of 20 to 25 down. We know of five right now. Jordan, I think that might rise just a little bit, but I do think it's still going to be somewhere, I would say between five and 10, maybe 12.

But I don't think anywhere close to 20 to 25 at this point. Which means calling this a bipartisan impeachment is really not right. I mean, there's four or five members of the United States House of Representatives. Looks like that's right.

Yeah, I mean, right. They were touting that this could be 30. And they said it could be as many as 30.

It's not. Eric Swalwell is an impeachment manager. Yeah, I think that, again, what are they thinking when they do that? They're thinking, how do we keep Republicans from joining us? I know that sounds weird because it makes their case stronger, and it certainly makes their case stronger to the American public who isn't as partisan to see bipartisan support. But they're using this primarily for political purposes. And so you put someone like Swalwell, who has the Chinese spy in his office, he's going to be the one prosecuting this?

I mean, that's when you start exactly what we talked about. You said Nancy Pelosi had a choice. Does she want it to be bipartisan or not? She's making the moves to make it... Much better for the President that she did this. 100% better for the President that she did this.

Yeah, exactly. And again, making it a partisan impeachment makes it look a lot more like the last impeachment than something where you get 20-plus Republicans. Now, the votes haven't happened yet, and we'll see what statements are made today. Is the President going to say anything and get any message out while this is going on that could drive up or down those votes?

It's certainly possible. We'll take your calls and questions on it. Facebook, YouTube, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back on Secular Radio. 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. Welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live.

This is Jordan Sekulow. So right now, you have the House. They're actually voting on the resolution that would open up the debate, but we are not expecting this to go. Now, it could go late into the evening, but right now, if people are listening and they're wondering, okay, what are they actually going to vote on impeachment? When will we know how many Republicans join this effort or how few do? I know initially we were looking at between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. Eastern Time. Are we still on that track?

Yeah, I think that's probably a pretty good guess. It's harder to predict at this point, Jordan, because as you say, they're voting on the rule that will govern debate right now. It takes a long time to vote in the House of Representatives right now. They still try to do it in groups.

They have to clear new security now. That's another contentious issue. They will then move into debate, Jordan, and just so people understand, listeners and viewers will see them say they get two hours of divided debate.

That's what the rule provides for. Jordan, that's going to take longer than two hours. There's going to be waste in between.

There's going to be privilege for the leaders. It's going to take longer than two hours. I do think 3.30 to 4 o'clock is a reasonable guess, but look, I just got to be honest with you. It's a reasonable guess. It's going to take longer than two hours.

There's going to be a lot of waste in there, but I do think late afternoon is the best target for when that vote will happen and where the breakdown will fall. You know, it's interesting also that the 25th Amendment issue that was being so widely discussed yesterday was put to rest last night by Mike Pence, who issued a letter to the speaker where he stated that the 25th Amendment was designed to address Presidential incapacity or disability. And he then pointed out that just a few months ago when you introduced legislation to create a 25th Amendment commission, you said a President's fitness for office must be determined by science and facts.

You then said we must be very respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior we don't like, but based on medical decisions. Madam Speaker, you were right. Under our Constitution, the 25th Amendment is not a means of punishment or usurpation. Invoking the 25th Amendment in such a manner would set a terrible precedent. And it also was not just you invoked the 25th Amendment and the President's gone.

Andy, you really delved into this yesterday. Yes, it's not that easy to do and it's not that quick to do the cabinet or a majority of the principal offices of the executive branch along with the vice President vote to transfer the powers of the President. He doesn't leave office, it's the powers of the President to the vice President. But then the President can turn around if he wants to and say, no, I am not unable to perform or discharge the duties of my office. And he can revoke that by a letter to the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

And if he does that, the matter then goes to the Congress to decide. But Vice President Pence, I should say, has put an end to that by this letter in which he says, I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our nation. And he did it in such a wonderful way in how he spoke with truly from the heart and with biblical references that I'll refer to Pastor Smith on that. Yeah, so he said, he quoted, he said, the Bible says that for everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven, a time to heal, a time to build up. That time is now, Wes. I thought it was great that Mike put that in the letter.

Absolutely it was. You know, there, with all the drama and the political shenanigans and the division that's going on with the 535 members of Congress and the presidency, there are people that are still people of honor and who have principles. And Mike Pence is one of those people.

The same Mike Pence that refused to go in and overturn the Electoral College count and declare President Trump the winner is the same vice President who tells the Speaker of the House, no, I will not, you know, in an unconstitutional way, invoke the 25th Amendment. And his faith, and I did appreciate this letter and especially his reference to Ecclesiastes, for everything there is a season, for every time of purpose under heaven, time to heal, time to build up. This is that time to heal, and this is that time to build up, and it's very apparent to the vice President. He is a man of faith, but he's not pushy about it. He's not in your face. It's just part and parcel of who he is.

It's his spiritual makeup, his DNA. I wish to God, literally pray to God, that other people would see what he sees, that this is indeed a time to heal, a time to build up, and that all the decisions they make, including the decision about impeachment, would be made based on that principle, a time to heal, a time to build up. Except if they were serious about this, which, you know, obviously they're not because look who they appointed. Exactly. I mean, the truth is they put Eric Swalwell on this committee. Does that not tell you the whole thing?

It tells the whole thing. Ted Lieu, who's nasty on Twitter, by the way. He's a provocative Twitter user.

He goes nasty, he goes low. And again, you know, to put Ted Lieu, to put Swalwell, who's in his own controversy because of the Chinese spy in his office, the relationship he had there, and the investigation that's ongoing into that. And then, by the way, Raskin, Congressman Raskin, Jamie Raskin, objected to President Trump's electoral votes back in 2016. Very important to point that out. On the same grounds, that the electors weren't duly seated.

Right. And they're calling on Ted Cruz and Hawley to be thrown out of the Senate but on no-fly list for doing what they did. Which is raise a constitutional objection on the floor of the Senate.

Which they have the right to do by the Constitution and statute. So, again, I think Nancy Pelosi made the moves to try and limit Republican support. It sounds weird. Well, it worked.

I know. It sounds weird because it would make the impeachment against President Trump that much more, I think, meaningful if you had 20-plus Republicans. Like, initially it was indicated. They were ready to do it. But they weren't going to do it if they were all going to be—if basically they're saying that all of you Republicans, all of you who supported President Trump, all of you who even questioned some of these election moves that were made by the early voting and the mail-in ballots are responsible for what happened at the Capitol. Well, that's going to drive away Republican votes. And it might even change Mitch McConnell's mind.

He's watching this right now. And he might be very upset with what happened and with the President. Like has been reported, he hasn't actually said that, by the way, on the record. That's only reports that he's upset and supports the impeachment. But this could change him because he'll see the partisan attacks again and it might change his mind as well.

So we will see. That's why today is important to look at. I think it's a sad day for the country. I think it's a very sad day for the country because, unfortunately, less people have just totally tuned out. And I think there is a group of Americans who have. And who are just saying, please, God, let's get to the next inauguration and move forward. But this makes it more difficult to move forward.

I think they do realize that. We've got these crazy protests planned on the 17th all around the country where we're having to close offices and places like that because of armed protests that are going to be occurring this weekend. And then you see what they're having to do security-wise at the Capitol right now. The National Guard is armed with automatic weapons.

That is rare, Wes. There are more troops in the Capitol today than there are in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, literally. There are more troops in the U.S. Capitol. So I think, again, that's why it's a sad day for our country. That is why I am against this. And I think you could be against this even if you think that, you know, if this happened and there was still a year left in this presidency, if you were someone who said that, then I would support impeachment because I believe what happened was wrong. I think you could still join me in opposing this because of how potentially dangerous this is for our country and the division it will continue to sow. And we don't need that.

We will have political battles with the Biden administration, many of them. I mean, we're preparing for that. Right. But this is not that.

We're talking about division amongst Americans. And it is so calculated and, I think, so dangerous. It is such a calculated move that they made here, Andy, that they take away the—of course, this is a rush anyways. I mean, this is unbelievably a rush, but they're trying to do this because they don't want the President to run for re-election in 2020 or for election in 2024.

But they do this. They were touting yesterday on CNN and all these networks 20 to 30 Republican sign-ons, and now, like Dan says, maybe five to seven. It's just, you know, we're trying to figure out legally, you know, this is just making the system a mockery. Well, I think that that's true, and one of the congressmen from Oklahoma who said it, I think Tom Cole was correct. We haven't had hearings. We haven't heard witnesses. No opportunity to respond by the President. No opportunity to review or amend the article before it comes to the floor. Is this the way that you conduct the business of the Congress? I mean, this is a snap judgment impeachment that is really not giving the President right or wrong.

I'm not saying right or wrong. No due process. No due process whatsoever. They didn't bring in any experts on constitutional law, first amendment, freedom of speech. They didn't bring people and experts in from like the ACLU or groups like us or people like Professor Dershowitz or Lawrence Tribe, even on both sides. They didn't bring them in to say, to question them about whether or not really the remarks he made could be tied directly to the events that occurred. And whether or not in a court of law, which this is not a court of law, but they usually do take that kind of testimony before. You have witnesses, hearings, and they're not even doing that. I mean, this is going purely off feelings, how they feel about the President. And again, I think that's why you're starting to see them drive away Republicans because they want to make sure this is a Democrat impeachment, which even though it makes it less likely to be successful, when it gets to the Senate, much harder to get to 17 Republicans. I think they make their case very difficult in the United States Senate, and then they're calling for like immediate trials. We'll get into that in the next segment.

All right. 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, the 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.

Welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. So right now, if you turn on the TV, that's not a vote you're seeing on impeachment. That is a vote to begin the debate on impeachment. And so far, there's not a single Republican vote to open that. I think there will be a few. There's only a few not voting. There's eight not voting Republicans so far. So we'll see how many even vote to open up the debate. Right now, we know it's going to be under 10.

So, I mean, there's even less than 10 to have a debate on this. So Nancy Pelosi effectively did her job of making sure that you did not get to even probably double digits when it comes to Republicans support this impeachment. That is a big change from where we were just two days ago. Even yesterday.

And yesterday. Yesterday they added on the board 20. I was all with David Brody in the afternoon after our broadcast and said, you know, we're working with our government affairs team, working with these offices. They said like they expected there could be 20 to 25.

But that all depends on kind of language and what would happen. And so there's yours and who got appointed to be on the team, which again, I think right there, the impeachment managers putting on Ted Lieu and especially Eric Swalwell, who's under investigation right now. Because of his relationship with a Chinese spy in his office. And even Jamie Raskin, who as you pointed out earlier, took the position in the Trump election that votes cast were not valid and objected. Yes, he was one of the objectors. So he was one of the House objections.

And again. Under his theory of the way they drafted those articles of impeachment, under his theory, his own objection could constitute an interference. Right. Like insurrection or some kind of. Let me ask a question, though, as it goes to the let's assume it passes because it's going to pass.

Yes. It'll be an article of impeachment. Yes, it will pass. So then it goes to the Senate. Now there's there if they get unanimous consent, they could come back. That's not likely. But there's a lot of talk and there certainly was last night about this 2004 statute. Let's explain that and what's the likelihood.

Yeah. And that 2004 resolution, Jay, that really would apply regardless of whether it's Leader McConnell or Leader Schumer in control of the chamber. Right now, the Senate's in a posture where they can receive notification of the impeachment.

But, Jay, they cannot actually receive the managers in order to present the articles. The Senate actually has to notify the House that they are ready to receive those managers before they can do it. As the Senate sits right now, Jay, they are not going to be in that posture again until January 19th.

And according to Leader McConnell, he doesn't plan to change that posture. Now, according to the resolution that you're talking about, both the majority leader and the minority leader. So that would be Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell.

Again, regardless of who's actually in the majority, it would be those two individuals. They could agree to come back on an emergency basis without unanimous consent. So that's what's being discussed now. That would be the only way outside of unanimous consent that they could get in a posture to actually receive the articles before January 19th. And the only thing I would add to that, Jay, is let's say they invoke that.

Let's say they do that and they come back a few days early. This goes to Jordan's point that he opened the broadcast with. There's still no way they're going to get through a full and fair trial before Joe Biden's inaugurated.

Yeah, I mean, what I want everyone to kind of focus in on is this, which I think is important. Take a listen. Take a listen to the speeches being made by Democrats. This is Congressman McGovern. This is this is what they're saying while they're trying supposedly to get bipartisan support.

Now, take a listen by twenty thirty seven. Some of my Republican friends have been trying to lecture us about unity here today. Unity after they voted to overturn a free and fair election in the United States of America, but also preaching unity and not acknowledging that for four years, many of them gave oxygen. The Donald Trump's conspiracy theories to the big lies. What were those big lies that he was being spied on by the FBI?

He was that he had that he had I mean, what what are what CC? But by doing that, you are casting blame on all Republicans and then you are dividing the country. And by the way, you don't get to those 17 Republican senators.

You might be you won't actually impede even if you can do this, you won't be able to disqualify him from running again. And you might so divide the country again. They say, you know what? Trump, twenty, twenty four, just because of this.

They're risking that. I think the Democrats now because they're casting blame on all Republicans, thus all Republican voters. So it's like anyone who supported President Trump, where they're like impeaching you to, you know, it's interesting. When you do a jury trial, then in the end, you look at your jury pool and you try to focus on what is the compelling story that's going to reach the jury that you have to get. And here, Andy, it seems like they look at the jury pool, which is the United States Congress, and they say, how can we run off half the half the jury pool? Yeah, that's exactly right. We're going to put Eric Swalwell and Jamie Raskin, who objected, and Ted Lieu, who files bar complaints against every lawyer he doesn't like. That's right.

Yeah, including us. Well, let me just say this. When I saw the list of the managers, when I saw the list of the managers and I saw the name of Ted Lieu and Eric Swalwell on that list, I almost retched. I mean, when you talk about a political process, yes, I understand it's a political process, I understand that, but I mean, here's a person who had a Chinese spy picking interns for his office and raising money for him. And Nancy Pelosi, you know, just puts this off to the side like it never happened, and she puts him on as one of the managers.

I mean, terrible. But it also, Wes, tells me that they make this serious accusation that the President incited insurrection. That's a serious statement. And then to handle the serious statement, they put on Ted Lieu and Eric Swalwell. Yeah, it's obvious that they may be dividing the jury pool in Congress, but with the American people, it shows a great amount of arrogance and tone deafness.

But I think most Americans are with Mike Pence. They want unity and healing. And it's obvious from their decision who the impeachment managers are, Jay, they do not want unity. Not right now. You know what they want, Jordan?

Here's what they want. They can't, there's less than a week left, a week left, actually. This time tomorrow, Joe Biden will be President of the United States, right? This time next week.

This time next week, yeah. Joe Biden's the President of the United States. They are not going to wait the seven days. And the reason they don't want to wait the seven days is not because they can't wait the seven days. It's because they want to see if they can take the political strength of the President out. Because remember that just three months ago, no, two and a half months ago, the President got 75 million votes. Right. I mean, and really, I mean, again, in an election that was in the middle of COVID and you had a lot of states allowing these mail-in ballots.

So you saw numbers that were different before and verifications that were different before. And that may not be the case next election cycle because COVID shouldn't be an issue with the vaccines that are going out. So if they don't adopt these mail-in battling in other than the blue states, in any of the red states, they don't expand again the absentee ballots.

Guess what? That much tougher for Democrats to win because you're not going to have that scenario. And if you allow this, I think what they're doing is in effect, which again, Democrats do this often, is they are rebuilding the Trump political machine today.

Because they're going to say such nasty things that will apply to all of us who may have cast a ballot for Donald Trump. And it's like we're all being impeached is how I feel. It's like impeaching half the country. And they're not going to get the 17 senators, Republican senators then. And so he's going to be able to run for office if he wants to again. And I think that they're so scared of him running for office, but yet they don't want to make this bipartisan. It's like they just decided they want to blame Republicans for this and they'll just see if they can keep Donald Trump in the mix politically.

Which again, you pointed out that that's dangerous for them too. Politically dangerous. We'll be right back. Second half hour coming up. Check out ACLJ.org. Stay updated. Take your calls and comments. 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. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. So now that the debate has begun, I'm looking to see, Thanh, did you actually see the final total of how many Republicans voted to open up the debate, the resolution to open the debate? Because there were only eight votes outstanding at a point.

How many was the total? Yeah, no Republicans voted against the rule for the rule, Jordan. So the rule sets out how the debate will happen. No Republicans voted for that rule. It's not that unusual because I think even those who are opposed to impeachment or for impeachment, Jordan, don't like the way this has happened. They want more than two hours of debate.

They want a more lengthy opportunity to go to the floor. But no Republicans, Jordan, voted for the rule. Some did miss the vote, but none voted for it. Some didn't vote, but others who are going to vote for impeachment. But so far, so no Republicans supported the way this is being set up. That doesn't mean they won't ultimately vote to impeach in the House, but I think that number is dropping as we speak right now. Now, could it change depending on what the President says in the middle of this debate? Now, it's only two hours, so it's a very short debate.

Yeah, I mean, it could. If he says something that upsets them, you could get back to the 15 number. But I think what you're not going to see is the 20 or 25 putting their political careers on the line to vote with anything Nancy Pelosi's up to. So this whole snap impeachment, which is the modus operandi that they have decided to go with here, the snap impeachment. Quick, no hearings, no witnesses, no experts. Jonathan Turley talked about that.

Let me play that bite. My primary objection is the creation of a snap impeachment. This will create new precedent for going straight to the floor for an impeachment of an American President without a hearing, without an opportunity for the President to respond to questions from the House. Now, Wes, you said during the break that you think this is going to come back to haunt them. Yeah. You know, it's the Democrats in the Senate who changed the rules on judicial appointees or nominees from 60 votes to simple majority.

And it came back. They came back to regret that. I think this has horrible precedent that they will live to regret as well. This kind of impeachment process that is quick this way.

Some of them have actually said that they don't have time to carefully lay out the process or choose the words. Anytime you're trying to impeach a President of the United States and you don't have time to lay out the process carefully or choose your words carefully is never a good thing. But the other thing about this whole impeachment thing, the second thing that's bad for President, it sets up and I pray to God it never happens, but it sets up a precedent where any political party who controls the House of Representatives can try to impeach a future President on any number of spurious charges or a disagreement over policy.

We saw what happened a year ago, that that was a total hoax impeachment. The Democrats are laying out a precedent, so whoever controls the House, you know, can actually bring charges against a sitting President. It is a horrible precedent. The fundamental denial of due process that you're already seeing put in place by doing it this way, I think also Andy raises a serious issue. Well, you know, I've been a prosecutor all my life and I certainly would love defendants to be able to come in and only hear my side of the case and not say anything so I can convict them all and send them to jail.

That's not how it works. I want them to come in and to be able to have their day in court. I want them to have their due process. I want them to file motions. I want them to seek to quash the indictment.

I want them to have the opportunity to be heard on whether or not I complied with the rules of procedure in court and to test my case in court before a judge. That's not what Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who are supporting her want today. They want to simply put forward the indictment and have two hours of quick snap debate and have a vote and be done with it. That's not the American way. Whether you agree with impeachment of this President, whether he committed impeachable acts or not is not the issue here.

The issue here is due process of law and giving the President the opportunity to put up his defense and members to be heard with respect to amendments and so forth. It's not being done. We come back. We're going to start taking your calls, your comments. If you want to talk to us on air, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Rick Rinnell, Special Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy. He will be joining us live in the next segment of the broadcast.

You don't want to miss that as well. We'll also take your questions, your comments at 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110 as the impeachment debate, and it's a short one. Only two hours before they vote has begun on the House floor.

We'll be right back on Secular Radio. Check out ACLJ.org. 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, welcome back to Secular Radio. We are joined by our special advisor for national security and foreign policy, Rick Rinnell, joining us live. And here we are, Rick, about a year later, almost to the date, with the House moving forward with an impeachment, snap impeachment, as people are calling it. They're in their two-hour debate, Rick, and then they're going to be impeached. And then they're going to be impeaching the President over words and trying to try those words to actions.

I'm already noticing, I want to get your reaction, Rick, but I'm already noticing this. There was a lot of potential, I say a lot, there was up to like 20 to 25 Republicans rumored to possibly be supporting this. And it looks like the Democrats are doing everything possible to make sure they get as few Republicans as possible supporting this by almost like blaming everybody who's a Republican or who voted for President Trump. I feel like we're all being impeached by this.

Yeah, it's such a good point. I mean, look, we're at the point in this chaos in Washington that they're trying to impugn every single Republican or person who didn't vote for Joe Biden. It's gaslighting political rhetoric. It's gaslighting our political process. I think it's completely out of control. And of course, we have to start every conversation and finish every conversation right now with the important words that those who looted and attacked the Capitol are completely wrong. They should be found out and prosecuted, every single one of them.

We just don't have a system where you get to break a window and go in and take over, especially in the Capitol. But I think it's really important that we recognize that this violence started last summer in Portland, in Seattle, in Minneapolis. Even before that, we saw the beginnings of this when a far left Democrat went after Steve Scalise on the baseball field and shot him all because he didn't like Republicans. And he went after and attacked Republicans. Now, that is the beginning of how we've over the last several years gone from political protests and those who are participating all of a sudden see individuals within that political protest resort to violence.

That's where we have to stop. And people need to get smart that we have to be able to encourage political protests. That's the hallmark of democracy.

It's certainly a protected right in this country. But when it switches and you see political protests become violent, that's when you've got to call it out, no matter if it's left, right or center. Well, I've got a question on the national security side of this. You're the former director of national intelligence.

Okay. You know, obviously, they're preparing next week for the inaugural serious problems around the country. But it also seems like to me, once again, there may have been a gap here, a failure of communication with intelligence. It's reported that the FBI office in Norfolk had issued a bulletin to the FBI saying we have credible evidence of this kind of problem.

It looks like that this activity at the Hill may have started well before the President was speaking, that this was known, that this kind of information was out there, these kind of groups were out there. What do you end up, and I'm not asking you to disclose anything, but what do you know in your position and how was that communicated to these other agencies that there was not adequate protection on the Hill? Look, we've had a long problem since 9-11 of siloed information where individuals within the intelligence community know certain pieces of information, but for whatever reason are not able to share it properly or they share it within their silo and it doesn't get shared with others. This is the whole concept of how intelligence is actually used.

How do people consume it and use it in a positive way? It's not just nice to know information, but how do you get the need to know information into policymakers' hands or law enforcement? This is another classic example where it's looking like somebody knew that this was coming, but it wasn't actually shared all the way down to the Capitol Hill police. If that is true, if reports of that are true, then we have yet another problem with the intelligence community gathering information but not getting it into the right hands. I was roundly criticized as completely inexperienced to go in and run DNI, but the reality is that someone like me who's been consuming intelligence, my first intelligence briefing was in 2001, I understand what useful intelligence is and what actionable intelligence is, not just nice to know information. And so when you have people who have been consuming it for a long time, and let me give a shout out to the Biden administration for bringing in somebody, it looks like at the CIA, somebody like Bill Burns who's been a diplomat for 25 years. He is somebody who has used information, used intelligence, and will be able to say, this is how it needs to come through.

This is how you get it into the right hands. That's clearly a problem that we're seeing, at least rumors are, with the Capitol attack. We know that that's been a problem for many years. That problem needs to be fixed. And I think there's no one better to fix it than the ones who have been consuming it, not the ones who have been creating it operationally. You know, Rick, we know about potentially this division in our country and the deplatforming, the canceling out of Twitter accounts, whether it's the President's, but also individuals who don't have the same kind of access to get their message out as well. And you've been outspoken about that. You combine this with the impeachment, and we're supposed to be, and yet Joe Biden's still talking about unity.

This doesn't seem like unity at all. It seems like a full-on attack on everybody who's conservative and anybody possible who worked for President Trump or even, I mean, I would go so far as to say if you voted for President Trump, they're coming after you. Look, if you're not confident in your ideas, if you don't think that your ideas are going to be able to compete in the marketplace, then you're going to want to shut down your opponents, or you're going to want to run out of the room with your fingers in your ears and not listen to somebody else, or you're going to try to cancel them altogether. We have a huge problem on the left right now where they are trying to cancel conservatives as fast as they can, whether it's in business, academia, politics, your neighborhood, your friends on Facebook. This is not what the left has told us about diversity and tolerance. I grew up in the age where diversity and tolerance meant you don't really agree with somebody, but you can tolerate and you recognize that alternative voices and different voices are a good idea. Well, now what we have is this incredible groupthink, this demanding that everybody think alike, and if you don't think like me, I'm going to cancel you.

I think it's not too much to say. This is a 20-year failure of our educational system. We've taught kids to actually not listen, to somehow feel like to listen is to endorse racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever they want to call it.

But this is a crisis. We have to be able to get to the point where you can go out to your mailbox, see your neighbor who voted for somebody different than you, and still have a pleasant conversation and be part of the neighborhood watch committee. I feel like this has been getting worse, not better, since the election. We were kind of making that turn, and even with the violence last week, we could come together as Americans, we condemn that, say that these are nuts that are doing that, this is wrong, and you could start doing that. And then again, we have another impeachment going on, and people like Eric Swalwell get named as house managers, who said this about the President just yesterday on PBS. Take a listen. I'm comparing the words of an individual who would incite and radicalize somebody, as Osama bin Laden did, to what President Trump did.

You don't actually have to commit the violence yourself, but if you call others to violence, that itself is a crime. Rick, 75 million Americans voted for someone who Eric Swalwell thinks is no different than Osama bin Laden. He's a disgrace. He should literally resign. Here's a guy who's been pushing the Beijing walkout for years, telling us that China is a country that you shouldn't fear, and that we have an obligation to have better relations with them. And guess what?

He was sleeping with a Chinese spy. I mean, this is outrageous that he is somebody who in Congress now is going to judge others for actions. I mean, he's demonstrated that his judgment is terrible.

I want to go back to one thing, Jordan, that you said, and I think it's really important to bring up. After the Capitol attacks, when so many Republicans condemned what the few Trump protesters merged into the Capitol and became mobsters and attacked and looters and rioters, there was a great, almost unified voice from Republicans to condemn that. That should have been the moment where Democrats, who now are going to control the House, the Senate and the White House, should have grabbed our hands together and said, yes, we agree with you, let's move forward. But instead, they've tried to cancel us. They've tried to impeach the President and really pour gasoline on a terrible situation.

I think they mishandled their first test as the leaders. I agree. Rick, thanks for joining us. Great insight on all of this. We'll be back to take your questions and your comments.

1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. 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. 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. Welcome back to JCEC Hill Live. Karen has been holding on, and I want to make sure we get to Karen's call because it's a good question. Karen in North Carolina on Live 5. Thanks for holding on, Karen, through all these discussions. We try to explain this to folks and have Rick on. You're on the air.

Hi, thank you so much. I just am confused about the impeachment process. If President Trump gets to finish his term, can they still go forward with the impeachment, and what impact would that have on his ability to run in 2024?

So I think, right away, this is a brand new question. And the way the question has to start is, will any court say that they've got jurisdiction? And Jonathan Turley, he said this, a professor at George Washington University in constitutional law, by 1933. And this is one of the few impeachment issues that actually could be resolved by the courts. If they did impose this penalty in a type of retroactive impeachment, the President would have standing to challenge it, and a court could rule on it.

So this is the position, what Professor Turley just articulated, is also the position of Professor Dershowitz from Harvard. And that is the impeachment clause, when you look at both the impeachment clause and the way in which the process is set up, it's talking about removal from office. The impeachment of the, I said this the other day, of the President of the United States, not a President of the United States, and on January 20th at 1201, President Trump is a President, he's not the President. So then the question is, if they impeach, they will probably, they're going to impeach today, so he will be impeached. But the impeachment itself doesn't carry a penalty. It just is, it's like the preliminary injunction, or like the indictment, so to speak.

It's the charge. And then it goes to the Senate for a trial. Well then, can the Senate try the President when he is no longer in office? And there are arguments on both sides.

It is not, it has not been ever tested. Former US Court of Appeals judge for the Fourth Circuit, Mike Ludig, reads the Constitution and says, no, you cannot try him once he's out of office. Others say because, as you mentioned, Jordan, the penalty phase, Andy, that that's their argument that you could. But I mean, when you read the Constitution itself, I think there's a strong argument that you can't.

Well, I agree with you, Jay. I think the Constitution does not provide for that. I think you're tried when you're in office. If you're in office, the matter of trial, I think, does not exist. And I agree with what that judge on the Fourth Circuit said in his analysis.

Also the rules. The reason why it takes longer in the Senate is because of their rules. That's not in the Constitution. So in the Constitution, it says, sole power to impeach House, sole power to try impeach Senate. They didn't say, you've got to wait three days, you've got to do this, you've got to wait four days, you've got to have 20 hours of debate. So technically in the Constitution, you could do all of this in three days.

Oh yeah, you could do it in a day. In both chambers. But the rules have been made by Congress to make that impossible. And so that wasn't the Constitution.

That was the rules of Congress that have made it where even when you've got just a few days left, that's just not enough time to finish that. And even the other, and we brought this up the other day, and this is the idea that the Chief Justice serves as the presiding office. He's not the Chief Justice, he's always the Chief Justice of the United States, but he's not serving as a justice.

He doesn't make adjudications. But he is in fact the presiding officer. When the President, when they're seeking to remove the President. Only the President, yeah. Is he the presiding officer when they're seeking to remove a former President?

Yeah, who else would be? Well, but the Constitution doesn't say he is. So does the Senate set up its own rule? Is there any discussions of this going on, Than? There's a lot of discussion, Jay, and the simple answer is everybody has an opinion and nobody knows conclusively the answer to really any of those. But I think maybe the one thing I would add to it though, Jay, and we said this yesterday, this is why I believe if there's a delay and if Joe Biden is the President when a trial is ongoing, the votes go down, Jay.

They just do. I think the votes go down. I also wonder, Wes, whether if there's time in between here and you see all of these hurdles, because the lawyer representing the President would make a motion to dismiss right up front and would probably go to court before that to say that the proceeding can't even go. But none of this heals the land.

No, it does not. And due process, if this happens this way, would be denied to the President. And you look at the history of impeachment in the United States, not just with Presidents, but other federal officials who have been impeached, the real threat that hangs over a person's head who's going to be impeached is removal from office.

That is the punishment, if you look back through our history. And if the President's no longer in office, it seems like a moot point to me. The other thing, Jay, about this, though, and I thought a lot about President-elect Biden through all of this, an impeachment is not in Biden's political interest. It would mean the first part of his administration is totally tied up with drama around the former President. And this is why I believe with all of my heart, Biden should have told Nancy Pelosi, either privately or publicly, that she should stand down.

It would be his first and most important step in bringing healing and unity to the nation, because whatever happens this week and potentially in the Senate, impeachment is incredibly needlessly divisive for our country. Yeah, but I mean, you know, so Jordan, where do you see, I mean, we're going to know tonight. I think, well, we're going to know this afternoon, probably probably this afternoon for most people listening to this broadcast right now. If you're on the West Coast, it's going to be early afternoon. If you're on the East Coast, I mean, maybe there's a two hour debate.

It's already begun. So looking at that vote again between 3.30, 4.30 ish Eastern Time, I mean, so before 5 p.m., unless there's some kind of objections made, there's some delay tactics, but we know that the vote is going to, the votes will be there to impeach. What we don't know yet is how many Republicans will join it. It seems like that number is dropping, and we don't know when it will be sent over to the U.S. Senate. What about the significance of Liz Cheney? You know, I mean, that is significant because she is in the leadership.

She's number three in the leadership. I think it will be interesting to note, because of the Democrat rhetoric today, how many Republicans will actually join her, even that wanted to support the impeachment. And then I think that that number is dwindling by the second, every time that Democrat speaks.

All the reporting suggests that that's absolutely the truth, Jordan. I mean, yesterday in the Republican conference, that number of 20 to 25, that was reported by multiple outlets. Members were looking at it, and we said on this broadcast that everybody from the President to the vice President, to Speaker Pelosi, to President-elect Biden would have an impact on that.

And Jordan, I think that's what happened. The President and the vice President basically are trying to get us to January 20th. The actions of Speaker Pelosi, and quite honestly, the silence of President-elect Biden, Jordan, I think that's why that number might be in the single digits today. But it is a really interesting and important, unique, I would say, constitutional question as to this impeachment of a former President, because any angry Congress could put an article of impeachment against any President in the waning days of their administration, hold on to it for a year, and say, oh, now we'll go after him when it's politically expedient.

And can you have a retro, if the idea of impeachment is removal, he's already removed from office. Now they're going to say that, but the penalty can include banning. So can that, because of that, does that indicate?

There's a lot of, there's not a lot of scholarship on this. This would be a case of first impression. I think the court, I agree with Jonathan Turley, I think the court would have to take it. I think they'd have to take it. They wouldn't be able to just say political question, you figure it out, Congress. Yeah, they may try that, but boy, it's a fundamental question as to what the Constitution allows it doesn't. As of now, we have no case law on this. There's no case law whatsoever, and no legislative history either, because other positions you just resigned, the President is finishing out his term, and that would be that.

Those were lifetime appointments before judges, and that's different. So again, we'll talk about it tomorrow, we'll see where the votes go. Where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.