Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

Biden’s Press Secretary: Senate Can Multi-Task on Impeachment

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
January 21, 2021 12:00 pm

Biden’s Press Secretary: Senate Can Multi-Task on Impeachment

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 981 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


January 21, 2021 12:00 pm

Biden’s Press Secretary: Senate Can Multi-Task on Impeachment...

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Today on Sekulow Radio, in her first press conference, Biden's press secretary doubles down on impeachment and says the Senate can multitask, convict a private citizen, and move forward with COVID reform and relief. We'll talk about that.

Is that possible? On Sekulow Radio. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. If President Biden wants a theme of his presidency to be unifying the country, does he think that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should drop a potentially divisive Senate impeachment trial? He spoke today, as you all saw, about unity in his inaugural address and the importance of unity in bringing the country together.

We are confident, though, that just like the American people can, the Senate can also multitask and they can do their constitutional duty while continuing to conduct the business of the American people. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. We will be in the never few days when I'll be talking with the managers as to when the Senate will be ready for the trial of the then President of the United States for his role in instigating an insurrection. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome to Sekulow Radio. So you heard last night that was the first press conference from the White House press secretary, new White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, who used to have that role for the State Department under the Obama administration and then has been on TV a lot. So she's well known in the media. But she got that question from Peter Doocy from Fox News, a straight up question.

We heard all about unity today, unity in the speech. And so is President Biden considering either, you know, not necessarily publicly, but behind the scenes, encouraging Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, maybe that unity, the best way to start with unity is not maybe an impeachment trial as soon as next week. And some people are saying she didn't answer the question.

I think she did. I think she said there's going to be an impeachment trial and they could do it at the same time they're working on COVID relief. Now, what we don't know yet, though, is that if the Senate parliamentarian has actually come back with a ruling saying that they can have an impeachment trial and continue on other business of the Senate. We also saw today Patrick Leahy, who is the Senate President pro tem, who could sit in place of a normal impeachment trial if it wasn't the President. So since this is no longer the President, he said, though, he's going to punt that to Chief Justice Roberts to make the decision, which is kind of bizarre as well.

Yeah. And I think if you first of all, I think this whole theory of impeaching a President who's out of office is counterintuitive to the way in which the Constitution draft is drafted. Now, there's arguments on both sides. And he's done an in-depth check on that.

But and we'll get in that in the next segment. But the fact of the matter is, I don't think the chief justice presides because the President is not the sitting President. He's a former President. So it would not make any sense. But this whole notion of impeaching a President who's out of office where the purpose of impeachment is removal from office also doesn't make a lot of sense. No, I mean, so this is hard. But what we saw last night in the first press conference from the Biden team was that they are not holding back on moving forward with impeachment.

They have no issues. I think they're trying to play the line of they're not necessarily endorsing it. But I say it's a full endorsement.

We can play it for you later in the broadcast. But to me, it was a she had the response ready. She knew she was going to get a question like that, because after that unity speech, that's what a lot of people talked about is why after a unity speech are we going to be doing an impeachment trial in a week or two at the U.S. Senate? And then that's going to divide the country and divide parties, political parties once again in the most extreme way possible. Trust us.

It's the most extreme way possible and easiest way to partisanly divide Congress is by holding an impeachment trial, especially of a President who is now a private citizen. We come back, we'll take your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

Get the team's reaction as well. Support the work of the ACLJ. Donate online at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. We'll be right back.

Music. 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, 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. So here's what Nancy Pelosi is now saying on when the House will deliver the articles of impeachment. Now, I was on Newsmax early this morning, and there was still a chance that these articles, the article, and I keep saying articles the last time, usually there's more than one, but there's only one in this impeachment of a private citizen, would be delivered probably today.

And they might not start until next week, even though they should, they're usually supposed to start at one o'clock the next day, but they might hold it over until like Monday. It's not going to be, they're saying it could only be a three-day trial. Now, I kind of throw that up in the air as, you know, I don't know if that's right or wrong based off making sure the former President would have due process, but of course the whole idea of this impeaching a private citizen, which I kept saying on Newsmax, which is the truth of what this is. Where does the impeachment power end?

And there's a lot of hypotheticals that law professors love to weigh in on. We're going to talk about some of those today on the broadcast, but this is reality of a former President, you know, that they want to bring up. But this is what Nancy Pelosi said, she again being coy and making it tough to predict, which makes it tough to plan for the Trump team as well. So in any event, he's asking, I'm not going to be telling you when it is going, but we had to wait for the Senate to be in session. They've now informed us they're ready to receive. The question is, are there questions about how a trial will proceed?

But we are ready. So she says there that the Senate has informed them that they're ready to receive them. So it could have been, could be today, I guess, but there's a question about how a trial will proceed.

So I think that's the question we still are holding out is, and I'll go to Thanos. I mean, there's been no word on the Senate parliamentarian yet issuing their opinion on whether or not the Senate can actually do an impeachment trial and other business at the same time. Yeah, first of all, Jordan, that statement by the speaker, I think that's a little bit of a delay tactic because the notice from the Senate to the House that they were in session to receive these that happened back on Tuesday. So in theory, she could have moved as soon as Tuesday to send the article over. She has chosen not to. And Jordan, as you know, that's very much like what she did last time.

She waited a long time last time between before sending the article over. But to your point about the parliamentarian's ruling, Jordan, I think there's a little bit of posturing going on here, too, because they're trying to lean on a ruling from the parliamentarian that they can, in the words of President Biden, bifurcate the day and do legislative and executive business in the morning and then move to the impeachment in the afternoon. And Jordan, in theory, while while there's a way to get there and maybe they do get there, that's definitely not the default that's laid out in the Senate impeachment rules. Rule number three and rule number 13 both issue a time for the start.

You mentioned the one o'clock time for after they received the articles. But Rule 13 says that subsequent days, unless the Senate overrides it, it will begin at noon and they will stay in session until they are finished. So, Jordan, they may come up with another way to do this, but I just think it's important to say off the top, that's not the default way that is set out, according to the rules and precedent of the Senate. But is the override, this is the question that we have to override it so that it's just 51 to be able to bifurcate, to be able to not just do the impeachment, is it just 51 votes? It would end up being just 51 votes, Jay, because they would see it as an overruling of the precedent. Yeah, and if it's 50-50 and it's tied, guess what?

The most powerful woman in America makes that decision, Vice President Harris. All right, so here's the thing you've got to look at. They haven't brought them over yet, but as you said this morning, they could come. I was going to tell you, last time they didn't bring them over yet because of the holidays and they wanted to spend a month kind of battering the President with their information.

And they wanted to get ready. Yeah, this was going to be a real trial weeks long in the U.S. Senate. This time around, I feel like, I mean, it's a one article, it's a delay based solely on trying to let Joe Biden get some things done in his cabinet.

But they don't, I think that they know, at least they should know, that the further away they get from this, the less effective this becomes as an argument. Because the further away you get from January 6th, the longer President Trump is, former President Trump, the private citizen, I think is hurting trying to convince 17 Republicans, which I still think is impossible, unless something bizarre happened. By the way, under their analysis, is there anything to prevent the House of Representatives, if it was another party controlling, saying, you know what, we don't like what Jimmy Carter did either on this. Or go through each President had issues and say, you know, we're going to now impeach them and convict them. I mean, Andy, you've looked at the law on this issue of post-presidency impeachments, of which in the history of the United States there has never been one. So there's none. Having said that, there are constitutional scholars on both sides of the argument.

There really are, Jay. I hate to sound like a law professor during the broadcast, but I want to say that I've looked at this in great detail and late impeachment. When I say late impeachment, I mean impeachment after the public officer has left office was indeed considered possible by the framers of the Constitution. The impeachment in 1787, when the constitutional conventions were being convened and the constitutions were being debated, pursuing public officers, offenses committed by public officials, was something that was definitely on the minds of the framers of the Constitution.

Private citizens were exempt from such inquiries except to the extent that they had been public offenders who had since left office. However, the Constitution is silent on the issue. The Constitution neither explicitly authorizes nor explicitly forbids late impeachments.

But one of the scholars that I read very convincingly argues from an analogy to English history and English parliamentary procedure that the text of the Constitution does not foreclose, does not prohibit, in other words, the possibility of late impeachment, Jay. But there was a very interesting statistic, and that is the impeachment of the Secretary of War, Belknap, in 1867. He was acquitted, but it was very interesting what the senator sitting said. The senator, 25 of the 22 senators thought he was guilty.

The 22 of the 25. The 22 of the 25 thought he was guilty, but said the Senate does not have authority to triumph jurisdiction, in other words, because he had already left office. So the majority of the Senate at that point said no jurisdiction.

You know what? It's an unanswered question. It is. And it's a political question I don't think, and we'll talk about this in a minute, I'm not so sure, I don't think the courts weigh in on it.

No. I heard, Jordan, what you said about Leahy saying he's going to punt it over to the Chief Justice to decide who should preside. And I don't, I think the Senate has exclusive jurisdiction.

The House and the Senate have exclusive jurisdiction on impeachment. But the one thing that this doesn't do, let me be clear on this, I'm going to go to Wes on this quickly. This does not bring unity.

Absolutely not. After that speech yesterday. It makes the speech yesterday so hollow and somewhat meaningless.

And two things about this, Jay. Earlier in Nancy Pelosi's statement, she said this must happen because the President is guilty of insurrection. He is no longer the President, he's a private citizen.

If a private citizen is guilty of insurrection, the forum to adjudicate that is a court of law, not the United States Senate. And the second thing is, Alan Dershowitz wrote a great piece in the Wall Street Journal today which he goes back to the Constitution and it says, judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to the removal and disqualification. And Dershowitz says not removal or disqualification because that's their real motive. They want to make sure Donald Trump can't run again. That's the politics of this, right, Jordan? Because he doesn't run again.

Right. It's not, obviously it's not removal because he's already left office. It is making sure he can no longer run for office again. They are that concern, the Democrats. Because I think that's the only reason they would push forward with this in a time when you... Why make Donald Trump the issue right after he's left office when Joe Biden should be the focus and his administration and their plans and their cabinet nominees and their ideas? Why put Donald Trump right back in the spotlight again? Only if you're afraid that Donald Trump could come right back and beat you in the next Presidential election.

That's why. And I think that it does show weakness on the left that they really do believe that they have to do this or try to do this because he poses that big of an electoral threat to them. And this is, again, they're trying to forecast four years down the road. Yeah, which is very difficult to do two months down the road, let alone four years down the road.

But then let me ask you this and get your sense. What I'm hearing is there are four to six, eight maybe, senators that might convict. But there's certainly no indication that there's anywhere near 17, which is what you would need to cross over to have a conviction. So the reality is the President's going to be acquitted. Yeah, I think that's correct, Jay.

That's in the ballpark of what I'm hearing as well. You know, the conversation you're having with Jordan, there's sort of two questions that senators are going to have to answer. One is the justification and the second is whether or not this is prudent and appropriate. And on that second question, Jay, you know, I think it's a very low number of Republicans that think it is either appropriate or prudent. I think they would be willing to take the President up on his offer to seek unity and work on things together. And they know this isn't that. Jay, I would tell you, there's one person in America that can stop this at this point, and that's President Biden. And I agree with Jordan. I think he's made his decision. I think he wants this to proceed.

Yeah, I think you're right. No, I mean, listen, he's had the opportunity to start to weigh in on this for weeks after the election. And to say, since January 6th, to say that I don't think this is the right idea. I mean, I can't control them, but certainly I can let them know that I think this will hurt unity. I think this will impede my administration's ability to get things done and further divide the country. But also further divide the Senate, which is already 50-50.

But if you thought there could be any goodwill with some of those moderate senators or senators that even love President Trump, but aren't going to go along with this post-President left office impeachment of a private citizen, it's just bad. 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, playing 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 Secular Radio. So, you know, this whole idea of trying, I mean, think about this. There's a former President, so, yes, they were a President, but now a private citizen. So can you go back and can Republicans take back the Senate or the House, and can we impeach Barack Obama so he has no secret service? And really, just sully him. You know, spend a week just saying all the horrible things, fast and furious. The IRS targeting.

The IRS targeting of conservatives, which is very Nixon-like. And go through all of that litany. And then maybe convict him, not because we care about him ever running again, but just so that he's impeached, so that he's been sullied, so that he loses his secret service protection. He loses his travel budget. Makes life a lot tougher for Barack Obama.

He's a young guy. Why not? What prevents that? I think it should be is decency.

Whether or not you can or can't do it. The country, putting the country first over people and individuals, that the country's well-being is bigger than you want to attack Donald Trump for three more days. And also, look at the numbers. They didn't do that the first time either. They went through this huge trial. They never were going to have the votes.

Nope. They're going to do that again. That's the irony of all this. Because they can't win. They keep quitting Donald Trump. But they don't understand this. So then Trump comes out, once again, stronger than he was going into this, Wes.

Possibly, yes. Because then they'll say, he wasn't responsible for anything that happened on January 6th. He's been acquitted. He's great. You're wrong for saying that he did that.

And you should have never done that. And now he's got a new platform. Yeah. It actually will strengthen his position. It really will. And they had this, I'm not a psychiatrist, but they had this negative psychological attachment to Donald Trump. I think when this finally is over someday, maybe years, they will really miss the man. The Democrats will. Because who else are they going to whip on?

It's an interesting comment here that comes in from YouTube. The handle TruthSeeker says, these trials aren't cheap for the American taxpayer. How can they say that in the middle of this crisis, this is worth spending the taxpayer's money on? I just said to Jordan during the break, when we were there last time, Andy, it was in the beginning of COVID. We didn't even know it was COVID. And it was very tight quarters and people were sick, including us, and other people were getting sick.

And I'm thinking, how do you even do this? And with the tragedy that went on in Washington just weeks ago, you start this process next week. So you're going to keep the National Guard in place to impeach a President who is no longer President.

That's why it doesn't make sense. I remember sitting in the Senate, Jay, across from you, but I was in front of Rand Paul, who it turns out later had COVID, and I think that I may have gotten it because I was sick after that impeachment. But you put all these factors together, and what Wesley said earlier, it's just keeping Donald Trump, it actually makes him more powerful in many instances, when you think about it, because you've just decided that you're not going to let go. You're just not going to let go. And that's the sad thing about it, because you're not going to get the votes just like you did the last time when we defended him, we're not going to get the votes to impeach.

And you're certainly, once you cannot get the votes to remove from office, you cannot impose the penalty of disqualification, which requires only a majority vote, because you don't reach the threshold. You know, all of this, and coupled with the whole media hysteria of silencing voices you disagree with, CNN's Allison Camerata just asked the President, President Biden's communications chief if they will retaliate against networks like Fox News if they lie. Now, first of all, if they lie, like they're going to be the determination of why don't they retaliate. This is how we're thinking right now.

I'm going to send that to our team and get it so we can play it. Yeah, and I mean, let's go to Scott's call in Colorado on Line 4, because I think everybody saw through, you know, it was a beautiful speech, wonderful speech, and then finally people who were on TV yesterday who were Republicans started speaking up and saying there were a lot of swipes at Republicans in that speech. And there wasn't the hand across, because there's the impeachment hanging over this entire speech. Scott, welcome to Jay Sekio Live, you're on the air.

Yes, guys, hey, thank you for my call. And my comment is yes, yes, we're already seeing a boatload of contradictions. Biden says he wants to unify the country and he wants to clamp down on domestic terrorists and white supremacy, which is just code speak for about 75 million plus Americans. You know, they want to remove the travel ban and yet enforce lockdowns, which doesn't go, and then you want to admit illegals with no way of vetting them for COVID, which is what Biden ran on.

Well, Scott, let me tell you something, those are already been put, it's not like people, they want to, they're doing it. I mean, they're already, those orders have been signed, they're in process, they've been signed and executed. I mean, that travel ban, especially the time of COVID even, so you had that COVID with terrorism was not a Muslim ban, it was a ban on countries that were failed states, so Venezuela is included in that because they could not, those states could not be relied upon those countries to even determine if those people were the real people that were traveling on their country's passport, were they linked to terrorism, were they linked to organized crime, were they linked to gang violence, were they linked to drug trafficking, human trafficking. So we're not going to let those people in off of those passports. If that's the only passport you hold, you're not coming into the United States. And it wasn't, it ended up being a wide variety of states, some were moved off, some were moved on, but that's now changed, that's done.

And you're right on COVID, you see those caravans, I don't see them by wearing masks. And again, this idea that if you get into the United States, we're going to do this blanket amnesty, which he can't do by executive order, they can keep extending DACA out and trying to do that, but then they have to go to court over that and they haven't done great in court over that all the time. And we're prepared for that one. So I mean, yeah, so I think, again, there are part of this that I accept that elections do have consequences.

There's a Democrat President, Democrat house, and a barely Democrat Senate. So I'm not expecting for Joe Biden's unity to be, I'm going to do everything you'd want as a Republican. What I would expect is that if he really meant those words, which he doesn't, but if he really did, he would have squashed this impeachment before that speech. He has, he would have been squashed that before and those words would have meant a lot more to half the country.

Yes. And he has, there is enough legal precedent within the scholarship and within the text of the constitution. There is enough legal mystery in this issue, unanswered, unresolved question that there's not a precedent for, I mean, they've never done it. The most interesting thing to me are the senators that voted on one where there was the belt nap when he was out of office and they said, you know, we think he did it, but we don't think we have the authority to convict him, so we're not going to convict him. That to me kind of speaks volumes in all of this, but there's enough legal cover, if you will, or political cover, if you want to call it that, constitutional protection cover, that Joe Biden can say, hey, look, this is a close question to begin with and I got an administration to where I got to get this country on track.

I got to get these vaccines out. Why are we doing this? Absolutely correct. And I think the power and the moral authority, if nothing else, not necessarily the legal authority of the President to squash the impeachment, but the moral authority of the President can be exercised in this case and people can say, look, uh, and he can say if he wants to and if he, and he should, if he really is interested in unity as he says he is to say, look, it's over with this. Like he said, those were the words he used when he was counting the electoral votes. Jay, uh, when, when Trump became elected President and there were objections, he said, look, look, it's over with. He ought to remember those words that he uttered back in one, was it 2016 and out of them again, look, it's over with. I am looking at a new unity call. I'm looking at a new administration. Stop it. There's also this Biden rule that we're going to talk about when we come back in impeachments that we'll talk about when we come back from the break Jordan.

Yeah, that's right. So we've looked into that as well. The ability for the Senate to just dismiss the charges from the house without going into a whole trial without having to go through this whole charade.

So that's something you could also put pressure, the sense to do, but I don't think any of that happens with Joe Biden encouraging it through his press secretary. 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.

Talking about freedom, talking about freedom, we will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to the second half hour of Sekulow Radio. So we want to get into this a little bit deeper as well. Truth Seeker on YouTube, you wrote in, you know, these trials aren't cheap for the American taxpayer. How can they say that in the middle of a crisis, this is worth spending the taxpayer money on?

They're shutting down the U.S. Senate, even if it's for 90% of the day, instead of working on COVID relief. Well, like I said earlier, the cost of just the proceeding itself and the security and the extra protections. Oh, do you bring in the chief justice? Now he's got to make the decision.

I mean, I get... I don't think he does have to make the decision. No, I think they always want to punt the Senate. They want to punt to their parliamentarian. They want to punt to him, to the chief justice. But this is on their, this is going to be on their doorstep, it appears, very soon unless Nancy Pelosi has some come to Jesus moment, which I don't think she will have unless Joe Biden picks up the phone. That could end it.

Yeah, it could end it immediately. I mean, if the President of the United States calls and says, this is not good for the country, Chuck Schumer could say, you know what, we don't want to interfere with the President's plans. We're not going to do that. As much as we'd like to do this, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, and we think we're guilty, he's guilty, blah, blah, blah. But then you got this whole Biden rule too, which we'll get into, where he's saying you could have all these motions and decide this without anything, right?

You don't have to have a trial that you can, you could go through. And so you want to walk through that where people, when we come back, we will for the break. Can I say one other thing, Jordan, that, you know, what really is the problem here? The loss of the two Senate seats in Georgia.

Yep. That really, that changed the dynamic on all of it. You explained that a little bit because that really changed the dynamic. Obviously, it doesn't mean that it's that much easier to convict because you'd still need 17 Republicans to convict you. And so you would have needed those, I guess, maybe 19 to convict instead.

So it makes it a little bit harder, but it's still pretty hard to convict. But what it's done is taken the power out of people like Mitch McConnell, who may have been very mad at the President, said he's very mad at the President, but I think still could have been convinced if he was majority leader, but he's not now, that this is wrong. This is not good Senate precedent.

He's big on that. So we don't want to start this precedent of just impeaching people who are no longer serving in office. They are private citizens. For all intents and purposes, yes, it's different when you're a former President. But in a sense, it'd be impeaching, it is impeaching a private citizen. Where is their jurisdiction there?

Do you want to start testing that? Because as we were talking about, Dad, you know, let's say they did somehow get to those 17 numbers. Let's, hypothetically, that's where our lawyers, we like hypotheticals.

Technically they impeach the President. You know what, first thing you do, you take it right to the courts. Because there is no answer from the courts on this. The problem with that is, and we've been looking at that.

And I don't think he gets to 17 unless some bizarre thing happens. I'm also not convinced the courts would hear it, period. I really think, and he's been really looking, he read five law review articles yesterday, it's the courts really don't like impeachment. In 1963, in Nixon versus United States, the Supreme Court of the United States said the judiciary, and in particular the Supreme Court, has no role in impeachments. There was a concurring opinion by Justice Souter that said, well, maybe if they do things that are really crazy, we'll step in, but otherwise we're not going to be involved. But this might be the really crazy. The President that's not serving.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that could be, but this is a very reluctant court. You rely on the fact that 17 Republicans, 17 Republicans probably aren't going to vote for impeachment. They might get a handful, might even get... What does it look like? I mean, Stan, you said this in the first half hour, we got other people joining us now. I mean, what does it look like? We're hearing anywhere from four to 10.

Yeah, way short of 17 and getting shorter every day for the reasons that you're outlining. Look, I mean, I think, you know, two months ago there might've been senators that were going to sit there and listen to the arguments and then make a ruling, but guess what? He's no longer the President. It's going to be very, very difficult to convince senators of his party who, by the way, were open to the arguments initially that he's living in Florida now. It's still the pressing duty of the United States Senate to consider this. By the way, when we're in the middle of a pandemic, I think maybe that's where they should be focused.

Yeah. So in 1999, Senator Joseph Biden, now President, wrote a memo, arguments in support of a summary impeachment trial, wrote it to the Democrat caucus in 1999, how they don't have to even have a trial, they can call it. There's the Biden rule is also included within here.

We'll talk about that. When we come back from the break, could they just say, let's vote on it and, uh, let's see where that falls. So you don't have to hear, you know, Eric Swalwell and Jamie Braskin who did what Ted Cruz and Holly did for, for, for, for 48 hours. 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. This is interesting. We're going to stay a bit on this because then you said there's already an example of how this impeachment is impeding the work of the U S Senate. Yeah.

Pretty stark example. People are watching these nomination hearings, uh, for President Biden's, uh, nominees. What they're seeing is Republicans chairing those hearings, Jordan.

Yeah, you heard it right. Republicans are chairing these hearings and the reason for that is leader Schumer is now the majority leader of the United States Senate, but they're so caught up on arguing about the procedures of a pending impeachment and the other organizing resolutions. They have not been able to come to agreement. So Jordan, on many of these committees, it's the ratios from the last Congress, which has Republicans occupying the most seats in committees, uh, that is holding and Republicans continue to chair these hearings. So look, I only say that Jordan to say, if I'm President Biden, I want this to be over so that I can truly have the Senate. They don't truly have the Senate at this moment.

No. And they haven't come to the agreement over how they say, I heard that like maybe they were going to split up the committee assignments cause it's so it's basically, it is divided to, so maybe the Democrat would chair it, but the votes would be the same. So yeah, that, that has been on the table and both leader Schumer and leader McConnell were open to that. So you might see an even split among committees. Of course the chairmanship would go to the Democrats. There's also the question Jordan of who can call up bills. I can guarantee you leader Schumer's not going to give away a whole lot of authority in that regard. Uh, but look, you, you know this when it comes to reporting nominees out of hearings with favorable recommendations, if you have 10 Republicans and nine Democrats and a very controversial nominee until that organizing resolution is passed, that will make a big difference Jordan. Yeah.

I mean, so here again, you're seeing Joe Biden's administration being impeded by Donald Trump. Think about that for a minute. I mean, just think about that for a minute. They came to what he said, which is that obsession. Okay, go ahead Wes. Yeah.

Yeah. They are obsessed with it and it is affecting Biden's administration in a very critical time. Uh, as I said earlier though, during the break, even if some senators, they're, they're practical. Many of them, even if they decide it's constitutional, we can actually try a President on an impeachment charge. I think some of those same senators will say it's not prudent that this will needlessly divide the country and it will take away from the things that Joe Biden wants to get done in these first few months that is an office. So I don't see it coming to a conviction. I think there are a lot of senators who had rather simply dismiss it.

I wonder if this is the question that I have. The truth is if you look at, and Andy has, like I said, Andy has looked at the scholars. When you look at the scholarship, and you could argue it this way, you can argue it that way. But then if you put in what was the saying, the practicality, and then if you're Joe Biden trying to get your people to even share the committees, you put all of that in the end, COVID, okay. You put all of that in the mix and don't you say to yourself for the sake of the country, this is not worth doing and we do have a legitimate constitutional basis for saying no.

You do. And, and take, and Joe Biden should take a page out of his 1999 memorandum to the democratic caucus. And I quote, the framers did not mean that this political process, meaning impeachment, was to be a partisan process. Instead, they meant for it to be political in the higher, and that's in quote sense, the process was to be conducted in a way that would best secure the public interest or in their phrase, quote, the general welfare.

That's Joe Biden in 1999 to the democratic caucus. General welfare here would begin on with the business of government and not do this, not impeach a President who's no longer in office. Yeah, I mean reinvigorate, I just don't understand why Democrats think it's smart to put back down, put Donald Trump back in the spotlight, likely lose the vote. So he's exonerated again, your first President to be impeached twice, but also first President to be acquitted twice. What does that tell you about the Democrats?

And then puts him back in the spotlight as someone who they were trying to blame for all this violence, which they could keep doing without impeachment, but if he's acquitted from it, then no, he wasn't responsible. If you know you're not going to win, okay, they did it last time because they knew they weren't going to win also, and it was a much different case, it was much more complex, there was a lot of issues, and the President was running for reelection. Now the President is not the President anymore. The election is over, it is done, it is finished.

Joe Biden is the President, we have vice President Harris, that's what we have. Why in the world would you now take up the time and effort to bring back to life, so to speak, the very person you're saying you want to make a footnote in history? And you're not making them a footnote. No, you're making them a book. Yes, the first one impeached, and then all of the legal scholars that will weigh in on impeachment posts.

They already are. Yeah, but now it'll be a reality, impeachment post holding office when you've already gone, you've served your term. And by the way, January 6th to January 20th, they kept saying, well, we don't have time, we don't have time, we can't do this. Those are Senate rules. The Constitution doesn't say you have to take three weeks from the House to the Senate and the Senate has to wait. It was, again, a decision as well to think, well, we should wait until the Democrats take over the Senate.

But again, they had time actually to do a removal. It was their own rules that stopped it, not the Constitution. I'm going to throw this one in. I think that would have failed, by the way, that vote would have failed too. Let me ask this.

I mean, I'll start with Than on this because this is the kind of thing that's hitting my mind. Why are they not trying to get the... They got the two Georgia Senate seats.

So why wouldn't they immediately be trying to move to that? It's a political calculus and I think there's one more reason. If I'm now the majority, in the sense that I've got the tie-breaking vote, so understand this everybody, Vice President Harris is the most powerful woman in the United States. Not just because she's vice President, but because she's President Harris when it comes to the Senate. She's the presiding officer of the Senate.

So she's the most powerful person next to the President, obviously, but it's an unbelievable role when you've got a 50-50 Senate. Why would I waste time letting Republicans stay in leadership positions when in fact I have the majority? Well I think it's a catastrophic political mistake, Jay, but I think the reason is two-fold. One you've discussed at length and that is to seek revenge against the outgoing President and keep him from running again, but Jay, we've seen the second reason I think they're doing this before. It's political overreach and trying to paint the entire party with one broad brush and inflict political pain on every office holder that shares the party of President Trump. Jay, I really think this is as much about 2022 as it is about 2024, but look, in the meantime, Chairman Wicker is chairing the hearing right now for the nomination of Pete Buttigieg to be transportation secretary. That's the price they're paying for focusing on the political ramifications rather than the governing apparatus. But here's what I don't understand.

I have this picture and I'll bring it in tomorrow. It's Donald Trump holding up the Washington Post that says acquitted. If they go to trial next week and the trial takes three days and they then come to the verdict on Thursday, it's going to be acquitted.

So again, the headline in the Washington Post and the New York Times has got to be Trump acquitted again. So what, again, so what does that help the Democrats? I think that they, again, they're not going to borrow him from running again.

They're making him the leader again, right? And I don't know if they have some weird calculation that they're so worried about him that they think that enough Republicans want to run for President in the Senate because they all want to be President of the Senate, let's be honest. Most of those senators do, not all, many. And Joe Biden is an example of that, spending his whole life running for President, finally finally got the nomination and won. But again, is that what they're hoping is that you got enough guys to say, I got to get Donald Trump and his apparatus out of the way? Because again, that doesn't give you to 17. It doesn't get you to 17. And let me tell you something, whatever argument's made, it's going to be going right to those 17 that you think are most vulnerable because you know that the most Republicans are not even considering it. And by the way, they keep saying, well, Mitch McConnell, he could carry all these votes. I don't think so anymore. I'll tell you this also.

I mean, if you don't look at just pure political calculation, I've only got two minutes left in the segment, a pure political calculation, Donald Trump, whatever you think of how he handled this or handled that, I think everybody here would acknowledge there's probably not another Republican that would have gotten 75 million votes. No. Okay. So that's number one.

So number three- In the middle of COVID? No way. No. Brought a lot of people into the party that were probably didn't even, were not either politically engaged or did not support the Republicans previously. So if you're the Republican party, also you got to be thinking to yourself, I've got to retool in a post-Trump world. Okay.

I get that. And Donald Trump obviously is still a big force, but you know, whether he'll run for President or not in four years, that's a long time. So I've got to still operate.

I've got to reformulate myself, but I don't want to lose, right, Than? I don't want to lose 75 million people. Yeah. I mean, that's a question to leader McConnell right now. And if you were trying to get his vote, Jay, the last thing you would do is make a mockery of the Senate process because look, you can make fun of the United States Senate all you want. And you know what?

They honestly deserve some of that. But if there is one person in the United States that cares about the institution of the United States Senate and wants to make sure that it has clout going forward, it's Mitch McConnell. This was the worst possible way, I would say, not only to get his vote on a conviction, but anybody he would try to convince. Jay, I think the window of him trying to convince other people to convict, I think that's already gone out. All right, folks, we will continue to take your phone calls. Get those calls in now, 1-800-684-3110 to answer questions. Warren in Idaho, you'll be up next. We get back from this break. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. You know, we're focusing in on this issue because it could be very real for the country next week.

I mean, next week, I don't think it'll be a three-week-long impeachment trial, but it's certainly going to come at a time when people are still very divided and not really over the election. 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. 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. So I want to go right to the phones, Warren in Idaho has been holding on, Warren, welcome to Secular Radio, you're on the air. Well thank you for taking my call, and first of all, God bless you guys and what you're doing, we appreciate it out here. And looking at everything going on, especially in the Senate, like you guys are saying this morning, now's the time to really push, like the Democrats did, to get out in two years and vote these people out of office, to clear the Senate, to clear the House and get the power back. Most of these, so many of them are octogenarians and they need out anyway, besides term limits, they're just old.

Well there's not a mandatory age of retirement, but you know, you raised the point, look, in a year you're going to be back into election mode, we're 12 months away from elections for the House. Now, the Republicans have a decent shot at the House, right? A decent shot at the House and the Senate because Warnock is up again in two years. The question is what happens with Georgia. Well I don't know, but it's two years, you put together a better candidate, it's again, he doesn't get that six years to kind of establish himself in the state with the work he does at the state level too. It's a very quick turn, he's basically like a House member turned, so he's going to have to be, he's probably already campaigning again as we speak already. So yeah, I mean, you look at the Senate, you look at the House, some of it will depend on again the candidates chosen, and some of it's going to come down to what role President Trump decides he wants to play.

That's the truth. But I think it is a reality that for those who care deeply about where our nation is going, we have an opportunity to put a stop gap in the Biden administration very quickly, in two years. Have we seen yet, the stop gap would go in place, you got to get ready for it to make it happen now. Have we seen the rollback of the Mexico City policy already or is that tomorrow? It's supposed to be later this week, Jay, they have a whole agenda, a whole calendar laid out and they're trying to message around them. So it hasn't happened yet, but it is coming. You're going to see the most pro-abortion policies you've seen since Barack Obama, maybe more so.

Yeah, it's on their calendar, this is like the 29th, 28th, 28th of January. So he's got like a calendar of these executive orders. Yeah, it's going to be the most pro-abortion President who doesn't talk about it, he'll try to say he hates abortion, Joe Biden, but he is going to be pushed and pushed. I think the example is clear, I think the Keystone Pipeline was clear. Trudeau, one of the Keystone Pipeline, okay, he's not some hard right guy in Canada.

The tribes came around because of the compensation that was made and figured out the problem, and the labor units. And he's sticking with what the far left, AOC, and the former boss he had, Obama. But just because Obama won, it doesn't mean that four years later, it's the right decision still. But that's how stuck he is in putting in the same policies that don't work, and the same plan, and the Paris Climate Accord, which just costs us money, which doesn't help the climate at all.

Because to help the climate at all, you need to go into China, and India, and Russia. Make them comply with half of what you have to comply with. They're saying they're not going to even comply for 10 years, that's their agreement. 10 or more.

I think they get longer than that if you're a developing country still. They're the ones that are mass polluters now. If you look around at the air in America, it's not like it was in the 70s or 80s. No. Let me go back to the... I want to go back to the impeachment, though.

Yeah. Andy, if you were going to make the pitch on the floor of the Senate on why this should not proceed, what would you say? I would say that, first of all, the Senate does not have jurisdiction. The President is no longer in office.

The President has left office. I would further say that the Senate would be pursuing a person, and it would be, as I read in one law review article the other day, analogous to marking President Trump with a bill of attainder. What is a bill of attainder? A bill of attainder is basically a curse on a person without due process of law to prevent him or his line from ever succeeding to... in England, from ever succeeding to the nobility or to the peerages. And that's exactly what this is. And that was really on the focus of the framers of the Constitution, Jay, was anything to prevent a mark on a person, and that's called a bill of attainder. And that's what one of the law professors I read very convincingly argued, that that's really what you're trying to do here. The Constitution prohibits bill of attainder.

Absolutely. I mean, that's how... I mean, we don't... There may be a term people don't know a lot about, but you learn about it in law school is what that was. It's basically like this... yeah, it's you and your generations. It's like this letter... you're frozen out. And our founding fathers didn't want people to be frozen out. And it's different if you were acting in a way that was impeachable, and there were the votes there. There have never been the votes there, by the way. Founding fathers made it so tough to actually convict someone of impeachment, no President has been convicted.

I mean, that's the truth. They made it that tough to even take that action, which is, again, to me, it just shows you how wrong this move is for our country. Even if you don't like Donald Trump, even if you think what he did was wrong and removable from office, he's not in office anymore. And why do you want, if you're a Biden supporter, okay, go ahead, make Donald Trump, who half the country voted for, and it still was a close election and a weird election, so let's go have the election in four years where there's no mail-in ballots, because there's no COVID, and we go back to the same where you've got to wait in line three hours to vote, and we'll see.

You really want to do that? You want to prop him up like that, because you're going to acquit him again because of your actions by Eric Swalwell, Jamie Raskin, who did what, which I would also point out on the floor, that Jamie Raskin made the same kind of statements about the election in 2016 that the President did and voted not to certify the election, and he's the lead impeachment guy. They're never very good at picking out. They pick out the most unlikeable people, Adam Schiff.

Why in the world did they do that? Why did they pick Jamie Raskin, who is voted against certification in 2016? Using that same language as the President that was wrong, that was stolen and all that, that they're trying to blame him for. That's the guy they put in charge of impeachment. He's the number one guy. To be assisted by Eric Swalwell.

Who's got a Chinese spy scandal. Right. That's when you realize. Republican senators look at them and say, I'm not voting for this. That's what the Republicans should do. Just like they're not voting for Adam Schiff.

Well, go ahead, Wes. Yeah, irony is lost on these people. It truly is lost on them. And again, back to President Biden, if he was a real leader, he could stop this. My concern about President Biden, and I wish him well, he's never been an executive. He's a legislator and a vice President. He changes his opinions with the political winds. He agrees with the last progressive person he talked to.

But a real leader would stand up and say enough and, and put some real actions in with his call for unity that he articulated yesterday. Fan, really quick, likely any more developments on the likelihood of one of these articles? She was very vague this morning, Nancy Pelosi. She was very vague. She did say in the next few days, Jay, I think by early next week, they will be sent.

I think they want to make sure the first few nominees get across the line just to make sure that those don't stall out. I just tell you this though, Jay, you can't simultaneously say these are unprecedented challenges facing us. Oh, but by the way, we're not going to address those yet. We're going to move to impeachment.

You can't say both those things at the same time. All right, folks, we'll continue to follow this. Check out ACLJ.org as well. We continue to analyze this. We'll be ready to go as well if this moves forward. And we're trying to provide you news that you're not, in analysis, you're not going to get anywhere else. And that's kind of, again, if you're newer to our, to our broadcast, those of you who have listened before knew that's what we would be doing under this new kind of administration. Is this kind of news you're not going to get the focus on.

You might get the five minutes on cable news, but you're not going to get the down and the details. So we try to educate you so that you know more than just talking points is what we try to do on Secular Radio, support the work of the ACLJ and ACLJ.org, talk to you tomorrow. 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.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-01-01 13:03:47 / 2024-01-01 13:28:50 / 25

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime