Does the Senate Have Authority to Try Second Impeachment?

Today on Secular Radio, the House impeaches President Trump for the second time, but this time around, does the Senate even have authority to try him? We'll talk about all of that today on Secular Radio. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Secular Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

And now, your host, Jordan Secular. So as you saw yesterday, President Trump impeached again by the House of Representatives. It was about the quickest impeachment I think probably in U.S. history because you had only two hours of debate and they stuck to those two hours of debate.

They had no hearings before it. It was just one article of impeachment. And as we predicted, earlier reports were that there could be up to 20, 25 Republicans joining this impeachment effort.

It ended up being only 10. And really the only name there was Liz Cheney because she is the third ranking Republican in leadership, at least for the time being. We'll see if she retains that role because of some of the backlash against her trying to lead a charge that obviously did not garner a lot of significant support. In fact, I only recognized one other name of those members of Congress and that was Congressman Fred Upton from Michigan who has never been a fan of President Trump.

So not surprising there. The others were just kind of names, random members of Congress, not leadership, not people you hear from a lot. And so that is a kind of a signal then of what's to happen in the Senate if there is, and that's what we're talking about today, if there even is a Senate trial. Because Mitch McConnell clearly stated, and I'll read it, given the rules, procedures and Senate Presidents that govern Presidential impeachment, there's simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President Biden is sworn in next week. The Senate has held three Presidential impeachment trials.

They've lasted 83 days, 37 days and 21 days respectively. Even if the Senate process were to begin this week and move promptly, no final verdict would be reached until after President Trump had left office. That is key. That is key because there's a lot of discussion amongst senators and we've been checking in with these offices and they just aren't sure whether or not the Senate could even have this trial. Now, Chuck Schumer says they're going to, so you might have to challenge it in court. The President, and it will be the former President at that time, would bring a legal challenge in court potentially. And then you talk about whether or not 100 days from now the Senate still has the kind of instinct to want to do this trial and put everything else on hold, especially if the parliamentarian comes back and says, no, you can't split your time. If you're going to do an impeachment trial, that's what you're going to do. Unfortunately, once the impeachment is hammered in, once they gavel it in, that's it. That's all the Congress, the Senate can deal with during that time period.

But here's what's also interesting. Mike Ludig is a former judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Let me just read the first paragraph of what he wrote. He said, it appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-elect Biden has become President on January 20th. The Senate trial would be unconstitutional. Thus, if the Senate trial is unconstitutional, whatever happens in that Senate trial would be academic. It would be an academic point because it would have no legal significance.

So the constitution now, and by the way, Tom Cotton has said that, Lindsey Graham has said that, Ben Sasse, I believe, has raised that issue last week. He did say, he's just not even sure if they- They have the jurisdiction. Yeah.

If you're allowed to do that. The first thing in court that you have to have, I'll go to Andy really quickly on this, is jurisdiction. And in the Senate, the first thing they have to have is jurisdiction.

Yeah. The first thing that any court looks at is whether it has jurisdiction to entertain a motion or a trial or whatever the proceeding is. And the other thing you got to have is a defendant. And they don't have a defendant if you don't have an incumbent President. Well, that's another good way of looking at it too.

Yes. I mean, this is a private citizen being impeached. I don't know that that's, I don't read the constitution that way. It says officers, it says the President, it says the vice President, doesn't say former. And by the way, it is the Senate's own rules, as Mitch McConnell pointed out, that have caused it to take that amount of time. The constitution didn't say it had to, but their own rules do.

So they don't have the time to do it between now and when President elect Biden is sworn in. So again, I think there's a lot to talk about here. Give us a call.

1-800-684-3110. 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, 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.

Welcome back to Secular Radio. And so let's just set the stage for you. So yesterday, the President, it is historic in the sense that he is the first President to be impeached by the House twice. Remember the first time he was acquitted.

And I would say that right now, if I was betting he would be acquitted the second time as well, if a trial ever comes to fruition. And that's because there is a serious now constitutional debate, maybe crisis, you might want to call it, over whether or not the Senate, and I'll just read to you what Senator Tom Cotton wrote, and his statement he just put out today. The House has passed an article of impeachment against the President, but the Senate, and I keep saying this, under its rules and precedent cannot start and conclude a fair trial before the President leaves office next week. Under these circumstances, the Senate lacks constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings against a former President. The founders designed the impeachment process as a way to remove officeholders from public office, not an inquest against private citizens. The Constitution presupposes an office from which an impeached officeholder can be removed. President Trump can't be removed once this trial begins.

He's already done with his term of office. And that's how impeachment begins. That secondary punishment they keep focusing in on that you can also then take a vote to ban them from ever seeking federal office again is a secondary.

That's not the primary. That's once you have a judgment. That's after you've been impeached and convicted. But before you get to impeachment and conviction, you have to have the ability to have him tried. And the Constitution to me seems very straightforward on this.

And I mean, I like what Tom Cotton said, but I also like again what Judge Lutig said. And that is, and we're going to hold fidelity to the Constitution here. The idea of impeachment, as Jordan said, is the removal of office of someone that has offended the Constitution or the oath of office, high crime or misdemeanor. But before you can do that, you actually have to be able to remove them from office.

Here, the President, President Trump, the 45th President of the United States, will be out of office by the time this starts. Because if this is not the case that you could just impeach any President at any time later on in life, well, why couldn't they go back and say, I want to impeach, you know, George Bush or I want to re-impeach Bill Clinton. What would be the, Harry Hutchison, our director of policy, what would be the, what would be the guardrail on that under this theory?

There would be no constitutional guardrail. And this whole exercise is driven by deeply embedded animus. And to some extent it is designed to harm, not necessarily President Trump, but Trump supporters. And so one of the things I think the Democrats fear is a resurrected Trump, not necessarily running for office again, but being a major influence on US politics going forward. And so that is one of the reasons why they're adamantly pressing forward with this particular impeachment. And that is why many Democrats seek a trial. And that's why Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer was trying to get an agreement for them to come back in session right now to avoid what, what I think Chuck Schumer knows is a significant constitutional hurdle they have to get over.

Yes. And then even Mitch McConnell said to that, that even if we did that, it still wouldn't have time. I mean, we're talking less than a week here, folks. They're not going to do it in a full impeachment trial based off the precedents they've set. Now that's not mandated by the constitution, but that's by Senate precedent, Senate, Senate rules that they just don't have the time to do it. And it's, again, that's not the President's fault. That's, Congress decided to move forward with this form of punishment to the President at the house level knowing good and well that there was no precedent to try a former President, that the Senate would lose jurisdiction, that Congress would then lose jurisdiction. And, and then I think, you know, it brings that question of, of, of again, the impeachment by the house means nothing unless you are convicted by the Senate, you know, and you saw yesterday, they, I think they actually have taken the impeachment down to like, it's like almost like a censure or less. Yeah.

How fast that moved was so absurd. And so, so partisan again, with only 10 Republicans joining and they were upward, they were up to like 20 ish, but they came out there and they've started doing the whole, let's blame all Republicans. And everybody, I, I said it, I heard it, others repeat this later in the day.

I don't know if they heard me say it first, but I, I said it right on this radio broadcast. I said that impeached me yesterday was an impeachment of everybody who voted for President Trump. And that's why I think you only got 10 Republicans on there is because it was like an impeachment of, of the Republican party or those who voted for President Trump, by the way, out of those 74, most 75 million people, it was a very small number who were at the Capitol. You know, most people are just normal folks who voted for President Trump because they liked the policies he was had in place.

They liked the, the, the people he put in place, foreign policy, domestic policy, and how he was handling the economy and affairs of the country. They were not the protesters. They don't show up at rallies.

They don't show up at even his rallies and they don't, they didn't show up at the U S Capitol to invade it. But yet it was felt like we were all being impeached, right? Like if you ever associated with President Trump and that I think drove Republicans away, made this more partisan again and makes it less likely that there will, even if they had a trial, which I think is a huge question, I don't think they should, I don't think they have the ability to do it.

I think it's unconstitutional. I think they'd lose jurisdiction the moment President Trump leaves office and Joe Biden is sworn in and that's it. The Senate doesn't have jurisdiction anymore. And they're, they're looking for ways around this, including Joe Biden trying to say, well, let me split time.

Half the day we'll impeach, have an impeachment trial and half the day we will, uh, we will do regular business of the Senate, like confirming his nominees and legislation. Well, there's no precedent for that. So the parliamentarian didn't come back quickly with an answer.

Uh, I wish they would have quickly come back. He said no, but, uh, but maybe that's just because they are putting together well-reasoned a response, hopefully, uh, to why, uh, you cannot do that. And, uh, under the current precedent and Senate rules, I want to play, uh, professor Jonathan Turley was asked on Fox news this morning about this whole issue.

And I'm going to have Andy and Harry comment about set up the question. Once we take a listen to what Jonathan Turley said, There's obviously a lot of questions about whether or not chief justice, John Roberts would preside over a figure who has left office. Do you have an answer to that?

I do not. We are well into the land of the unknown. I mean, it is going to get even more bizarre once the President leaves office, you will be trying to remove a President who's already left. It's, it's like grounding a plane that's landed. Yeah. So here's, here's the thing. I mean, their argument would be, well, you're grounding a plane that's landed, but you're going to now permanently ground it. Um, I guess that's what the argument on the other side is, but I think what Jonathan Turley said is right. And what Mike Ludig is saying is right.

And what Tom Cotton has said is right. And that is how do you do this constitutionally? And I don't think you can.

No, you don't. Look, the idea of impeachment, it says, shall not extend further than to removal from office. That's what the constitution says. If you look at the constitution, as I like to do occasionally and read the text as it was a good idea to do, if you don't have a President who is an incumbent office holder and you receive articles of impeachment, you can't try an empty chair.

You cannot do that. If the remedy that you are seeking in a trial is removal from office, then the incumbent has been removed and is no longer an incumbent. He's out of office.

What are you trying to do at that point? Pass a bill of attainder so that to make him, uh, uh, anathema because of the fact that he was impeached, you can't do that. And impeachment is an indictment. That's all it is. It's a charge. In order to charge, to try on a charge, you got to have a defendant and you have to have jurisdiction. If the remedy is to remove him from office, guess what? He's gone. Who are you trying?

What are you trying to achieve? It's unconstitutional in my opinion, Harry. I think Andy is precisely correct. In addition to which, of course, the remedy that the Democrats seek in this particular case, that is to prevent President Trump from ever seeking office again, is inconsistent with the language of the constitution, which provides for what? The removal from office. If he has already left, then you cannot punish the President.

That's number one. But number two, you have to deal with a huge threshold issue, which is can you actually bring a trial in the first instance? And that would be a question in the first instance for Justice Roberts. Uh, does he indeed have a trial to preside over? And secondarily, even assuming the Senate overrules Justice Roberts, uh, I think the defendant in this particular case, President Trump, would still have a plausible argument for the entire Supreme Court.

Yeah. I think it could end up there. I mean, I think that I think a motion to dismiss, I guess you'd lodge it with the chamber. They rule on it one way or another. And then if it was 50 50 wouldn't be, I think they would get, I don't know. It's very hard to tell. I mean, I don't know.

Yeah. I mean, it's, again, this is why the Senate, uh, well really the house put the Senate in a situation that again will drag the country through another debate. Um, that will not be settled by January 20th when Joe Biden takes the oath of office that will be, could be late into the Biden administration's first term talking about like the first hundred days and we're still talking about Donald Trump and whether or not they're going to impeach him and they're going to bring him back to the forefront, which I think they don't have the constitutional authority to do.

And if they try, we'll just make Donald Trump that much more influential in American politics. Taking your calls when we come back on secular radio. 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. 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 again, you know, Kathy on Facebook wrote, can the Senate pass relief bills for the people or would they have to complete the trial before handling other business? I mean, I think the question is this. It depends on when the House delivers the articles. Some have talked about saying, well, maybe they'll just wait a hundred days so they could do what you're saying, Kathy, and they can try President Trump a hundred days so that you get the nominees for the cabinet confirmed and get, you know, Joe Biden off to a start. So he's got to start with working on legislation and getting his people in place and maybe pass the relief bills like you've talked about for the COVID relief bills and larger packages for that. The problem is if the House waits a hundred days, so over three months, three and a half months from the time they impeached to deliver, the President has been out of office then about 120 days at that point. Where is their jurisdiction to try? I think it disappears.

I think it dissolves. I think the further you get away from the President leaving office, it is even that much more difficult because where's the urgency? The impeachment is supposed to have urgency around it. It's supposed to be like, we've got to get rid of this person. They've committed high crimes or misdemeanors. We must get rid of this person.

Now they're already gone and you're not even going to try them until it's a hundred plus days after. But this is the problem. See, I think they're risking is the American people backlash saying you're going to do this instead of the people's backlash. You're going to try an ex-President, now a private citizen of the United States instead of doing the work of the people. That's going to hurt Joe Biden.

That's going to hurt Democrats more than it is the minority Republicans in the House and Senate. You have to have in the law subject matter jurisdiction to have a case preside. Now Lindsey Graham lays out a real issue about due process also. Let me play this and then we'll tie in the due process and the subject matter jurisdiction.

There's Lindsey Graham. We had an impeachment in 24 hours without a witness, without a lawyer, without a, without a real trial, without a real hearing. Now what's the trial going to look like? We're going to impeach Donald Trump after he's out of office. If we go along with it as Republicans, we will destroy the Republican party. If we do it as a Senate, I think over time we'll destroy the presidency.

I want you to listen to what Senator Graham said, destroy the presidency. Because if you could do this, the threat of this over any administration that at any time during their life, I mean maybe they can do it posthumously. Can they, can they impeach a President after he's deceased? I mean because there's no jurisdiction because the, as you said, Andy, impeaching the President is to remove, you do it to remove him from office.

That's right. Professor Hutchison I said, said that very well just now. Are we going to impeach Clinton again or how about, let's impeach Jimmy Carter?

That's a good idea. Let's go back and impeach Jimmy Carter for high crimes and misdemeanors and things that he did, having been out of office now for 46 years. That's a ridiculous thing. Look, the minute Joe Biden puts his hand down and says, so help me God, the jurisdiction over Donald Trump and the Senate is over with.

That's it. He is no longer the President. You can't remove him from office. Your jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person is gone.

You don't have a defendant. Both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are lacking and the harm it could do to the Senate as well. I think that's where it all comes in. And Harry, the thing, you know, from a policy standpoint, it just sends up, you know, you're our director of politics, sets up a dangerous precedent.

Absolutely. And I think it also suggests that the House and Senate, instead of doing the people's business, might refocus their attention on rewriting history. So for instance, the House and the Senate, they could go out and impeach LBJ or Richard Nixon. They passed away, but we want to clean up the historical record and then we would have a conviction or potentially a conviction.

But then there's a problem. Where is the defendant and can he or she raise a defense from the grave? But I think at the end of the day, the Democrats really don't care about these long term issues, these long term policy questions. They are so struck with what might still be called the Trump derangement syndrome that they want to extract vengeance. And I think vengeance typically backfires on the individual who attempts to go down that road. And lastly, let me point out, I think this would actually help resurrect the political career of President Trump because he would look more and more like a martyr.

And if you look at his history in business, he has made several comebacks over time. And I think in the long run, this might indeed backfire on the Democrats and help President Trump. I tend to think Harry's right, Jordan. I think that this is fraught with peril.

They're trying to make some point. I think it's going to hurt Biden. I think it's going to hurt the presidency. I think the President will be acquitted.

I think there's no jurisdiction to begin with. And this is another one of these, you know, the man's leaving office. What's the point? They're going to say the point is to bar him from life. But you weren't successful when you tried to do that, which was a year ago when there was a real impeachment trial.

This is like trying him after he's gone. I don't get it. No. And I want to go to Shirley's call. She's been holding on. Shirley in Michigan on line three. Hey, Shirley, welcome to JCQ live. Hi.

Thank you. Millions of conservatives like me supported President Trump's policies. I mean, we wish he had more of a filter when he speaks, but we supported his policies. It was a slap in the face to us for House Republicans, including Fred Upton from Michigan, to vote for impeachment. They now risk being primaried.

Why would they do that? You know, I think that this was the group who thinks they want to take that, like Liz Cheney, who, you know, stood with the President the first impeachment and thought that was absolutely wrong. But yet was okay with this Russia impeachment. They think politically for the Republican Party, it's better to distance from President Trump. Now, when you only get 10 House Republicans out of, you know, 100 and something to do it, you're not distancing. That's not the Republican Party distancing. So I do think, I think Liz Cheney's probably put her leadership role in question. It's certainly there could be challenges to that. That'll be up to the Republican caucus.

That'll be up to people like Kevin McCarthy and others about whether or not they're comfortable with her. They didn't whip the vote, so they didn't say we need to vote this way. So I'm not sure that they'll be able to easily remove her from that position because that wasn't like they didn't say they said kind of vote your conscience on this because it was such a quick move.

And I think that's because it was looking more like 20 ish. And then quickly, if you heard those speeches and you saw who they appointed, Jamie Raskin, who for goodness sakes voted against the certification of the 2016 election of Donald Trump's vote. And he's calling that insurrection now and, and, and, uh, and calling on Ted Cruz and, you know, Josh Holly to be, you know, put on no fly list and resigned. Um, uh, but he did the same thing in 2016. So he's leading it. Uh, and then you've got Eric Swalwell with the spy.

Uh, he's on the team and Ted Lou, who's one of their most, just nastiest attack dogs. They mess their hole. And so then Republicans look at it and say, okay, wait, this is just to attack Republicans and to damage Republicans and conservatives. It's bigger than Trump. It's about taking down the Republican party. That's why I said it was an impeachment of everybody who's a Republican. It wasn't just an impeachment of President Trump. We got a question on YouTube.

I'm going to answer it quickly. It says, would the President be afforded white house lawyers if he wanted them since it's the office of the presidency? The answer is no. Once he's out of office, he does not have a white house council. Yeah.

So I mean, that also brings into question of course, why, how can you do an impeachment when the President doesn't have the white house to defend him? Just think about these things. We'll be back. Second, if I were coming up 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, DC, Jay Sekulow Live.

And now your host Jordan Sekulow. So just to kind of reiterate what we've been saying is that this impeachment was an impeachment of all Republicans. And thus even though there were 10 Republicans that supported it, initially it was looking like 20, 25. And I think already you're starting to see the US Senate dwindling support for this among. So it does not look like they have votes to actually convict if they ever even could have the trial, which is what we've been talking about as well. And this goes to my point. Listen to Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Obviously their messaging was exactly what we said. Let's make this about impeaching Republicans across the country. Not just elected officials, but you. You the voter. You who may have voted for President Trump or Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz or Republicans in your state.

Listen to this, Bite 33. The Republican Party is now the Trump Party. And I want you to know that this is a Trump power grab that will not stop. It will not stop with attacking the Capitol and our state legislatures. This President intends to exercise power long after he is out of office.

First of all, that statement is fundamentally incorrect. When you do not have the powers of the presidency, what does she mean that he has influence in the media? Anybody can do that. Any former President can do that.

What powers is she talking about? To me, what's interesting is that so many people tried to say quickly, the elites in Washington DC, this is the end of Donald Trump. Well, that's not what Democrats think. That's not what long elected politically very partisan Democrats think. They are scared that he comes right back into 2024, has 75 million already on his side and maybe more if Joe Biden doesn't do a good job. And so they want to bar him from running from office and even giving him that chance, which by the way, to do that, they would have to get a Senate conviction, which means they'd have to get 17 Republicans on board and then they'd have to vote on that. That's a separate vote.

Now there's an argument over whether that vote just requires a simple majority, but you don't get to that vote without a conviction, a conviction which looks very difficult to get yet again. It's almost like whether or not, you have to question this dad. I mean, this is a theory I've had. Would you even send lawyers if you're President Trump? I don't know. I don't think I would. I don't think I'd show up. I don't think I'd acknowledge it unless you're just wanting to get on record the motion to dismiss.

But I think it's almost that kind of thing. I mean, he's out of office, so he has no obligation to show up. So are they going to convict him in absentia? Well, they're going to have to get to 67 when you've got members of the Senate saying, we don't have jurisdiction here. And if that grows, I think you have to seriously look at whether you proceed with the defense.

Andy? Yeah. I mean, you could walk away and say, you have no jurisdiction over me. I'm not going to appear. I'm not going to defend something that is, that I don't have to defend. This happens in the world court situations and these international tribunals where countries, Harry, don't show up.

Absolutely. They say no. But then the other issue of course is whether or not if they attach this punishment, which is to bar President Trump from ever seeking office, whether or not that can withstand constitutional scrutiny as well. Certainly they have the right to remove the President if he were in office. Well, the provision says that they can remove him and it does say they can vote to bar him for life. The 25th Amendment says that.

But the question is whether if they didn't have jurisdiction in the first place. Right. Precisely. Yeah. So they'd have to, you have to get a conviction first.

Yes. Summertime, how could they use the 14th Amendment to you? But there's no enforcement mechanism in the 14th Amendment.

That was written precisely for a specific time period. And it actually is the opposite. It has the rule of how you can let people back in. It says by a two thirds vote you get this removed from you. So from the Confederates could actually could have that removed and they could serve again in federal office by two thirds vote in the House and Senate. That's the only voting mechanism there. So I think again, all they're looking to do is ban President Trump from potentially seeking office again because they're that scared about him running again in 2024.

I mean, think about that. After how many op-eds have you read saying this is done, he's over, he's, he's, you know, he's finished. By the way, that's not what the polls show of Republicans. He's still got an overwhelming support from the Republican Party voters.

And, and that's after all of this trying to attempt to trash him. But my question is this, do you even show up or you just say, you know what? No, you're not going to vote yes on my motion to dismiss.

So I'm not even going to show up and you don't have the authority to be there and you're going to quit me anyways. 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, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. I have to take some phone calls, 1-800-684-3110, because we got a lot of these calls during the Obama years and even after President Obama left office, which I'm sure now people are starting to think exactly what Joanne's thinking from Maine on Line 1. Hey, Joanne, welcome to JCECIO Live.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. And I wanted to mention, if they do decide to alter the courts and pack the courts and get legal jurisdiction over this, what would then stop us from going back to taking Obama through this procedure or even Hillary Clinton for the FISA reports and the spying on Trump and all that? Well, she wasn't President. President's impeachments are handled differently than other officers. You can impeach other officers, but they're handled differently. But certainly, I think President Obama, you bring up the good point, because we kind of laughed about that in the beginning.

We said, this is not how you hold them accountable. You can't impeach them after they've left office, because they've already left office. Again, this would open the door to that. Strip him of all of his benefits of Secret Service protection, of his stipend, of his multi-million dollar travel budget he receives for the rest of his life yearly. Strip him of all of that. Of all that comes with being an ex-President, could the next Republican majority do that?

And listen, it's not very far away under this theory, absolutely. For that reason, again, it's not a good idea. The man has served. He served his country. You don't like his policies.

He served two terms. He's out. It's done. It's finished.

Why are we going backwards? This is the same thing. And this is where the lack of jurisdiction at the level of the Senate, I think, it's a really fundamental issue here. Yeah, I mean, Sam has a good question on line five from Pennsylvania. Hey, Sam, welcome to JCECio Live. Hey, guys.

Thanks for taking my call. I just had a question, a timeline question. How long is there a time limit for when the House has to give the articles of impeachment to the Senate?

And if they receive it, is there a time limit as to when they would actually be able to try it? And if Trump became President again in 2024, would that article of impeachment still be valid? Well, that Congress would have expired. So no.

So I think the argument would be no. They don't have an obligation at what time they have to get it there. But once it is received, the trial starts the next day at one o'clock. Usually it's time based off, like when we did the impeachment trial, it was based off a calendar based on, I think it was, there were holidays. And then so they got through the holidays and then they brought it over like about a month later from the House to the Senate. I think it was a month. They delivered them January 6th.

Yes, it was a month, I think, around there. But again, this is different because the President is going to be gone. Whether or not they delivered them today, they're not going to start, but the first day they could start the trial is the time that Joe Biden would be taking the oath of office, the President would be gone. And that would just be the beginning of the trial. So you're not going to finish the trial in one hour.

Yeah. I mean, so this is why it's absurd. And I think we can now, just as a people, sit back and think, this is not what we do.

And why are we creating this division in our country at a time when we all said what happened to the Capitol was horrendous? The President has said that as well. He has now also called on future actions. It said, do not, do not. He's made it very clear, as clear as possible, do not take any kind of violent actions, whether you're in a state or in whether you're not, you're in Washington, D.C. Can we play some of that from the President?

I mean, he issued this video yesterday from the White House, from the Oval Office. My fellow Americans, I want to speak to you tonight about the troubling events of the past week. As I have said, the incursion of the U.S. Capitol struck at the very heart of our republic. It angered and appalled millions of Americans across the political spectrum. I want to be very clear. I unequivocally condemn the violence that we saw last week.

Violence and vandalism have absolutely no place in our country and no place in our movement. So there you go. I mean, the President, very strong, getting ahead of what he was briefed on. And obviously, it's the U.S. Capitol that is getting most attention, but also— They're making a mess this week. Yeah. Next week.

And state legislature, state capitals as well. Let me say this also. Ben Sasse came out very strong when this first happened, saying he was ready to impeach. He's issued a statement now, which I find very interesting. Let's play it and then we'll get everybody's comment.

Number 18. The House, if they come together and have a process, I will definitely consider whatever articles they might move. If they come together and have a process. Well, the truth of the matter is, they did not have a process. Was no process. I mean, no trial, no hearing, no committee.

You had a bunch of— First of all, I didn't go through the Judiciary Committee. No witnesses were called for or against the articles of impeachment. It was like an indictment with no grand jury met. The grand jury did not meet. We simply had an indictment. We didn't hear any evidence.

We have no probable cause. I mean, I'm just analogizing it to a criminal trial because that's what people understand. Look, if you're going to try somebody for a crime, you've got to have a process. The process that we have is grand juries. Grand juries meet, grand juries hear evidence. It can be hearsay, it can be whatever. They return an indictment.

What happened in the House? You had a bunch of speeches, and then you had to vote, and the President was indicted, i.e. impeached. That's not a process.

Yeah, so how does that lack of process play into this, Harry? Well, I think it undermines the House's impeachment effort. So essentially, what we've had is a slapdash process without the introduction of a shred of evidence other than press reports.

And certainly, I think anyone that's familiar with the court process, with the criminal process, at least wants to talk to firsthand observers who can point to specific claims made and come up with a timeline. Instead, what we've had essentially, this is my view, is an incoherent series of speeches by Democrats basically attacking all Republicans from here to eternity. And so I think if Senator Sasse is going to adhere to his past statement, then I think he would have to reject the quote-unquote process of the House. Let's not forget, we have one of the House managers, we played it yesterday, I just want to play it again, who is comparing, this is Eric Swalwell, who's under his own investigation because of the Chinese spy he had a relationship with and placed interns with his office doing the fundraising for, and he's on the Intel Committee. And now he's a House manager, so he's going to make the argument to the Senate. That's someone who really, by the way, is going to convince Republicans, a hyper-partisan Democrat like him and Ted Lieu, who just go after Republicans for being Republican.

Take out Donald Trump, they just think Republicans are just the worst. But listen to who he compared President Trump to. 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. First of all, Osama bin Laden funded the attacks, planned the attacks. He's a central role, he's a leader. He was called the mastermind of Al-Qaeda.

Yeah. Leader and mastermind. He was not just a guy talking who then sparred some guys to form another group called Al-Qaeda. The comparison alone is ridiculous and absurd, but you see it's to divide us. It's to divide neighbor against neighbor. Instead of a time when you'd hope you could at least say hey, we had an election, some people didn't like the way it turned out, some of us don't like the way they were held, taking advantage of COVID to do these mail ballots. Okay, whatever, but there's going to be a peaceful transition of power and then we'll have another election in four years for President and another election for the house in two years. Everybody's up for election of the house and a lot of senators up, third of them are up in two years as well, so the balance of power there is up and we can still be nice with our neighbors, but again, they're not allowing us to get there as a country. They're keeping us in our partisan kind of community, if you will, and if you're not in that partisan community because the anger that they're espousing then brings more anger from us too. Because how do you not respond to that?

You have to respond to that. So again, to me, this is – the further we get into it, the further we get away from the six and we get into this impeachment, I think what you see and what comes to light is another ridiculous move by Democrats to continue to divide our country. Are you a Trump, are you a Republican and thus you are bad and should be canceled or are you with us? And that is the lines they are drawing and that is not lines that help unify America and it will actually sink the Biden presidency if this is how it begins.

I was about to ask Andy that question. I think when trial strategy requires thinking a couple of steps ahead, I don't think they did that here, the Democrats. No, they didn't.

It was a knee-jerk reaction. Look, we want to kill Trump. We want to kill the Republican Party. We want to kill conservatives. We want to kill babies.

We want to do all kinds of things. Let's do what we have to do and let's do it quickly and let's do it radically without any witnesses and without any process. That kills yourself. Vengeance does not belong. It should not be exercised in that fashion in the political processes of the United States. I'm sorry. If you've got questions and comments on this, we've got one more segment coming up. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We're taking your questions, your comments about this because this is not clear cut. This is the opposite of clear cut and I think just dangerous for our countries. I've said from the beginning, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, you keep the country divided for a continued amount of time. It's wrong. Anyone in 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, a 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. 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. We were during the break, we were thinking how absurd this is that we're at this point, no matter what you think. I mean, obviously the events of the day were horrific, but if you care about the First Amendment, this is really dangerous stuff, because do you remember Chuck Schumer on the, we don't have it yet?

On the steps of the Supreme Court. I'm sorry, I can't hear you, Will, so you have to, I can't read. We'll have it momentarily. Okay. All right. We're going to get that video, and audio rather, of Chuck Schumer and at the steps of the, I think at the Supreme Court itself, chastising the justices and- Threatening them.

Yeah. He's threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name. And so, I mean, we'll play, I think all you'd have to do if you were defending the President is literally, you go through all those Democrats, like Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, that are inciting, that are way more inciting than, let's march to the Capitol and have a protest, which by the way, happens in Washington, D.C. every single day. And so here we go, listen to this, you think this is an inciting? I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. I want to play that again. I want everybody to share this with your friends right now, because I'm going to open the broadcast, we'll open the broadcast tomorrow with this. We're going to, we forgot how bad that was.

Yeah. In front of a crowd, in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Where Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were.

Where they were hearing cases. Play it. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

You will pay the price, you will not know what hit you if you go for the threat, if you go forward with these awful decisions. We're going to break that down, Nick, tomorrow, word for word. Now, is anybody talking about removing Chuck Schumer from office, Harry? Well, they should, but no one is. Of course. Also, does anyone play President Trump's remarks? Have you seen them ever play it on TV? No, they never play them. No. You know why?

Because there's no incitement in those remarks. No. I mean, let's just be honest.

Yeah. I mean, you could disagree with the speech, you could disagree with the content of the speech, say it was, you shouldn't have done it then, it was the wrong time, blah, blah, blah. I mean, not to sedition. I mean, come on. No, no, no. I wish we could just compare the two. Take their best, their best argument is the President said you had a fight, I'll leave out the word, you had a fight and you got to fight for real, but then he said do it peacefully. They all say that in politics.

This guy didn't say peacefully. No, no. No, no, no. Won't know what hit you. Let's play it again. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Thus, if I was arguing the case, the first thing I would do would be start the argument by playing Chuck Schumer.

And then you could play a hundred more, by the way. Yes, but that's recent and a direct threat. You will not know what hit you, a whirlwind and he's doing it in front of a crowd.

That's okay. So there you have it. Now they're going to say, ah, but that crowd didn't react. That's not how you judge, the free speech issue there is very different, but the point is, and if you look at the timeline of what actually was happening in the Capitol, they already were in the Capitol and look, this thing looks like it was really awful and well planned. I'm not equating violence to violence here. I think that's a mistake, but be careful on the first amendment. Be very, very careful on what you're asking for here, Andy. Very careful.

That's right. I mean, you know, the first amendment does provide for the freedom of speech and, uh, you know, there are, there are limits that we don't want inside to riot. We don't want to do things that we shouldn't do, but I think that Chuck Schumer's remarks were absolutely outrageous.

As a will our producers said, these are lifetime appointed judges. What else could he have meant but a threat against them? Whirlwind. You will not know what hit you. You will pay the price.

When someone tells me you will pay the price, that's, that's pretty, yeah, no, no, that sounds like you're going to lose your life. Yeah, that's the price. Um, I mean, what else is it? I mean, so let's get the video of that tomorrow. So we have that for Facebook and YouTube and our other platforms. They think they can spew their hate speech, which is probably protected under the constitution and under the political speech, but they think they could spew it and then everybody's going to ignore it because they're Democrats.

No, everybody's not. It didn't take us long to figure, you know, pull that and say, okay, that's, that's, that's a little bit close. You know, if President Trump was saying stuff like that in that speech, I mean, that'd be a lot different. But in 30 seconds, Chuck Schumer did what they're accusing President Trump of doing, uh, in a long speech he did in 30 seconds. And I never forget that because I think it was one of the most inappropriate remarks by a U S Senator, especially a leader of the U S Senate, uh, ever.

And it lets him, at least in modern history when we have the remarks, chief justice come out after that and condemn the remarks. Yes, yes, yes. Let's get that too for tomorrow. We'll get into that. All right, let's go ahead and take the next call. Yeah, let's go to Marsha in Mississippi online too. Hey Marsha. Hi guys.

Thanks so much for taking my call. I'm just curious since they rushed into this and they're hoping is Trump incited this, they're still investigating it. So what happens when it comes out that the whole thing was preplanned?

It is coming out. I mean, it is coming out that it's preplanned. It hurts their case that he incited something that was preplanned by obviously people that had access means in radical groups. So, you know, they're not going to, listen, it's not a hard case to defend in a proceeding. I'm just not even sure that proceeding is why I'm sure.

I don't believe it's constitutional to have that proceeding start. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that that is the big question. Renee in North Dakota online for Hey Renee.

Hi, thank you for taking my call. My question is if the Democrats are circumventing the correct process, why aren't they being held accountable? And if they, or who is it that would hold them accountable? So I mean, again, they can hold, they hold themselves accountable by Congress and their voters. I mean, so there's a, under the, under their rules, there's a removal process for members of Congress and censures and things like that.

So they have their process. Obviously I don't think it's going to happen with Chuck Schumer with his speech, but if you're going to try to do that to a President, I mean, again, I think it just, it's why speech should never be the reason why anybody's impeached. Words should not be the way, why anybody is impeached. The Supreme Court has set such a high bar for what speech you can punish, such a high bar. And, and, and I think that's because we're a country that values the freedom of speech more than we do being offended or hearing things we don't like. I think what we need for tomorrow's broadcast is we need Chuck Schumer's full speech and then we'll break it down.

It may have been that short, may have been that's all it was because it was a rally, but let's find that out. And then we're going to play the audio, some of the audio from the President's speech where in fact he said, I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. I mean, do people really think that the President was saying, go in there and do what they did? No, they want to hear it.

They want to see that. That's why they don't play it on TV. No one will play what the President said in the speech on TV. You never are seeing CNN's not playing it.

MSNBC is not playing the speech because he says, peacefully, peacefully, March, March over that. That's what they do Washington every day. I mean, the Democrats do it. Republicans do it. Interest groups do it. Pro-life groups do it.

Pro-abortion groups do it. You know, they peacefully protest. And he was not calling anyone to break the law, to break into a building, to, to cause any kind of violence.

He said the opposite. He used the word peaceful, peaceful, and make your voice heard. How many times do we say that on this broadcast? Make your voice heard. I mean, this is, this is, this is again, it's the absurdity. And I think we can push this even further and more of you will understand how absurd it is when you listen to Chuck Schumer.

Maybe we'll pull some others as well. Um, who are, because I know this reviews it, this inciting language as always check out aclj.org. We'll talk to you tomorrow on Secular Radio. 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.