Democrat Pat Leahy to Preside Over Senate Impeachment Trial

Today on Secular Radio, get this, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy is going to be the presiding officer on the Senate impeachment trial. Is that even constitutional?

We'll discuss it today on Secular Radio. That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. If this was another current officer in the United States, so a cabinet member, a federal court judge, then the Chief Justice never presides. It's usually the President pro tem of the Senate and that would be the longest serving member of the party in charge.

That is Patrick Leahy. And that is who now is going to be running. He's going to be running as the presiding officer the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. And this brings to light whether or not this is even an impeachment trial or if it's a trial by the Senate of a U.S. citizen. Who's private in his private life, which they don't have jurisdiction over.

And they don't have much record. They have law review articles back and forth. I mean, Dad, I think to me, putting a partisan in charge of this just shows this is not the impeachment of a President that the founders were intending. They never, they made it clear that if it's going to be the President, it's got to be someone like a lifetime appointed chief. The highest ranking judge in our federal judiciary, the Chief Justice of the United States in a mostly procedural role for the most part.

But still, he's the one making sure things are staying on course, staying cordial in the sense of law, and that everyone is performing the functions they're supposed to perform and following the rules. This goes to the point that this really isn't an impeachment trial. I mean, they're calling it an impeachment trial. But by nature, the impeachment of the President says the President, let me read it to you. Let me read you the Constitution, Article 1, Section 3. The Senate shall have the sole power to trial impeachments.

When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. Well, this isn't then a trial of a President, the President. This is the trial of a former President, and the Chief Justice is not presiding, and now it's being presided by Patrick Leahy, the President pro tem of the Senate, meaning what is this exactly? It's politics. And I don't think we should elevate it to the standard of impeachment, but I mean, obviously, that's what it's going to be called in the media, and I guess that's what it is. And I say I guess because I'm not sure how the President pro tem of the political party can be the presiding officer and then barring the President from life from participating in politics. I don't think they'll get a conviction here, but it's interesting to me this dynamic. Now, fan, they confirmed that, Wayne, yesterday, last night?

Yeah, yesterday, Jay. And it's honestly, I mean, it's a pretty direct acknowledgement that it's not an impeachment of the President, otherwise the Chief Justice would be there. Jay, the concern I'm hearing from senators on the Republican side, and this is going to state the obvious, but Patrick Leahy is going to be in the chair. He's not just going to preside, Jay, he's going to preside and, of course, as a senator, he's going to vote.

Can you do both? Well, he's planning to. Which John Roberts could not, of course.

Right, in that particular role. It's outrageous, folks. It's outrageous that they're putting the country through this. Outrageous they want to try a private citizen. It's outrageous that it's going to be Patrick Leahy in that chair, and I think we need to make our voices loud and clear about that, and people are looking for a way to do that.

I think we're going to provide that for you at the ACLJ, potentially, so maybe a petition. People have been asking for that to say, this is wrong. Yeah, I'd like to hear from a half million people that we can notify the United States Senate that this is unconstitutional in our view, and that the American people oppose.

We'll be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Think about this. You're a private citizen, and now you're going to be called up by the United States Senate to be impeached. You've already left office, and when you read the impeachment power, it says, you know, the impeachment power extends to removal from office and disqualification to hold, enjoy any office honor.

So you can't run again for another office, basically. It doesn't say or, it doesn't say, it says you've got to have removal and then. Yeah, it's removal and then the punishment. But their vote, let's say they were to vote to impeach, so they got to 67 votes, which I don't think they will, but let's say they do. They're not removing. So how can they then go to another, these words are very important in law. That's the whole fallacy.

When it says and, it's a combo, and it means the first thing has to happen, and then the second thing can follow. So there's no removal, and I think this makes American courts, they said that January 6th made America look bad on the world stage. I think for, temporarily, there was nothing like what we see in other countries, let's be honest, with military coups constantly and things like that.

And it was put down very quickly, the nuts that did that. But what this could do is make us look like we run kangaroo courts. And that is something we've never had an issue with the United States. We have a well-respected, whether you like it or not, federal judiciary with lifetime appointments who are held to a high standard, but are very independent from the other branches. And Chief Justice Roberts, he reads the Constitution, and he said, he's not a current President, I'm not spending four weeks presiding over this because this is not the impeachment trial of a President.

So what is this? It's a political trial. Exactly, I don't even think, it's not an impeachment, because you're not removing him. Yeah, so he's already removed because of the election, so to speak, so the President's not in office. So when you look at the Constitution itself, Wes, and Jordan's right, you've got to look at the and, it's judgment, so judgment, you've got an impeachment, it's already happened. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than from removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, profit under the United States.

And, so it's very clear, you've got to have the impeachment end, that's why, I mean, the fact that John, I mean, the first thing I would argue if I was arguing the cases, I'd get up and say, well, look who's not in the chair, John Roberts. To me, that is a telltale sign that this is an impeachment trial, because if it's an impeachment trial of a President, the presiding officer is supposed to be the Chief Justice. So this is an impeachment trial of a former President, except there's nothing in the Constitution that says you do impeachment trials of former Presidents.

No, he's not, he's a former President, he is not an officer of the United States, he's not a cabinet member, he's not a federal judge. There is no provision constitutionally to impeach a former President, and you're right, it's two separate votes. If they vote to convict, they have to have a separate vote to make sure they can't run for office again.

What I think is so sad about this, I grew up like you two, a political junkie all of my life, where are the honored political norms in America? Where is the reputation of the Senate as the world's largest, most honored, deliberative body? It's like they don't care about how this looks to the nation and how it looks to the world. And whether or not it's constitutional is in question, but whether or not it is constitutional still doesn't detract from the fact that this whole exercise is illegitimate.

Any legitimacy is undermined by how this is going on. It is, the idea is the Supreme Court does this sometimes, but not the Senate, where they kind of take the Constitution and kind of extend it out, they read into it and say, well, this is a broad provision, so this provision could cover this. And so it's extra constitutional, so it's taking something that doesn't, the Constitution doesn't specifically bar, but it also doesn't specifically endorse or lay out. And if, and by the way, that's one reading, my reading is that if you can't be removed because you're already gone, then you can't be barred from running from office again, so you can't be impeached. That doesn't mean you're not subject to legal, you know, this doesn't, it's not like a pardon, dad, it's not like you're not subject to the laws of the United States as a former President. If you did anything wrong, you'd be subject to actual, real court.

The party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment. But what's interesting was I warned about this, the cheapening of impeachment in the very first, a year ago, probably a year ago, maybe a year ago today, or a year ago this week. Here's what I said on the floor of the United States Senate. In our presentation so far, you've now heard from legal scholars from a variety of schools of thought, from a variety of political backgrounds, but they do have a common theme with a dire warning. Danger, danger, danger, to lower the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that constitution for generations.

So there you go, and Bill's calling in about that from Wyoming online too, we're taking your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. What do you think about a partisan Democrat Senator overseeing the trial of President Trump? Don't even want to call it an impeachment anymore, I think it's a political trial, as you said, dad. So Bill, welcome to Secular Radio, you're on the air.

Yeah, I'd like you to answer my question. It seems to me this is a slippery slope, because if they can impeach President Trump, they can also impeach Obama, they can go clear back to President Washington and impeach him for creating a war against the United Kingdom, for separating from that country. Plus, nowadays, if they do impeach President Trump, when's the effective date? Does that mean it's back in January 2017, which means everything that President Trump did is nullified and void, correct?

No, no. Impeachment doesn't go backwards. It's not backwards, it's forward looking. It only stops, it would take you out from... It takes you out of office when you are convicted.

Right, it doesn't undo anything it did before that. So that's why none of this makes any sense whatsoever. You said John Cornyn addressed this? Yes, John Cornyn has said... Do we have that sample? If the Democrats go, and he tweeted it out, if the Democrats go this route, then we have, they've opened the door for when the Republicans take back the Senate, which could happen at any time, because it's a 50-50 Senate, that they will look back at President Obama, because there were some serious things there that may not have been crimes in the court of law, or weren't prosecuted, but that they can certainly impeach over. Benghazi, the lies from the administration, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, I mean, he listed the thing, and he said, we're opening that door. Now, he's a level-headed guy.

He doesn't want to open that door. We don't want to live in the past in America. We're a forward-looking country. You know, that's how we kind of... Well, we used to be.

Yeah, we used to be. This is opening the door, and if they do this to President Trump, I say we do it to President Obama and Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton was a cabinet official, so we can impeach her too. And in those trials, it'll be Republicans running it. By the way, Jamie Raskin said that about how we've used impeachment.

Take a listen. One thing that I want to point out, Chris, is that impeachment is not nearly so much about the past as it is about the future. Right, they're trying. They're just telling you that they don't want him as a candidate in 2020. Right, that's what they think.

Well, okay. I'd like to bar President Obama from, though, just to sully his name from ever being able to hold federal office, and hold him accountable for those things. And Hillary Clinton certainly. And the list could go on. Maybe they'll do it to Joe Biden.

Maybe Kamala Harris next. I mean, that's the problem with this. Impeachment is going to become more... It's not even like an indictment or anything like that.

It is just cheap. And it was something rarely used. Before Donald Trump, you had two.

Right. Two actual... People think Nixon was impeached. He never got impeached by the House. He resigned.

He resigned, and they didn't move forward. So, impeachment of even lower-level officials, I think it's in the 20s. Maybe 30.

A little. Yeah, I was going to ask, Stan, so what's the kind of the calculation mood on the Hill right now on this? A lot of the talk centers around what you're discussing right now, the acknowledgement that impeachment is about the future. Well, that must be about politics, because there are no more official actions that President Trump will take, because he's already out of office.

You've mentioned a lot of officials that this reachback could reach to. Jay, I think on the floor of the Senate, maybe as soon as today, by the way, when Senator Paul goes down to raise a point of order about the constitutionality of this, you know the official that's going to be mentioned? It's going to be Chuck Schumer. They're going to say, look, when Republicans get back the Senate one day, is it appropriate for us to censure or impeach or even expel Senator Schumer over his remarks on the floor of the Supreme Court? So if this is about looking forward, I expect Republicans on the floor of the Senate to say, in a future Republican Senate, is this really the standard that Democrats want to be held by? That debate's going to happen on the floor, Jay.

Interesting. Wall Street Journal editorial board said the trial, which will start in earnest on February 9th, will end in the Senate with acquittal. If it does, Mr. Trump will claim vindication. And it does not matter how many times Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that he's been impeached forever. Mr. Trump will play it as one more show of elite contempt for the deplorables who are his voters.

He could emerge politically strengthened. That's the calculus I do not understand for the life of me in this entire process. Do not understand what their political calculus is. Yeah, I mean, so, folks, we're going to continue to take your phone calls. We want to answer your questions. Whether you're watching on Facebook, YouTube, or you're listening on radio, taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Get your comments in as well. Share this with your friends and family.

And we want to bring you this analysis. We've done this before. We've done a real impeachment. This is a fake impeachment.

It's a phony impeachment. It shouldn't be happening. I think more and more senators are starting to see the light on that. Because they're starting to look at the Constitution like everyone and say, this doesn't fit. This isn't right. This is not the country we are. And we don't want to open this door, whether you like President Trump or not.

We'll come back taking your calls. 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. A lot of people are wondering, because it just kind of was in the news, it happened when I was actually on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday, so after our show, that Leahy confirmed this.

Yes. And there was no written statement, nothing. We got a call about this actually, so before we get ahead of that, Rick in Montana on Line 5. Hey Rick, welcome to Secular Radio.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. So I have a question and or comment. With Chief Justice Roberts not even able to oversee this proceeding, why can't he or why didn't he affirm that it was unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court of the United States, when it comes to matters of impeachment, views the Constitution as it's written. And it says, in matters of impeachment, it is the United States House and Senate that are the jurisdictional basis for this. That is, the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. And the Supreme Court will not get involved.

I mean, it's just the way it is. So they're not going to issue rulings, they're not going to issue judgments. Any motions to dismiss that would be made would be made to the Senate proceeding. But Wes, you said something during the break that's important for people to understand. The way they're doing this with lowering the bars and changing the rules is going to come back right on them, as sure as we're sitting here.

Yeah, karma is a horrible thing, isn't it? You remember whenever the Democrats controlled the Senate and they lowered the standard for approving new federal judges. It used to be you had to have 60 votes to move forward with those. They lowered it to a simple majority thinking they would always have control of the Senate.

They lost control and the Republicans came back and said, you know, that wasn't a bad idea and we're also going to do it for the next Supreme Court justice. This is a sword that cuts both ways. And it seems like that lesson, that the sword actually cuts both ways and that karma is very problematic, is lost on the Democrats. You know, my question in all of this, as an American, is where is the honor in our political bodies? This is not honorable. Where is the justice?

This is not justice. This is political gainsmanship and revenge. And it's a shameful time for the United States Senate, for the majority party there. You know what's also interesting, Jordan, is going to be the political fallout of this. I mean, I think Trump comes out stronger, whether he runs again or not.

He's still the strongest voice in the Republican Party. And this, he gets acquitted, it's stronger. Now, you know, listen, though, with trials, whether it's a jury trial or an impeachment trial, you don't ever know how it's going to – no one should say, you know, if I – lawyers, I'm sure, know this, that are doing this.

You should assume nothing's a foregone conclusion. Because, listen, you get witnesses, we had that with John Bolton, remember, and were they going to have witnesses or not. If it was going to be Bolton, there was going to be a whole slew of witnesses. And all of a sudden, the proceeding, instead of taking a week, ended up taking three weeks for us. This one they're saying can be done in three days. It could be a month.

Who knows? I think you said during the impeachment trial that if they were going to do that with Bolton, there were people that were House managers you're going to be calling to on this. I said that. Yeah, yeah, it's including Adam Schiff.

I don't know if we can find that. And that, you know, that this would be – yeah, if they're going to call witnesses, so are we. Yeah, it's not a one-way street, by the way.

And then you've got another two weeks, probably. Oh, well, they usually let you take depositions. Yeah, it changes everything. It's not just the senators writing the questions anymore to the lawyers. Now they are actually deposing witnesses. Exactly, you do depositions. Very different cross-examination.

Usually at night, aggressively. But is there any sense that where Manchin and Sinema are on this stand? I saw that they lended their credence to not having to change the filibuster rule. Yeah, they sided with Leader McConnell on that. Both made public statements that they did not favor eliminating the legislative filibuster. That's going to lead to an organizing resolution between Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell.

So an interesting break with party there. Kyrsten Sinema has not said anything specifically with a whole lot of substance on impeachment, but Joe Manchin has. Joe Manchin said he doesn't like the idea of prioritizing impeachment. He thinks that we should be proceeding with the needs of the American people. Now, he has not said how he would vote. I think he – again, much like you said about the other senators, Jay, I don't think you should assume where his vote would lie.

But proceeding in this fashion is not his first priority, which is why when Senator Paul goes to the floor and offers this point of order, or when a motion to dismiss is offered by Senator McConnell or Senator Paul at the outset of the trial, I don't think his vote is actually a certainty. So I think it's a fair question to ask. Yeah.

No, very interesting. So we're taking your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. I want to continue to take these calls so people know the truth about these procedures and how things will play out. Laurie on Line 4 from Florida, welcome to the show, Laurie. You're on the air. Hey, how are you guys? We're good.

Good, good. So my question is we go through this and he gets acquitted, like we all think he's going to, and that second part about him not being able to run or be involved in government, does that just then also happen, or if he's acquitted, he's done? He's done. So if he's acquitted, they cannot move on to that second vote. So you have to convict to get to the second vote.

The conversation is clear. Removal from office and disqualification. You've got to have the removal from office. Now, I think the part there is that even if he was convicted, you can't have the removal from office, so can you even get to that second vote? That's when it brings up a whole host of more issues. And I don't know that the courts would ever get involved.

They seem like they won't. But you see where this raises issues. Whether or not you think this President who is still in office should be impeached because of this, he's not.

So what are you doing there? You're going to really open this up to witnesses for three weeks. And then, but yet, you're right. Just to answer the question, if he is acquitted, he's acquitted. And that means they can't tag on, you're acquitted from impeachment, which we can't actually remove you, but we're going to bar you from office, so you can't do that. They're not going to get away with doing that. But that is their goal is to convict and bar him from seeking future office just because they're that concerned about him being involved in an official role as a candidate and trying to tar him with that whether or not he decides to run again or not in a couple of years, when you'd start a Presidential campaign again.

So just to answer that question, they'd have to get a conviction to get to that vote. Let's go to Scott in South Carolina on Line 6. Hey, Scott. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my call.

I just got a comment and an opinion. The reason I believe, and I'm hearing this a lot, the Democrats are emboldened to do all this craziness that they're doing. All of your analysis is spot on, and it could come back to bite them, Karma, like you said. But the reality of it is the Republicans historically always take the high road, and as we should, we have integrity. So we're not going to play these crazy, ridiculous games, and they're counting on that.

And that's why they continue to do stuff like this. Yeah, I think they're counting wrong now because, remember, the Mitch McConnells of the world are not going to be there forever. And if you're hearing John Cornyn, who is kind of in line, him or someone like Thune, but someone like John Cornyn, a very level-headed senator who conducts himself the way, Scott, you're describing, saying he would do it, I think because you're opening up a new window of political action. And I've been an advocate since this election not to play dirty, but to do everything legal to win elections. And if things seemed unseemly to the country club class of Republicans in the past, we don't want to harvest votes when it's legal in some states to harvest ballots.

Do it! Oh, we don't want to go to the nursing homes of the old age. But the others are. And if it's legal in those states, go and do it. Go to the Hispanic community and reach out and educate them about the vote. And encourage them about who they should vote for. If they're asking you if it's legal in that state, if it's legal in that jurisdiction, that's what Stacey Abrams did in Georgia. Successfully.

Everything you can do up to the line. That's not unseemly or wrong, but you do have to get out of that country club mindset of some of the Republican Party, which, by the way, is the part of the party that has lost a lot of power with it. It's a diminishing part of the political party. We've got another second half hour coming up. A lot to discuss. Become a member today. JCLJ.org Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow Radio. We've got a lot to talk about.

Let's reset the stage. So we now know, we have no idea how it was communicated. The Chief Justice in his office is not doing some, putting out some statement about why, because I don't think there needs to be. The Constitution tells us why he's not presiding. There's not a President that's being tried. It's a former President and a private citizen. To me, I think it's as far as he'd go in saying, this is probably not right, guys, but, you know, you're the Senate. That's kind of his thing. You're the Senate.

Go down the path you want, wrong or right. But I'm not going to be involved in this. I'm not going to sit up there and give you the symbol that this is an actual real impeachment trial of a President. Because it's not. Which was a big knock on the Democrats, by the way. It was.

It's a political trial of a former President. No, they wanted Roberts there because that brings the formality, the solemnity to it. It makes it real. So then, in a real way, this was a blow for them. Clearly.

Oh, 100 percent. I mean, look, the language of the Constitution is not clear, and the Chief Justice spoke very loudly by not saying anything. The Constitution says that the Chief Justice shall preside if it's an impeachment of the President. So by not presiding, it is not an impeachment of the President. And the other thing, Jay.

So who is it who's not right there for a second, though, fam? Because that's a very important point that you made, and we've made it a couple of times. If John Roberts was sitting, it's arguably, at that point, an impeachment proceeding. He is not seating, and it's certainly not an impeachment of the President. So it's a political trial to try to remove the President from running for office again.

But go ahead and finish. Well, no, let me just, on that point, I think what you're going to hear for today from Leader Schumer and the others, well, the Chief Justice didn't say anything. So we don't know how he feels. No, the Chief Justice did say something. He didn't say it in a statement. He didn't say it verbally. But he took an oath to follow the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates that he be there if it's an impeachment trial of the President. So by not going, Jay, he spoke volumes. I'll save my comment on Senator Paul's for later, but there's an important point on this to make there as well.

Yeah, that's interesting. Barbara on Facebook, she writes, Shouldn't we see groups like the ACLU representing President Trump due to loss of due process? You would think that they might be interested in doing what we're doing right now, addressing it. Like a private citizen being impeached by the President?

We're drafting right now a document that we'll make available to our members and to people that watch and listen to this broadcast. What the legal position is, just a straight constitutional position, not getting into the factual merits of the case, but just getting into the legal issues of the constitutionality of trying a former President. I don't know if the ACLU is going to say anything.

I take it they will not. But what the American Center for Law Justice is going to do is we're going to let it be known, probably to the entire United States Senate, not probably, I'm sure we'll do it to the entire United States Senate, what our legal position is. What is the legal position of a group that, A, principals have tried an impeachment case? That's number one. Many of us, two of us, two of the three sitting on this radio studio, TV studios today, have tried an impeachment case, a real impeachment case.

So that's number one. Number two, we're going to put our position forward as to why we think the position of trying a former President is unconstitutional. And then I think number three we're looking at right now is if we could get, you know, four to five hundred thousand names, which may be impossible by February 8th when this starts, that would send something of people saying that we think this impeachment, and from all 50 states, from every jurisdiction, get it to the senators broken. Thanh, I know it's hard to deliver now, but I think that would make a statement to people.

Yeah, no, we've adjusted to the times. We would get it delivered. You'd do it electronically. You'd break it down by state and you'd make sure where their voters stand. And, Jay, it would be very significant in states where there actually is a divide on... I'm just going to say it would be significant in a state where there's a divide on how people feel about President Trump. But, Jay, I think there would actually be quite a bit of unanimity on the constitutionality of this. And I think to hear from voters that they don't think the trial should proceed, I think it would make a big difference. Yeah, great calls coming in. We're going to take more of those when we come back for the break.

If you want to talk to us in the air, 1-800-684-3110. Suzanne on YouTube, she wrote, Chief Justice Roberts not presiding over the trial speaks volumes about this. It does.

It does. Elizabeth Warren thought he was going to. Yeah, Elizabeth Warren said last week, that's his constitutional duty. I can't imagine why a Supreme Court justice will not do his duty, because it's not an impeachment trial. It's not his duty.

He doesn't have to sit there for a month hearing arguments about a private citizen being impeached. This is a really big blow to them, let me tell you. Yeah, and I don't think it's been fully flushed out by the media yet, but it will be. It will be.

Be right back. 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, 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. So in order to read you this, this is back from July 8, 2004, old school national review. The nastiest Democrat is the headline. Senator Patrick Leahy, Republican nightmare.

This was back in 2004. The other Vermont senator has no day at the beach. He is Patrick Leahy. Leahy landed a big job. This is when he became chairman of the judiciary committee. It's a job he's always wanted, and a Republican nightmare had begun. By consensus, a consensus of hill Republicans, Pat Leahy is the meanest, most partisan, most ruthless Democrat in the Senate. Ask a Republican about Leahy, they'll shudder.

They'll say, oh, he can be nice, and he smiles. He does do that on the surface. Underneath it, he's a left-wing brute. He's nasty. I mean, the things went on and on.

And this was during the Bush years of trying to get nominees through, and he was nasty. And he would do it with a smile. He also takes pictures.

He does. We have these... He's just... Vermont. We're on in Vermont.

Vermont, you got some interesting senators. One with his mittens, and one who will probably have his camera up there taking pictures of the whole thing going on. He's taking pictures of me. Yeah, he took pictures during the last impeachment trial. Now, he didn't get the dais position, but he will this time.

And to me, though, I just want to remind you, he is older now, so sometimes he seems more like a grandpa-ish figure, or even older than that, like a great grandpa. But the National Review back in 2004, this is the guy that's going to preside over it. preside over it, called him quote, the nastiest Democrat. The nastiest.

And when I look at it, I would say that the number two on there was probably Biden to me, because of what he did to Clarence Thomas. They're very similar. They play that grandpa game, but they will rip you apart. They talk unity and they rip you apart. Take a listen to Senator Rand Paul, and then we'll get back to your phone calls. It's really a bizarre notion that they think that the American public are gonna accept this as legitimate when the guy in charge of it is gonna be a partisan Democrat who already voted for impeachment once.

I kind of think that sums the whole thing up. The Chief Justice is not sitting. It's not an impeachment trial.

It's that simple. Well, there's no constitutional provision for impeaching a private citizen. Donald Trump is a private citizen. No, you go to real court for that.

Yes. Yeah, if you think the President violated a law, you bring charges, a US attorney or a state prosecutor brings, or if it's a civil case, it brings civil charges because he's a private citizen. So you're right, there's no procedures for removing private citizens that are already not serving. No, I mean- And they all point back to the Belknap Cape, the Secretary of War, but of the 22 senators- 23. The 23 senators that voted against- They all thought he should be convicted if he was still not- Everybody said he was guilty. 23 of them said, he's guilty, but we can't take action. We have no jurisdiction. He's not in office and he was acquitted.

Equated. Let's go to Mary Ellen's call in Illinois online too. Hey, Mary Ellen.

Oh, hello everyone. As I listened to everything, and I don't mean you, I mean out of Washington and in the media, I never hear anything spoken about the doctrine of immunity for an elected official and the free speech or how political speech is protected. Political speech is protected because it's no different than any other form of free speech. Political speech, religious speech, are all protected speech. And one of the arguments that will be made by, I would think, by the lawyer doing the actual, this political trial that's about to happen, I don't like calling it an impeachment trial, I'm sure it's going to be that the President's statements were protected speech under the First Amendment and did not reach the standard of non-loss of protection based on a case in 1969 called Brandenburg versus Ohio. So that will be the free speech argument.

With regard to immunity, they're not immune. They're subject to impeachment. Then, so it's immune while you're in office and then impeached and then actions can be taken. I'm watching Susan Rice, the domestic policy advisor, giving a White House press briefing underway and I'm thinking to myself, A, she's not a domestic policy advisor. She's, if anything, a foreign policy advisor.

I have one at that. Why did she take this job? To run the White House.

Okay. To run Joe Biden. This is the problem with Joe Biden at this point.

He's not, he can talk, he gives speeches, he does this press conference, he sounds fine, but none of that happens. None of it becomes actions. Instead, we're talking about equity. Now, equity is not equality. Do you know what equity means?

By the way, I'm just gonna, just a side note here. Equity means everybody gets the same thing. Equality means everybody starts off at the same place. We should always fight towards equality. That's why we support school choice, that you have the same opportunity to make the best for yourself and for your family. Equity, equity is more like socialism.

That's everybody being on the same page. That's not how America works. That's not how our country was founded.

It has not worked anywhere. That's a very utopian view that you could ever reach that. I mean, we're in a country still fighting to get to equality, I would argue. So equity is saying, let's just bypass that and we'll just make everybody the same point, regardless of how hard you worked or didn't or how much schooling you went to or didn't or luck that's involved also, I mean, in business. And so equity, it sounds like equality. It is not.

Nope. There are some cases where there should be equity. Limited, but not this national view of, so this is Susan Rice putting another kind of statement and putting her out this early, this divisive figure, again, with Benghazi and all of that, just shows you who's running the show at the White House.

Just wanted, you know. Is there a sense of fan in Washington, just following up on what Jordan said, as to how things are gonna move forward? Legislation, for instance, on the issue of the COVID relief. What's gonna happen there? Yeah, the COVID relief, Jay, it looks like they're gonna use that very infamous procedure known as budget reconciliation. They're planning on starting that this week and having it teed up, sort of ready to get through the process without getting all the weeds, Jay. They've gotta pass the budget. Then they would probably move to the impeachment trial and then probably wouldn't return to trying to implement that COVID legislation through reconciliation until after the trial was over. Jay, just one note on that. We won't know 100% until that week of February 8th, because even though there's disagreement on the framework in place, they still have to pass that resolution that says how long each senator has to ask questions and all of that.

We think we know how it's gonna go, but look, every week in Washington, D.C. brings surprises, so there's just no certainty on it yet. Yeah, let's go ahead and take another call. Yeah, let's go right back to the phones. Let's go to John in California online for John. Welcome to Jay Sekulow Live.

Thanks for taking my call. My question is, if Donald Trump is put through this unconstitutional impeachment and they vote to disqualify him from taking public office, could he just run for President in 2024 anyway, since it's unconstitutional? No. I think there's a question there, though. Maybe what he could do is challenge- Who's gonna bar him from the ballot? I mean, there's a question.

Well, the states. Maybe. But I think they would. Yeah, I think it'd be- If you're barred, I think here's what I would do. If he is convicted, which I don't think will happen, and it is, then I might take it to the courts. Right, because that's a liberty interest you have. Yeah, because my liberty's now been impacted, and now maybe I can get them adjudicating whether you can impeach a former President or not. But that would not be an easy case, and I do think you run the risk of not being put on the ballot in every state. California's gonna say no, which is not gonna win anyways, but other states could say no.

Yeah, you just don't know how, because what you'd have to, you'd really have to- And then you could run into the same thing where it goes to the Senate for certification, and you really have objections. Right. So you're gonna be right back on that boat. You don't wanna go down this path. No.

That's why this path is not good. He needs to be acquitted. And the President should be acquitted. I believe he will be acquitted, but you never know what will happen. These are trials.

And you don't know because of what Jordan just said. It's a trial. You can go in confidently. Yeah, well, you gotta go in confidently, and we felt very good about the trial that we did a year ago that went for three weeks, but we knew there were points along the way where you have these moments where things could change. We had the Bolton book coming out the day before we were to start our case.

They were leaking it out that day, or the day before the trial was to start, actually. And then there was this call for witnesses, and it was a very close vote. I mean, I think we won by what, two votes? Yeah, we lost one Republican, I think.

Yeah, so these can be close. And again, you go back to the unifying theme, Wes, putting on your minister's hat for a moment, this isn't unifying anybody. No, not at all. But Biden's endorsed it.

Yeah, he did last night. So I don't know if we've read that statement yet. I want to read this statement from Joe Biden. You put it in the chat, Will, from CNN. But it's not unifying.

No, it's not unifying. And I think the result of this is that President Trump will be acquitted, and possibly this will cause his political revival. It doesn't matter how many times Nancy Pelosi, as the Wall Street Journal says, says he's impeached forever. Because of Pelosi, Schumer. He's also acquitted forever.

Yeah. Because of Pelosi and Schumer, this could be his political resurrection, and also because of Joe Biden, who failed to model leadership by telling the leaders of his party to call the whole thing off. It is very divisive to the nation. So Joe Biden told CNN last night in the hallways of the West Wing to CNN, he said directly about the impeachment trial, I think it has to happen. And he acknowledged the effect it could have on his legislative agenda and cabinet nominees, but said there would be a, quote, worse effect if it didn't happen. He told CNN he believed the outcome would be different if Trump had six months left in his term. He said he doesn't think there'll be 17 Republican senators who will vote to convict. The Senate has changed since I was there, he said, and then quotes, but it hasn't changed that much. So he doesn't think that this will be a successful impeachment, but that it has to happen.

That's not the correct response. If you have no shot and you want to unite the country, why are you dividing? And why, if you're the President, do you want to put the former President on TV for vindication, potentially, as you're predicting, which Joe Biden is, over and over and over and over and over again in this lead up to February 9th, and then throughout three to four weeks, Donald Trump will be the biggest news, not Joe Biden. It kind of gives you a signal of what the Biden presidency will be like.

Much like his campaign, he will not be the forefront of the news. 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. All right, we're going to go right to the phones, 1-800-684-3110. We're going to order now. So we'll go first to April in Virginia, online 3 April. Welcome to Secular Radio. You're on the air. Hi, guys.

Thanks for taking my call. My question is about our vote. 70 million people voted for Trump.

I was one of them. And I would vote for him again. And the Senate is trying to take our vote away unconstitutionally. Could we file a class action suit with you guys, the 70 million people? It was 73,500,000, almost 74 million.

I don't think you can file a class action. I think it would be up to the party convicted, which would be the President, who's our client, to see if there's any post-judicial remedy. But your sentiment is interesting. Of course, who knows what's going to happen in four years, whether he's going to run again or not. But the political apparatus he's put together, it brought a lot of people into the Republican Party that just were not there before. So I think it would be naive to think that he's not west of the dominant force.

And I'm going to ask that to Fan, too. Yeah, he absolutely is. And a lot of people who were not engaged in politics much at all, who felt left out by the political establishment, Donald Trump brought them in. But the question, I guess, though, is I don't think anybody would deny it.

And I think the Democrats would agree that you can't say he's not the dominant player on the Republican side. The question is, do those people that came in, I'm going to ask you this, too, Jordan, did the people that came in, I'll start with Fan, the people that came in, did they come in because of Donald Trump? And then when Donald Trump, if he's not the nominee in 2024, it's just like, eh, I'm not so interested. Yeah, I mean, I think in many cases they did. And at a bare minimum, Jay, I know that they want the right to decide whether or not he's their choice in the future.

I mean, that's kind of the point. If you decide for a candidate or otherwise, it's really not up to the United States Senate to strip you of that right. We've talked about this a lot, Jay. What's the political calculation here? And you said that you think Democrats have miscalculated.

So do I. But I think they see Republicans divided. They want to keep them divided. But I'll tell you, you push too far, that actually has a unifying effect. And quite frankly, I think that's what the next two or three weeks will show.

Yep. Yeah, take a listen to Rand Paul, Byte 31. Democrats are about to do something.

No self-respecting senator has ever stooped to. Democrats are insisting the election is actually not over. And so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election. This acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. Why?

Because calmer heads have typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved. Pretty strong statements. It's got another one we may play in a minute. But let's take another call.

Let's go to Jordan, who do you want to take next? Yeah, we'll go to Rick in Florida, on Line 6. Hey, Rick, welcome to Secular Radio. Good afternoon.

Thank you for taking my call. I know that we have three branches of government for the purposes of checks and balances. Who provides the check and balance on the Congress, the House, and the Senate, if their actions are unconstitutional relating to impeachment?

You do. We do. The American people are the final say that we get to vote them in and vote them out every two years for the House members, every six for the senators. And so it's up to you to remember what some of these senators are doing, and how they vote, and how they proceed, and what they say. And it's us.

We are the ultimate. They are ultimately accountable to the American voter. And senators, again, they've set up our system of government so where the House is always accountable, basically. It's every two years. Every other year, you're getting ready to hold them accountable.

And then the Senate every six. But we live in a very hyper-partisan country right now. So while I say we hold them accountable, the likely voters in midterm elections are usually more partisan voters.

And because there are very few independents that run, even though there are people that registered independent, they kind of know where they're going to vote. So you don't see as much accountability on these votes being held. This is one of those issues where, though, like when I was out with Dick Moritz last night on Newsmax, where you could see accountability. Because down the road, this is all on camera now.

It's all being recorded. Your statements are being made. Like this statement from Rand Paul, take a listen, bite 29. Hyper-partisan Democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor and vitriol, the likes of which has never been seen in our nation's history. Instead of doing the nation's work with their new majorities in the House, the Senate, and the executive branch, Democrats are wasting the nation's time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office.

So there you go. You play that for those senators who supported that. Now, is that going to necessarily get you, you know, I don't know if Leahy or Bernie Sanders are rerunning again, the older guys. But is it going to win you Vermont Senate seats?

I don't know, probably not. But it certainly could in those battleground states like Arizona. You know, Mark Kelly's been very quiet. He'll be up again, too, in two years. He's been very quiet. Now, I would imagine he's going to vote to impeach.

But play those kind of sound bites. You remind Arizona voters what this senator did. And suddenly, that could be a seat that's very contested in two years. Same thing goes in Georgia. Because Warnock is back up again, and Georgia's still right on the line. So you get a good candidate in, and you remind people what they did to the country.

Not just to Donald Trump, but like Rand Paul talked about, to the country itself. Back to the phones we go. Joe in New Mexico on line one. Joe, welcome to Secular Radio.

Hey, thanks for taking my call. I was wondering, I'm a policeman. And of course, we deal a lot in intent. Is there any chance? Could they, would they, if this impeachment fails miserably, like it probably will, try to get President Trump criminally on the charge? Well, the attorney general for the District of Columbia said they've opened up an investigation on this.

And I believe the US Attorney's Office has also opened an investigation on this. Now, I think the President's defense to that would be First Amendment free speech. But could they? Sure, they could. Likely, I'm not so sure.

I think his speech was protected. So I don't see how they would be able to get an incitement charge. But if you ask me, could they scenario? Sure, they could. But again, very damaging to the country if that happens, Wes.

Going back to that unity theme. Boy, absolutely damaging. You can indict anyone. Convicting them is another matter.

But that whole process would be very, very harmful to the country. Let's take the final call of the day. Patrice in California on line four. Patrice, I want to say this to you. Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote, Democrats in the press, they're addicted to Donald J. Trump. So America gets to do this all over again. Hey, Patrice, welcome to the show.

Hi, how are you guys doing? I just wanted to state that I think this all falls in or plays into the Democrats' handbook. I think they are trying to hide Biden. I don't think they want him out there in public speaking. This is the equivalent of hiding in his basement, but hiding in the White House. Right, well, he did his first press conference yesterday.

It was fine. But he didn't take this question during the press conference. So we don't have a video of it. We just have CNN's report. I think what he said is true. So you get what he said, but that's very different than seeing him say, I support this impeachment.

I think it has to happen, than reading it. And so I agree with you to extend. I think that's why you have Susan Rice right now, as we speak to you, doing the White House press briefing today. It's sending a signal of who is in charge and who's running the show at the White House. And these are senior Obama officials that are running roughshod over Joe Biden and his team. In fact, Kamala Harris has a bigger, broader team in some places than even Joe Biden has put together yet.

Because people see the future, even the Democrat actors. And I think you'll watch and see that. We will, again, we're going to continue to cover this.

We're going to put an analysis for you. We're going to give you an action item, a way to speak out on this unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive action, this political trial of a private citizen. Chief Justice won't show up, because it's not impeachment. Go to ACLJ.org, support the work of the Americans that are following justice. That's ACLJ.org.

We will 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's history. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.