BREAKING: Democrats’ Impeachment Brief Filed

This is Jay Sekulow breaking news, the Democratic House Manager's impeachment brief filed at the Senate. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey everybody, welcome to the broadcast and we do have breaking news.

Not unexpected breaking news, but breaking news nonetheless. The House Managers, the Democratic House Managers for the impeachment have filed a 75 page brief with the United States Senate that they caption trial memorandum of the United States House of Representatives and the impeachment trial of President Donald A. Trump. You know, it's interesting because in their article of impeachment they referred to him as President Donald J. Trump, but in the actual trial he's not the President of the United States.

He's a former President of the United States, which I think will be part of what's going on here. But what's interesting in this is they say there is no January exception to the impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution. This is the argument that you're going to see play out at least initially, and that is this jurisdictional argument. And what the House Managers are saying is, hey look, the fact that we brought him in January doesn't disqualify this trial from going forward. The interesting thing there is if they would have had the impeachment in the trial in January when the President was still in office, they're right. But they didn't do that. And Jordan, that's the fundamental flaw here constitutionally speaking.

Yes, that's right. I read their brief when they try to tackle what the 45 Republican senators did when they said that we don't have jurisdiction here. And first they pointed to the fact that there was this case out of the 1800s with the Secretary of War. But what they don't tell you in that is ultimately that Secretary of War was acquitted by the US Senate because 24 US senators believed that even though he committed high crimes and misdemeanors, because he was no longer in office, that he could not be impeached.

So they like to leave that part out. So the Senate precedent is actually against this when it comes to voting. And it's never been done to a former President. The second part I think they're very wrong on is they say, well, the founder said, remember it's removal and then being barred from seeking office.

But I don't think you get to be barred from seeking a future federal office if you're not removed while you're in office. So I think they read that wrong as well. Now it's open to interpretation, but they go very strongly and say, no, it's absolutely this way.

It's 100% this way. And yet the only precedent of a former cabinet official being impeached after they left office showed that the Senate acquitted them even when they believe they committed high crimes and misdemeanors because they believe they lacked jurisdiction. So then which brings to this question, I think, look, there's a brief, the President's team will file a brief next Monday. We're drafting a document right now that we're going to distribute that is going to lay out what we believe is the correct constitutional analysis that should be rendered in a situation like this. So we've got a brief that we're going to be putting together that's going to lay out the correct constitutional analysis, which in our view is there is no jurisdiction.

Having said all of that, how are things shaping up up there right now? Well, it all comes down to numbers. And I mean, it starts with the constitutional analysis, whether or not the Senate has jurisdiction. And Jordan rightly pointed out that 45 Republican senators have already said that they don't think they have jurisdiction. But, Jay, interestingly enough, what I'm hearing is that that might be actually the floor of the number of senators who ultimately conclude that either they don't have constitutional jurisdiction or maybe maybe there's a few that are on the Republican side that still think they have jurisdiction. But the fact that he's out of office does render it moot nonetheless. So, you know, I think there's at least 45 votes for a motion to dismiss.

And I think that number could go up. And, you know, Jay, I don't expect someone like Tim Kaine to vote for a motion to dismiss. But if he's now saying it's a waste of time, wouldn't he have a constitutional and maybe even a moral duty to vote for that motion to dismiss? I don't expect he will.

But I don't know how he can say the one thing and vote the other way. The pressure on him is just going to be too great. I mean, I just think the pressure on the Democrats are going to be too great, even when you've got a situation like this, where it's the jurisdiction is to be kind is questionable, at least at a minimum. Okay, we're going to get into this. Rick Grinnell is joining us coming up. We've got a lot of information on this brand new lawsuit, the ACLJ's filing.

We're going to announce that when we come back from the break. Support the work of the ACLJ as well at ACLJ.org. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive and that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Hey, welcome back, everybody. If you're just joining us, the house managers have filed their brief in the upcoming so-called, and I say so-called impeachment trial because I really believe constitutionally that you can't impeach someone that's left office. Impeachment means it's impeachment and removal. I mean, it's, you know, you're impeached removed and then they could try this penalty of barring you from office. But here, the President's out of office and they use this, as I said, they said, there is no January exception to our electoral institutions. And that's true if this was before January 20th. I think there's a January 21st exception, however, and that is when the President is no longer serving in office, you're impeaching him from what? And as Jordan pointed out, they cite to the secretary of war in 1876, Secretary Beltlapp, who was impeached, resigned, and then tried. He was actually acquitted, not because they didn't think what he did was high crimes and misdemeanors. He was acquitted because 23 of the United States senators said, there's no jurisdiction here.

We can't do this. So obviously briefs will be going back and forth. But I also want to announce that the American Center for Law and Justice, our first new lawsuit of 2021 is going to be filed against the FBI and the State Department. And that is regarding Eric Swalwells, who is an impeachment manager, by the way, the Congressman, and the scandal relating to the Chinese national that was basically infiltrating his office.

We're joined by our senior advisor on international affairs and on national security, Rick Grenell, former acting director of DNI and ambassador to Germany. Rick, I want to start with, first of all, your comments or thoughts on this upcoming impeachment trial next week. First of all, it's ridiculous. I mean, the whole idea of impeachment is to remove a President and we have a new President. And so that's really moving into a political atmosphere. I mean, if this is how the Democrats are going to work to somehow embarrass the other side and punish later, then they're really weaponizing impeachment. And it's a misuse of it, which means in the future, people are going to use it as a political wedge now.

And they just ruined the whole idea of what it really is supposed to be. You know, it's interesting you say that because if you can start going back and impeaching Presidents, I mean, they could go back to the living Presidents, at least Jimmy Carter, and maybe you don't stop there. Do they go back? Do they impeach George W. Bush? They try to do that when he was in office. What about Bill Clinton? They try to do that too.

He was acquitted, but there's no double jeopardy there. I mean, do they try that again? I mean, this is what's ridiculous about this whole approach. But I want to talk about the situation with a serious concern, and that is the infiltration by the Chinese national into Eric Swalwell's office. But I wanted to put it, Rick, in a broader context, and that is the context of the danger going forward with China. You are the director of national intelligence for our country.

Let's talk about that. The significance of the threat from the Chinese. It's a big threat.

It's a crisis. Russia is a problem, but China is a crisis, and I say that often. We have to understand that politicians who are telling us to look over there at Russia are really given the Beijing line. Beijing has been manipulating our politicians locally and at the state level and members of Congress. They've been doing it quietly. They've infiltrated our academic institutions. They've done it quietly.

This is a crisis. And I just have to say, Jay, there's a lot of talk amongst Republicans how frustrated they are that the Durham report didn't come out, that we don't have action against people who commit crimes. When ACLJ decides to push forward on the Eric Swalwell situation, and the government is not, Congress is not, this is an actionable item that the people should get involved with. I hope that we get a lot of support for this FOIA request. This is the action that needs to take place to punish people when they do something wrong, when Washington ignores it.

Well, let me tell you this, Rick, and Jordan knows this too, and so does Stan. We are gonna be expanding our offices in Washington with additional staffing and lawyers. This is our first lawsuit of the year. It is against the State Department. It may well be against your former office, the Office of Director of National Intelligence, the NSA, and the FBI. We did make the formal request for documents as you're supposed to do.

Of course, no response or non-satisfactory response. So we are gonna go into U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and do what we do best, and that's go to court to get this information because, first of all, Eric Swalwell is an impeachment manager of all things, which is so ironic. Number two, it's not just Eric Swalwell here. We wanna know what the government knew about this Jordan, and how they were dealing with it, or not dealing with it.

That's right. Why did it take so long for them to get briefed? And remember how bold Nancy Pelosi was initially before she got that special briefing with House leader, GOP leader McCarthy.

And she was bold, she was sticking with Swalwell, and listen, they have. They kept him on the Homeland Security Committee. They made him a House impeachment manager, which to me makes him as partisan as, makes the impeachment just that much more partisan. Him and Ted Lieu being on that team makes it so extra partisan, if you will. But after that briefing by the FBI, Nancy Pelosi had no comment. And Kevin McCarthy said it was very scary what they heard. And yet the Democrats continued to place Swalwell in these positions of power while he'll receive classified briefings and be a House impeachment manager when they're trying to convince Republicans, which to me tells me they were never trying to actually convince Republicans. They just want to damage and tarnish President Trump. So on December 16th, Rick, we sent a FOIA request to the FBI, the State Department, the Office of Director of National Intelligence, and the NSA. That's the initial start process.

We received a response from each agency, but each of the responses are so deficient that they entitle us to file a lawsuit to seek court intervention. To summarize the request, I want people to understand what we're asking for. We're seeking records pertaining to the FBI's knowledge and efforts surrounding the breaking story that the Chinese spy known as Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, had a lengthy relationship with Representative Eric Swalwell, including placing staff inside his office. And evidently she was a known, evidently became a known Chinese spy. And this goes back to, Rick, the Chinese situation. Putting Eric Swalwell's lack of judgment to one side here. Let's talk about, you said, you know, a problem is Russia, a threat is China.

What are we looking at here? Look, I think people are really frustrated with no consequences. And this Eric Swalwell situation, while he maintains access to classified information on a very key committee and is getting promoted, as you pointed out, as an impeachment manager, he's being used for higher tasks.

This means that Washington and the leaders of the intel community are completely ignoring what this problem is when a Chinese spy infiltrates an individual member of Congress. I'm tired of having no consequences. I'm proud that ACLJ is taking up the mantle to say we will get to the bottom of it. We need your help in making sure that we can follow through.

But people want there to be consequences for actions. Eric Swalwell right now is getting away with it. And we can't let him get promoted by Nancy Pelosi simply because they all live in the San Francisco Bay Area and they politically know each other. I want to go to Thanh Ben and our director of governmental affairs here for a moment too. Thanh, as you know, Ben Sisney, a senior counsel for the ACLJ, is our FOIA expert.

He's working on this situation right now. And I want to get your sense, Thanh, on we got pretty much stymied from the government here. Yeah, there's a couple of layers here, Jay. I mean, the FOIA lawsuit is going to focus on what the executive branch knew, the FBI, the State Department, ODNI, NSA, and others, Jay. But look, there's an awful lot we already know about the legislative branch. And I want to make sure that's not lost on our listeners because this information was withheld from the House Intelligence Committee for five years by Congressman Swalwell while Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff continued to give him cover and put him on that committee.

And look, I'm not naive to this. There's a lot of controversy. There's a lot of debate that happens in a partisan level in Washington, D.C. And a lot of that is appropriate, Jay.

It rubs the rough edges off of ideas. But on the House Intelligence Committee, it is of paramount importance that there is trust between its members because of the sensitive nature that they deal with. So for for the other members on that committee, both Republican and Democrat, to have this information withheld for them for five years is an abdication of duty. And remember, Jordan alluded to this, but Speaker Pelosi, before that briefing, she came out directly and said, oh, all of the other members of the committee knew about this.

There's nothing to see here. Well, Jay, the other members on the Republican side of the aisle came forward and said, no, we didn't know anything about this. Meanwhile, we were sitting next to Eric Swalwell getting this sensitive information, and he was taking it back to his personal office where there was someone from the Chinese government that was infiltrating his office. Jay, it's almost it's almost beyond belief, Rick, really, really quickly. We're going to a break. It really is.

I mean, it really is beyond belief here. Look, what Nancy Pelosi is trying to be cute on is that we knew that some members of Congress were getting defensive briefings, but they didn't know the specifics. They knew the general rule. And that's why she keeps saying, oh, we all knew. No, we they knew that there were certain members that were caught up in this Chinese situation that would get defensive briefings, but they did not know who and what specifics about that situation.

And Rick would know is was the former director, acting director of the Office of National Intelligence. We come back. Big news for Kosovo and Israel. Want to talk about that? We're going to talk about some work at the U.N.

So we've got a lot more ahead. Support the work of the ACLJ. Let's just go to court this very week. 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. 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. Hi, everybody. Welcome back to the broadcast. We're joined by our senior advisor on international affairs and national security, Rick Grenell, and of course, Jordan Thandor with me as well. We have filed at the UN a series of documents, which I'm gonna get into in a moment, but there's other international news I wanted to get to first. And Rick, that international news is a historic moment and you were the envoy on this. Israel and Kosovo not only establishing diplomatic relations, but the Kosovo government opening up an embassy ultimately in Jerusalem, which is a hugely significant. Tell us about this one.

I was so proud yesterday to watch this happen online because of COVID. It needed to all be social distanced. And look, Kosovo is a majority Muslim country. And as part of our agreement, the normalization agreement, Serbia and Kosovo both established embassies and diplomatic relations with Israel.

This is unbelievable. Part of the Abraham Accords, the success of the Trump administration. I watched yesterday as the foreign minister in Israel, the foreign minister and prime minister in Kosovo signed documents, established diplomatic relations. There's already talk about trade and investment. This is truly historic, would not have happened if not for President Trump's leadership. And I think that this creates peace for the Middle East even further. And we will see the benefits of having Kosovo and Serbia in the Balkans begin to have greater diplomatic relations with Israel.

And this is a win for everybody around the world. I understand we've got some breaking news also. Jordan, you've been following it.

What's the latest? That's right. Terry on Facebook wrote in, we were talking about Durham. Does the new administration mean that Durham's investigation has been shut down? And there's just breaking news now in Fox News that the Durham probe has switched its focus from the CIA to the FBI, but does not expect any prosecutions of high level officials like the Jim Comey types, like the types we were just talking about. So while they are still active and they are now invested, they've gone from the CIA to the FBI not to expect high level prosecutions. That is breaking news from Fox News right now. And of course, all that could change is they continue their FBI investigation. The big question is how long Joe Biden and his administration allow them to continue.

You know what this means to me? ACLJ now more than ever, because this is the typical government response. Here you go on for a year and a half, two years, and we're going to get some low level lawyer that did something. It was a crime. Of course, he ended up getting probation. But Rick, you were inside government. I represented the President of the United States, the 45th President of the United States, and worked on these cases. But this is why our focus at the American Center for Law and Justice is to seek justice. You know, the scriptures say justice, justice shall you pursue. And that's what we're going to have to do here because you cannot rely on government to do it.

Rick? You have to pressure. And that's why this is no better time to support the ACLJ. We have to put pressure on the government. I actually believe that the Durham report, you know, this news may not be accurate because the Durham investigators are looking at all sorts of people we don't know.

Durham has been very secretive, very private about what's going on. We need to pressure and utilize every angle that we can in the courts and public pressure to let the government know that consequences are what we demand. We cannot have the typical government response of just saying, well, we'll kick the can down the road and some lower level person is going to take the fall.

That's unacceptable. You know, I think about the situation there. I think about the situation with Congressman Swalwell, who we are now suing the various government agencies to get the real information on that. And then fan, I go back to the days leading up to our massive lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, where they were in the same exact posture. They were doing targeting of conservatives and pro-life groups. And we did Freedom of Information Act requests, among other things, went to federal court and ultimately took down that entire division, the tax exempt division because of the nonsense that they were doing and trying to get away with. Now, the government had all these watchdogs and the FBI was doing an investigation and it went to nothing.

We ended up getting a court order and millions of dollars in damages. Here's the honest truth, Jay. Without the efforts of the ACLJ and those pieces of litigation, Lois Lerner would still be in senior leadership position at the IRS and plans like the one that she executed to target conservatives. That one would be continuing as would others, Jay. I mean, I agree with Rick that the pressure has to stay up because you can get positive results at time, but it only happens, at least in my experience, it only happens when they actually get caught. You've got to catch them with their hand in the cookie jar and then be willing, quite honestly, Jay, to take them all the way to court because otherwise the strategy is to run the clock out, let election cycles pass, filter new political appointees in and then just let the investigations expire. We're not going to do that on any of these matters and the road is often a lot longer than we like it to be, but you've got to stay the course. There's no doubt about it.

And Jordan, I was thinking about this. The fact of the matter is as we look at this new lawsuit and it'll be a lawsuit against the FBI, it'll be an office against a lawsuit against the NSA and others. This is our first lawsuit that on the other side of this is going to be the Biden lawyers, the Department of Justice under Joe Biden, that changes things too.

That does. The stall tax exchange, it takes much longer to get information, information that Americans have the right to get. And it's easier to get when you work through an organization like the ACLJ with an expertise in FOIA litigation at the federal and even state level. But what you have to understand is now you're not dealing with an administration that's just got to work through a little bit of the bureaucracy. You're dealing with an administration that accepts everything as truth from the bureaucracy. So even easy information that would usually be given right over in FOIA.

We will have to fight for it. As you said, it's finding that needle in the haystack, in the emails that leads usually to the larger request. But it takes going to court, especially under this administration, the Biden administration.

And they're going to push hard not to give any information that would make them look bad or shed light on the targeting of President Trump and his campaign. And this goes beyond that. This we're talking about here. We're talking about, of course, an ongoing situation because Eric Swalwell is a manager, Rick. I mean, he's an impeachment man, was promoted to impeachment manager while he was being subject to this scandal involving the Chinese. But for our audience, as we close out this segment with a minute and a half to go here, I think it's very important for you to put forward again once again the threat from the Chinese government that we have to be on top of at the ACLJ and our international affiliates. And let me be careful about what I say here, because I want to always be sensitive to classified information.

We have a crisis with China. They have secretly infiltrated academia. They have leveraged our local politicians, our state politicians, governors, and members of Congress. The intelligence community knows this. There are certain individuals that we have had to go and give defensive briefings to to say, hey, you're getting a little bit too close to a Chinese spy. And those individuals know exactly what's going on. Some have crossed the line and they also need to be held to account, not just get a defensive briefing. This is a crisis. The intelligence community knows this. And we must stay the course and push the government to make sure that there are consequences for people who break the law.

Rick Rinnell, senior adviser to the American Center for Law and Justice for International Affairs and National Security. Thank you for that insight. Folks, you're getting analysis here. You're not going to get anywhere else. And there's something else you get here, not just analysis. You get work.

You get action. Support the work of the ACLJ. Like all of our social media pages, Facebook, YouTube, but also support the work of the ACLJ. You could do that at ACLJ.org.

We're back with another half hour in just a moment. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live.

And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the broadcast. We've got breaking news and it has just developed.

I'm going to ask Jordan Sekulow. This is involving the Durham investigation and we just got some information that is now public, I guess. And this has been, of course, our concern with all these going forward.

How do you ever hold these people accountable? So Jordan's been following this situation very closely for us. He's in one of our other studios today, but has joined us. Jordan, what is the latest here? So the latest Fox News is reporting is that the Durham investigation completed their CIA portion of their investigation in 2020, and they've shifted their focus to the FBI. Now, that's a little complicated because remember, they did get a guilty verdict from an FBI attorney. So at some point they were at the FBI, but I guess they're refocusing on the FBI. But what the sources also told Fox News, you always take it with a grain of salt, but it's been slow coming. Remember, Rick mentioned earlier, where is this report after a year and a half? And they are reporting in this statement that sources gave to Fox News, don't expect any high level prosecutions that people like Jim Comey. Now, I think Comey was very, very high level.

I'm more concerned about like the Peter Strachs, the Lisa pages, the Annie McCabes, not necessarily the director himself, though I'd sure like to see some more action taken there if they find, uh, criminal conduct. But, uh, but I read this to say he's basically kind of wrapping up a report and you got to wonder then why he didn't get this done before, before the end of the first four years of the Trump presidency. Because now his status as a special counsel, as we've talked about before, is in jeopardy. They're not independent counsels. They can be fired. So at any moment this investigation can just be cut off and he's just now announcing that he's going to look into the FBI actors, but telling all the higher ups, don't worry about it.

I don't, that doesn't seem like a great strategy. And it concerns me that, uh, again, once again, the deep state actors on both sides, Republican and Democrat, it sounds a lot like Mueller. Again, get a few low level guys spent millions and millions of American taxpayer dollars and then injure your investigation with no big fish on the line. So that's why the American center for law and justice more than ever.

And we are announcing today that our first lawsuit of 2021 will be filed by the American center for law and justice against the FBI, the state department, the office of director of national intelligence and the national security administration. It is involving Eric Swalwells, who is a impeachment manager. Uh, and the scandal involves the Chinese spy, a purported spy, alleged spy, uh, Christina Fang, who not only infiltrated Swalwell's office, but actually was placing staff inside his office. He apparently was briefed about the dangers of this. As Rick Grinnell just talked about, some of the other members of Congress have had issues with the Chinese.

The Chinese are, are very, very dangerous. Uh, we have filed or we are, we have filed the freedom of information act request. We were seeking all relevant records, uh, involving this entire situation. So, um, unfortunately and not shockingly, we did not get the information we requested and we want the information regarding what the FBI knew, what the other agencies knew about Christina Fang and the situation with Congressman Swalwell, who is, I said an impeachment manager and we are filing a lawsuit in federal court this week, formally going after these very agencies.

So while the special councils may not produce anything and the government watchdog groups may not, uh, inside the government may not produce anything. Rest assured in this, the American center for law and justice will be front and center more than ever right now to get to the bottom of this, to protect our Republic, to find out the information that you, that the American people are entitled to know we're going to do that. We're going to be unrelenting in going to court to get the answers and we'll be beefing up our offices around the globe, but certainly in Washington DC as the workload there is going to increase drastically. Support the work of the ACLJ and the easiest way to do it is at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org.

Any amount you contribute, we appreciate and also follow us on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, stay engaged. 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. Hey, welcome back to the broadcast everyone. We're taking your calls. We have breaking news on the Durham report, but let's go ahead Jordan and get to the phones as well. If you're just joining us, it appears that the Durham report's focus is now on the FBI.

Is that correct Jordan? Is that the way it's looking right now? They're saying maybe they've gone from the CIA and they finished that in 2020 to go now and look at the FBI. Now, part of that report was that don't expect any high level prosecutions coming out of this. Now, Jim Comey's name was directly mentioned from the sources, but I want to know more about the Andy McCades, the Peter Strachs, that Durham himself might not consider high level because they weren't the director. And ultimately Comey was fired.

But again, it's just putting the reliance on government. This should have been done by the end of 2020, uh, before President Biden took office so that at least even if the prosecutions hadn't started yet, all of the facts got out in that Durham report we keep talking about, uh, because you know what's going to happen here. The Biden team is not going to prosecute. They're not, they're, they're going to put a stop to this. Ultimately, I believe they've shown that kind of political will.

They talk unity, but they don't act that way. But we've got calls about impeachment too coming up and I want to take some of those. Robert in Maryland online one. Robert, thanks for holding on. You're on the air. Hi Robert.

Yeah. Hi. Hi Jordan. Hi Jay.

I wanted to ask all the both of you. I take it that the United States Senate is looking seriously considering still going through with the impeachment trial if they are still seriously considering going through with an impeachment trial with a President that's no longer in office and the articles in the constitution article two sections, I think two and four make it pretty clear. It's a conviction. It's impeachment of conviction of, uh, trees and high fines of misdemeanors and removal of office. He's no longer in office. Why would they continue to want to go through with an impeachment trial when President Trump is no longer in office and that clearly violates article two, uh, sex article two of the constitution of the United States.

That's the same reason that they're willing to go forward with it. Robert, even though the chief justice of the United States is not going to be the presiding officer and traditionally, uh, I mean constitutionally that when you have a impeachment of a President of the President, you have the chief justice serving as the presiding officer. He's not here.

Why is that? Because this isn't the impeachment of the President. The constitution says the President. Now at the time the articles of impeachment were drafted, he was the President, but the time they were delivered and that he was, and to be tried, he was out of office. But there is, while there are 45 senators fan that really have the view, uh, that this is unconstitutional on jurisdictional grounds.

I'm not even getting into the merits of what took place at horrific day on January six. Just talking about the constitutional issue of is there jurisdiction? The house managers have filed their brief. Uh, the President's lawyers will follow their brief next week. We are publishing an article probably next week too. That's a, or a position paper that's going to lay out what we think the law is.

And we think the law is that there is no jurisdiction, but they are getting ready to move forward. But a lot of these, I'm hearing these Republican senators, including people you normally wouldn't expect to hear from. I mean, I've got a good relationship with John Cornyn.

Nobody could say he's, you know, uh, over the top and he is very low key and very measured. And he, it says also waste of time. Joe Manchin, the President, uh, Senator from West Virginia saying waste of time.

Yeah. Tim Cain saying the same thing. And look, I think more and more, especially on the Republican side, but including the Democrat side, I think that delay of two weeks while the President actually was exiting office, I think that has added to those numbers. Uh, Jay, that's why Lindsey Graham said that he thinks the number on the motion to dismiss vote is going to be higher than 45. Remember 45 senators have already voted that they think it's not constitutional to proceed at this point.

Uh, but there, there's every indication that the, uh, among those five who did not vote, uh, five Republicans who did not vote that way, they just wanted more briefing on this. So I think, I think there are several in that group who actually are going to look at that two week delay and ultimately conclude that while it would have been constitutional to pursue impeachment and conviction, uh, during the timeframe when President Trump was in office, now that he's gone, I think there's more of them. Jay, they're going to conclude they don't have jurisdiction anymore. The second part of Robert's question, Jordan, which is interesting to me is, uh, of course, why are they doing this when they know pretty much that the President will be acquitted? So if you know the President is about to be acquitted, why in the world would you continue with this, filing the briefs today and going through this process?

Because they still believe because the statements like like a leader McConnell, I'm not trying to put a vote in his mouth and tell how he's going to vote it because he voted the right way on sickness was unconstitutional. But then he said, you know, but I'm going to listen to the facts. And I think what we have to make clear is that if you believe a trial is unconstitutional, you don't listen to the facts because you don't have jurisdiction to even be listening. You should basically just sit there, close your ears, let, let the Democrats say what they wish and then vote to acquit because you voted already on the record that you don't have the jurisdiction. So I think that's where the Democrats are focusing on the parade of terribles, the parade of horribles they're going to put forward to these senators and try to convince even some of those 45 to say, wow, even though I don't think we have jurisdiction, maybe I was wrong on that and need to change my vote to convict. That's why pushing the process, pushing the constitutional argument is so key and reminding these senators that if you believe this is an unconstitutional exercise of Senate jurisdiction, whatever Eric Swalwell says or Raskin says or Ted Lou and the other house manager says is moot. It is meaningless and it does, should not shift your vote.

One second, one minute. I don't even think they should ask questions of those house managers. I think above those 45 senators, because again, they've already said we shouldn't even be here. You know, what's interesting on this though is in their brief, I'm holding it in my hand right here. It's 75 pages. The first 48 pages are not about the jurisdiction issue. They don't get to that until the end.

They put out, as you said, the parade of horribles, what the events of the day and the speech that was given. And that's how, so their idea is to get to the jurisdiction last. Now the fact is procedurally, the jurisdiction issue will be raised first.

So when it starts next week, that is going to be the first issue dealt with. Now I don't expect that the motion to dismiss will be granted. So, but what I do expect is there will be somewhere between 45 and 48 votes, maybe 49 votes saying they would grant it. Thus, you will not be able to get to the 67 senators needed in order to have a conviction, which means this would have been another situation where the President was impeached and acquitted again. And meanwhile, the COVID relief fan will not be going forward while all of this is in play, because once they start this process next week, no other business takes place. So that is, so what I'm concerned about here is for the American people, that again, the short end of the stick is the taxpayers in the United States of America who need relief.

And it's not a new story in Washington, DC. Look, after the meeting last night with 10 Republican senators and the Biden White House, what has become clear is that there's not going to be a bipartisan deal this week. I mean, maybe there could be down the road, but that would be after the impeachment trial, Jay. And I will tell you in the House of Representatives, they are proceeding as if the Biden administration is not going to negotiate with those 10 senators he met with last night, because they're pushing the budget reconciliation process, which is just very simply cut through all the rhetoric. It's a way to pass a COVID relief bill without any Republican input. That's what they're trying to do.

Here's the main problem with that. Impeachment pushes it back. Reconciliation pushes it back. You've got to pass a budget before you can even get to the reconciliation instruction.

So Jay, the track we're on, I'm just going to shoot people straight. The track we're on is that there would not be COVID stimulus under that plan for at least another month. You know, what's so interesting about this is they're going to have no COVID relief for another month, which is not good for the American people and not good for small business. Meanwhile, Senator Graham is saying, look, I know what's going to happen here. They're not going to convict him.

Listen to Senator Graham. I'm confident of the outcome here that we're going to have more than 45 votes for a motion to dismiss on the idea that this is unconstitutional impeachment, pursuing somebody out of office. So there you have it.

I mean, so the end result is a given. So again, I want to tell you something. Here's what we're going to do with the ACLJ. We're going to be able to give you analysis. We've done impeachment trial. We did a big impeachment trial a year ago. We were in the Senate chamber these very days, last year, trying an impeachment with separation of powers issues and foreign policy and whistleblowers and a book about to come out.

And we had to deal with all that. And the President was acquitted. He's going to be acquitted. President Trump, former President Trump will be acquitted again today, but we'll be able to give you analysis next week on exactly what's going on and what the defenses are looking like. And it looks like what the defenses are going to be both the jurisdictional constitutional issues and then a first amendment defense that'll be given. We are going to publish next week a document that goes through this jurisdictional thing because I think for the history books, that is what's important here. It's a very dangerous precedent to be setting to say, Jordan, you can go after a former President. Absolutely right. And we've got a petition up at ACLJ.org over 200,000 of you have signed it just a week.

We'd like to get that number to at least 250,000. That's at ACLJ.org. Sign that petition that you believe this is an unconstitutional trial by the U.S. Senate. I mean, for goodness sakes, the chief justice isn't even there. And we're talking about a former President. This isn't the impeachment of President Trump. It's an impeachment of a private citizen that is unconstitutional. And the Senate recognized that back in the 1800s as well. So go to ACLJ.org and sign that petition.

Share it with your friends and family. When we come back, I want to ask Than about the kind of trial, if we've gotten any word yet on how this is going to look. So with people who are interested in watching this, because I'm telling you, we're going to be all over the media next week and of course, on our radio broadcasts or television broadcasts, breaking this down for people. But it could look very different than last time. 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. Folks, I wanted to update you on this because I think it's very important, very important that we talk about this. And that is that the ACLJ, and we're going to get back to the other issues you're calling in about at 1-800-684-3110, through our European Center for Law and Justice just at the end of the year. So this is the information we want to let you know we're working on constantly. You know, at the UN Human Rights Council, they focus on eight countries a year and they ask groups like ours that are official, recognized UN organizations, like the European Center for Law and Justice, to write up reports on those countries. Sometimes the reports are good, sometimes the reports are bad, but oftentimes you find a lot of really tough things. So right on the homepage of ACLJ.org you'll see that the ACLJ submits multiple universal periodic reviews to the UN Human Rights Council highlighting unspeakable violence and persecution worldwide. And we're actually preparing larger submissions. We actually need to put a warning label on my post, because it includes graphic discussion, not images, but graphic discussion of violent atrocities.

But you need to understand the severity of the situation. Where does it focus us on? Well, five of the eight countries are, of course, happen to be predominantly Muslim and in Africa, Nigeria, Somalia, Niger, Mozambique, Namibia, and Sierra Leone. And you know how bad it's been in Nigeria for Christians and in Somalia, and of course even now in Mozambique. But we actually found that one of the worst places was one that doesn't always get as much attention. That's Sierra Leone.

So you want to check out this blog on ACLJ.org. But we didn't stop in Africa. They also wanted to look at Estonia and Latvia, just on general human rights concerns. So some are not as extreme as what we find in Christian persecution in those five African countries. But what also stuck out to us, and we wrote in our report, was that in Latvia, how serious the human trafficking and sex trafficking problem is with families selling children, with children being basically taken and abducted. And so even though that's not an issue of Christian persecution, it's an issue of basic human rights that the ACLJ has been fighting trafficking for decades.

And again, we found that in a country in Europe that is known for actual pretty good human rights, pretty peaceful, broke off from the Soviet Union, more in line with the West and kind of the Baltic states, still has this significant problem with human and child sex trafficking. So we put all this in the report. We're able to officially file that at the UN, and that's what's significant. We're not just filing this report on our website. This report, when you actually click on the report, it's in all the UN formatting. People get to see exactly how it's presented to the President of the Human Rights Council.

No, you're 100 percent correct. And let me say this. In addition to this, we are looking at, and Jordan knows this, and we're not in a position to discuss it publicly yet, but we're looking at the possibility of a case that involves human trafficking at a scale that is worldwide. I mean, it's a worldwide case. We would have jurisdiction, litigation and jurisdictions here in the United States and possibly around the world, and a colleague of ours who we've worked with before in other cases is working on it, and we are giving it some serious thought.

It will be a lot of manpower hours, and a lot of men and women on our teams will have to be working on this. And we wrote a lot of the laws on sex trafficking to make it illegal under the states because the focus was wrong. The young girls that are caught up in trafficking were getting arrested. They are the victim, and they need to be put in safe houses, but they were the victim. They shouldn't have been charged with prostitution. They were the victim of this. So on this whole trafficking issue, we're looking at it now to go to the source, but it would be, Jordan, fair to say the biggest lawsuit we've ever handled I think.

Oh, yeah. When you take on, and if we decide, and if there's going to be, because a lot of them they hide over in countries all over the world, even when they have offices in Silicon Valley, and even sometimes stores in places like New York City selling their merchandise and it becomes kind of a cultural icon, they hide their money and they hide their resources. And so it's a major endeavor if we do it, but it's one that we believe that if we take on, our supporters will understand that we have got to put an end to letting these child sex traffickers and even adult sex traffickers get away with profiting off this by utilizing the same actual laws like a lot of the Facebooks and the Twitters do by saying, well, what's posted to our website we can actually be held liable for. Difference here is that people are paying to see this on their websites, so they can be held liable because they're making money off of it.

That's even different than a Facebook or a YouTube and things like that. So again, the credit card companies, I don't want to name the group yet, but immediately when the reports came out, the big credit card companies said, we're not going to do business with you anymore. So that kind of gives you an indication of how guilty they are of serious offenses. Fan, we've looked at this issue. I know you've looked at it on Capitol Hill, but this issue of sex trafficking cuts across Republican and Democrat lines and we need to be at the forefront fighting against it. No question about it.

It's very grotesque. But Jay, I was glad you brought up the parallel to the state work that we did, because if you're going to combat this effectively around the world, you've got to go in both directions. You've got to go, go more micro to the state patchwork of laws that govern it. But then you've got to go global because a lot of these, a lot of these nations, Jay, that we're filing reports on and seeing the egregious examples of trafficking, they've actually become a destination for people around the world because they are so lax and they do not prosecute the people that kidnap and traffic these, in many cases, they're minors. So Jay, you've got to do it in both directions because the demand for what would be called the product in the term, it's a terrible term to use for it, but the product of child trafficking, it will flow to the areas where the laws are the most lax.

So we're committed to going around the globe and also down to the state level to eradicate it where it's found. I'm telling you folks, it's a big, we're on the air. I'm texting one of the lawyers, a colleague of ours is a very, very good trial lawyer because it's, it's one of these things where we've done the state work on this and it's, it's, it's very similar. Let's go ahead and grab the last call for the day. Kelly in Indiana on line two on the Swalwell info. Kelly, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Hi Kelly. Thank you for taking, thank you.

Thank you for taking my call. My question is, I'm going to pray that you win the lawsuit and that you receive the information that you've requested. Once you get that, I mean, do you have an idea of how long it will take for this process?

And then once you get it, what will be the next step? Can you, can he be removed from this ridiculous impeachment process? Well, I think the impeachment will be well over by the time we are even in court because the impeachment, I think some be over in about 10 days, maybe less than that. This trial is going to be quick and it's going to come next week. The lawsuit takes a long time. We'll file the complaint. They're going to have 30 days to answer. We probably won't file till the end of the month. Once we get the information and that's a slow process, you look for the nuggets.

What is it that's in there that leads to the next thing? And then you can start bringing, whether it's making referrals over to the justice department or others or, or bringing the public pressure on so significantly that the Congress is forced to take action. But the first order of business is to file the case and get to court. So that's really in a situation like that, that's really what we have to do. We've got to get to court. So Ben Sisney from our office in Washington is working on that right now with some brother lawyers and we will get to court and that's going to be the fight. But I'm going to tell you this folks, we're going to increase that office.

We're going to increase our staffing in other places as well. We got to, this is gonna be a real fight. I mean, it's gonna be every day a battle, but that's why it's ACLJ more than ever. And your support of the ACLJ, and by the way, in January, let me just say this on behalf of everybody you're seeing on this broadcast, the people you're not seeing behind the scenes here, the lawyers out in the field here in the United States and in Strasburg, France and in Jerusalem and in Kentucky and Washington DC and all over. Your support in January of this organization was incredible.

Thank you. Continue it at ACLJ.org. 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.