HAPPENING NOW: Impeachment Trial Begins

Today, the second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins. This time, former President Trump on trial. We'll talk about that today on Secular Radio.

It's up to the House impeachment managers and President Trump's lawyers on how long they proceed and whether they want to request witnesses. We'll evaluate it at the time. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. I think, though, today is a very important threshold question of whether the Senate has the constitutional authority to proceed with this trial against a former President.

I don't think they do. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright, so this is it, folks. Today, the impeachment trial begins yet again. This time, a former President Donald Trump. Now, today is very interesting.

I think it will be actually one of the most interesting days for the next likely six, seven days. And that's because there's a short time, only four hours, so two hours each side, to debate whether or not this is constitutional at all. Now, you know our position on that.

We released yesterday. For those of you watching, the memo is available online at ACLJ.org. We got this to every Senate office as well. Why this is unconstitutional. The ACLJ's position is that under the Constitution, when it says you shall have the power to remove and the Disqualification Clause, right there, if there can be no removal, there can be no impeachment, that they don't have a jurisdiction. So, 45 senators, remember, agreed to that position.

And what that meant is that there's no way you're getting close to two-thirds to convict. But here's what happens today. We're going to see both the House managers, led by Jamie Raskin, Congressman from Maryland, and then President Trump's attorneys, who are not names you're going to know from cable news. It's not like last time. Remember, last time he had so much build-up, he had so much testimony from all these government officials, former government officials, NSC officials, all these people that were on a phone call.

There was none of that this time. So, you'll see President Trump's attorneys, though, they'll make that constitutional argument. But then, I want to go right to Washington, D.C., because then, unlike the last impeachment trial where there weren't as many test votes, the big test vote we had to wait until almost the end, which was on witnesses, before we knew that there were not votes to convict. But if the trial was going to keep going past, it was at three weeks at that point, and ultimately the vote was no witnesses. This time around, we get a vote today on whether or not it's constitutional, which will tell us yet again, and it will kind of reaffirm, if again, this is even in play for Democrats, which I don't think it is, but whether or not, probably also how much wiggle room there is on the witnesses issue. Because there will be a vote today on whether or not the Senate should even be having this trial. Yeah, right out of the gate, Jordan, the very most important debate is going to be issued on the Senate floor, and quite frankly, I'll say, before I say it, I'll preface it with I don't think Democrats will go along with this vote, but Jordan, I think this should be the end of the trial today. Because there's going to be four hours of debate on the constitutional question, the one that we presented a memo to every Senate office on, on whether or not the Senate has jurisdiction on a former President. There will be four hours of debate on that, and then essentially, Jordan, they have to move straight to a vote. Debate is not allowed, only what's called deliberations by the Senate, which, just to cut to the chase, there will be a little bit of procedural maneuvering, and then there will be a vote on that underlying question. Jordan, if a majority of the Senate says that it's, they don't have constitutional jurisdiction, that would be it. That would be the end of the trial. Now, we do anticipate Democrats will probably strike that motion down, and it will proceed, but again, yeah, right out of the gate, Jordan, the most important question of this trial, does the Senate even have jurisdiction? The ACLJ has made its position clear. We believe that it's clear under the Constitution.

No, it does not. We're going to go to Andy O'Connor when we get back to you. We're going to take your phone calls to this, 1-800-684-3110. So for today, at the impeachment trial, which begins right after this broadcast is done, being live off the air at 1 p.m. Eastern Time, today the focus is on the Constitution. I don't, don't imagine that we're going to see enough senators to vote it down in the trial today. So we're going to get into today also what happens next. What's the next argument?

16 hours per side. What are you going to be here? What is it, what is the actual issue of this impeachment? Posters whether or not it's constitutional to even be doing it. Go to ACLJ.org. Our petition over $250,000. We want to keep that growing 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, 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. Welcome back to Secular.

We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. So today we'll get the constitutional arguments pretty short. It's four hours total and a vote. So I think by, again, they take breaks.

They start at 1 p.m. Eastern time. You know, it's two hours a side, but maybe they go two hours, maybe there's a break. Then another two hours, then they would have to have the vote. So I think by 6 p.m.ish, you're probably going to get a vote on whether or not it's constitutional. I think what you should be looking at is about 45 senators, maybe one or two switches after they've actually been presented with more than just the idea of talking points, but things like our memo, you know, 45 pages on why what you're about to do is unconstitutional, and heard the actual oral arguments from the House managers, the Democrats' position that you can impeach anybody forever, or the President's attorneys who are going to say, you know, you cannot do this. And if you actually look back in history, which I think what has been ignored, and I'll go to Andy on this, and then I do want to switch to what will be the, because then it's 16 hours a side, still much shorter than what we had, which was 24 hours a side, took more than three days on each because of timing and the Chief Justice schedule, because he was actually there for that impeachment. It was a real impeachment trial, ridiculous, absurd, but real, because the President was in office. Andy, you will hear that even the couple of times in history when former officials were brought forward with impeachment, they've never been a President, but ultimately they were always acquitted, and one was so far back in history. There's not really good history on whether or not the reason why they were acquitted was part of that was because they didn't think they had jurisdiction. That was a guy out of Tennessee, but he went back to Tennessee, got elected at a state level, never showed up to the trial, and this again, same argument, you have no jurisdiction over me, and ultimately was acquitted. Second time around, this happens in the 1800s, more legislative history, and what we learned is that the Senate said, no, there were enough senators that, yes, it got to the trial phase, but when it ultimately came to a vote, they said, they actually agreed that there were high crimes and misdemeanors. There were crimes you could have been impeached if you were in office, but because that person was no longer in office, it was a legal issue, whether or not there were laws violated, not a Senate political issue trial to be dealing with. And so the history is on the side that we're advocating that this is unconstitutional.

That's absolutely correct, Jordan. History is on the side that this is an unconstitutional proceeding. If you look at the Constitutional Convention and what the framers of the Constitution came up with, they were aware of the British system, and the system in England at the time provided for what we call late impeachment. There was a Governor General of India, Warren Hastings, who resigned his position rather than face impeachment, but the British said, you can still be impeached after you've left office. The American founding fathers of the Constitution were fully aware of the Hastings situation, and they opted against that because the Constitution of the United States does not permit late impeachment. It is silent on the issue.

Had they intended to permit late impeachment, they would have said you can be impeached for events occurring while you were in office after you've left office. That is not the case. That is not the historical case, number one.

And more importantly, it is not the textual case. If you read the Constitution, and it's a good idea every once in a while to look at the Constitution of the United States, which is the instrument that we live and die by, the Constitution says the impeachment of the President. It does not say a President.

It does not say a former President. This impeachment trial that is supposedly taking place in the Senate here beginning today is not a valid impeachment trial because the Senate does not have jurisdiction either historically or texturally under the Constitution to try Donald Trump. That's the long and the short of it right there.

So again, we got this question from YouTube. Webb on YouTube said, do you believe the trial could actually be done today with enough senators switching on the jurisdiction issue? Dan, I don't see six more moving from the vote that Rand Paul initially called for in his motion. There could be some movement, two votes here, two votes there, but I would be surprised, though they should, I would be surprised that you're going to get enough Democrats to make that switch. So you need all five Republicans who voted that there was jurisdiction, and some of them just despise President Trump, and I don't think they're going to move on the issue, like Mitt Romney and probably Ben Sasse, who early on was indicating he thought maybe it wasn't constitutional, but again, he's a very anti-Trump, and I think maybe movable by argument, but I'm not sure, and then you've got to find a Democrat or two.

That to me seems uphill, unfortunately, which moves us into the next phase of the trial tomorrow. Jordan, I think it's unlikely. I mean, just given the political nature of Washington, D.C. these days, I think the sides are pretty well entrenched, but I would say this. I think it's still a very important argument to push, because if a senator is not going to carefully review his or her own jurisdiction before proceeding to a matter of this importance, I think his or her voters need to know that. Look, regardless of where you stand on President Trump or what happened on January 6th or what happened after the election, Jordan, the issue of making sure you as a public officeholder don't exceed the bounds of authority granted to you by the Constitution, that's a fundamental question that in order to uphold your oath, you have to consider. So I will answer your question honestly that I do not expect another six senators to join the 45 who previously voted that they don't have jurisdiction, but Jordan, I think every argument should be made to them to make that careful consideration. And look, I would say even to Democrats on the other side of the aisle that have very strong differences with President Trump, I think it would prove to be a tremendous credit to you if you were to come out and say, I strongly disagree, I strongly think the President should have been impeached and convicted before he left office, but I am going to honor the bounds of the Constitution and I am going to vote that we do not have jurisdiction. Jordan, I think in the long run, that would play well for them.

All of that said, I don't think you'll get another six. Yeah, so we're going to move on to the next phase of the trial. Now Andy, what's interesting in the next phase of the trial is the Democrat position that the First Amendment doesn't really apply here. That's actually the position of the House managers is that because this is a political trial, the President doesn't just have First Amendment rights, so it's not governed by freedom of speech. I heard Alan Dershowitz, I think he made an excellent point, we have no religious test in our country, so then could you impeach an elected President or elected a cabinet member because they were a Muslim?

Could you impeach them because they were a Catholic or a Jew? And even though that violates the Constitution because it's an impeachment trial? Because that would be the same thing as what they're arguing is that the First Amendment doesn't apply. Yeah, Jordan, that's a good observation and Professor Dershowitz really filled that out very carefully.

Look, you have in this country something called the First Amendment to the Constitution, which is the freedom to express yourself and the freedom of speech, okay? The President's lawyers have articulated that very carefully. If we're going to apply some of the Constitution, but not all of the Constitution, then we have violated all of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a document that has integrity, that it's got to be taken in its entirety. If you've got the right to free speech, if you have the right to make statements, if you've got the right to express your beliefs, then you should also have the right to be tried by a Senate that has jurisdiction to try you and not by a kangaroo court that has just been put together for political reasons. Look, the reality here, Jordan, is that the Democrats hate President Trump. They despise him. They want to tarnish him. They want to taint him. They cannot stand the fact that he is now out of office and untainted by what has happened in their estimation at any rate. And they're going to continue to pursue this. But they fail to recognize that even a former President, even a President who is incumbent in office, as President Trump was when he made his speech, has the right under the First Amendment to talk.

And the consequences of that are very far-reaching. I'm very disappointed in this Senate if it goes on and has this trial, especially in view of the fact that the Chief Justice has sent a very strong signal, I'm not going to be a part of this. Don't come to me. This is not a valid trial of a President of the United States that I'm going to preside over. So you go ahead and pick someone else, but it's not going to be me. Yeah, I mean, this is, again, I think it's an interesting question coming in online for Phil from California. Phil, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Well, thank you. My question is regarding the Chief Justice presiding. Does the Constitution say he must be invited with the option to accept or refuse, or does it say he must be?

He shall. And the word shall is must, interpreted under law. So I'll read you the constitutional provision. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.

That's it. It doesn't give him any space to make the decision. Shall preside. And that's why when we did the first impeachment trial, they had to figure out John Roberts' schedule as the Chief Justice because the court was in session and accommodate that so we had to start later some days because he had no choice but to be there under the Constitution. A former President, John Roberts said, no, I'm not sitting there hearing this. I don't need to be there because you're not impeaching the President of the United States. You're impeaching the former President.

I think that says a lot right off the bat. But again, they have no option. If it was Joe Biden, John Roberts would have to be there.

But it's not. It's the last President we had who's now living as a private citizen in Florida. We're at 264,000 people have signed our petition at ACLJ.org. We want you to share this broadcast with your friends and family. Nowhere else are you going to get this kind of insight into, unfortunately, the second impeachment. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

ACLJ.org. We'll be with you on our broadcast every day, but, you know, I'm starting about every morning doing either a Newsmax or one American News. I'll be on David Brody's show. I'll be on Sean Hannity's radio broadcast later today and television broadcast. All these things can change because it's all about what's happening during live trial, when you're on the floor, when there's breaks in it, when there's voting.

I think, you know, just about an hour after this broadcast, I'm going to be on, so around 2 o'clock Eastern Time on Newsmax again, breaking down. And I think it's important to get, so we've focused a lot on the constitutional issue, and I think that is the core issue to this. Because if 45 or so senators agree that they shouldn't even be there, then what they're going to hear next, which is a much more extended debate, it's 16 hours per side on why the President was impeached in the first place by the House.

So a lot has been focused on do they have the jurisdiction, but why is the President being impeached? 16 hours per side, so it's 8 hours a day. They've limited it to basically 2 days each, so you start playing this out, so you're looking at if they both take both all their time, 2 days, so today, and then, so it starts today, that will, this debate of course will easily come to an end with a vote on Tuesday.

Then you're looking at Saturday, now that that's going to be a day they're going to move forward on. Then the question and answer session, which is only 4 hours. Andy, I'm trying to remember how long our question and answer went, but I know it was longer than 4 hours. I feel like it was maybe 12, maybe 8, 8 or 12, something took an entire day. It went very late to the evening.

I recollect that, Jordan. It seemed like it was going on for days and weeks because the Chief Justice kept getting questions from senators, and then he would ask it, and then each member of the President's defense team would have the right to get up and respond to those, but it seems like it went on forever. This is severely abbreviated under this procedure. So they get 4 hours to ask their questions in writing, and then I guess it'll be Patrick Leahy reading them. They're usually addressed to one side. Now sometimes they're addressed to both sides. Sometimes multiple senators sign on to the question.

I'll bring that, I'll bring the stuff in on tomorrow's broadcast, and I can show you the actual cards that they write their questions on, but, you know, done in a very formal way. But there's been not as much discussion. What is this actual impeachment about? What did the House actually impeach over? So they are saying specifically that the President failed to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution, violate his oath, and that he engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, and this is the key, by inciting violence against the government of the United States. So incitement, violence, it would be, again, it's somewhere in between sedition, which is kind of the words and actions that incite the insurrection, and that's what they're saying he did by saying go to the Capitol, you gotta fight, but we use these terms. I mean, all politicians, Than, how many times do you hear politicians use the word fight?

I mean, if you went through, me, we use the ACLJ in writing as well, and it doesn't mean throw punches, and everybody pretty much understands that. Occasionally, there's a nut who shows up at a softball game, like happened at the Republicans' practice for their game, and takes the language and interprets it in a way that the speaker had no intention of. And that's exactly, I think, what's happening here, it's just because it's President Trump on a bigger scale, and we saw this horrendous event happen of bad actors trying to take advantage of a situation, but again, words are words, and we really protect a wide range of political speech, and for goodness sakes, if you had to start picking and choosing like this, I think that every one of those senators should be thrown out of the Senate because of language they use. And we should protect that unpopular speech as well, Jordan. I mean, look, all violence should be condemned. We've roundly condemned what happened on January 6th, as well as previous acts of violence against both sides, but Jordan, look, if you look around the world, it's the places that don't allow dissenting speech, that don't allow aggressive debate.

Those are the places, Jordan, where people don't have freedom. We should actually celebrate the idea, not that people get nasty, but that they have the freedom to strongly disagree with either leadership or the opposition party. That plays out in elections across the country.

It also plays out on the floor of the United States House and the United States Senate. And Jordan, look, I mean, I'm all for calls for unity and for being partners with your neighbor, ones you disagree with, ones you don't, but Jordan, that does not mean acquiescence. If that happens, it means the best ideas don't rise. We have to stand in defense of an ability to disagree and an ability to dissent. It's that kind of disagreement that our foundation was built on, and if we're going to do away with that, Jordan, just look around the world at where we're going to end up. It's not going to be a place anyone wants to be.

No, I mean, this is interesting. Stacey on Facebook wrote in, and I have my own take on this, that you might have a more diplomatic approach, even Andy might. What would it take for Senator Joe Manchin to side with the GOP on this? I would say a backbone, which he severely has lacked his entire congressional career. He talks like he's got one, but he doesn't vote like he does. Thayon, what do you think?

I mean, what do you think? Because he talks like it, but we're so used to that with Joe Manchin and then him voting lockstep with Democrats. I don't think he's going to, Jordan.

I'll answer the question two ways. One, the diplomatic way. If he decided with the Republicans, he'd probably need to read this document, the Constitution of the United States, namely Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. But two, Jordan, the harsh reality of it, it would probably take West Virginia voters rising up and demanding that he do it and him realizing his seat's in jeopardy.

Honestly, that's the truth. That's what it would take. What do you mean rising up? Andy, that's what it would take right there. That is what they're impeaching the President over. What did Thayon mean by West Virginia voters rising up?

Thayon has just incited to riot, Jordan. If he was a public official, he needs to be impeached. But you said Joe Manchin needs a backbone. Well, he needs some part of the body. It may not be a backbone, but it may be close to it, and Joe Manchin doesn't have that. He's been talking a big talk for a long time in a red state, but he's going to follow the party line this time, just like he has every single time. I don't have any faith in him at all.

Fortunately, he's not a public official. We laugh because it's instead of crying, honestly, for your country. Because this is so horrendous. We've all been through it. Andy and I have been there for the days on end, and again, it's not to laugh about. It's like that laugh or cry situation.

It's kind of like a funeral where you've got to, at some point, there's levity because it is absurd. This is not some major commission. We went through Mueller, went through Ukraine with a 35-year-old President, and we're going to impeach the President over a phone call that 35-plus people were listening to.

Not some private call that got leaked out. And then we're now impeaching him over using the same kind of words like Than just said, which is voters would have to be engaged in kind of an uprising. They'd have to rise up. You'd have to do something, and they'd have to reach out. You'd have to show up.

And peacefully protest now means incitement to insurrection. It is, again, I think, to me, it gets to the heart of this and why I think the partisan politics, so many people, you're sick and tired of it. How about get to COVID relief? How about get to running our country? How about get to figuring out, you know, we got an election in two years for midterm elections, and it's like we are still litigating Donald Trump as President of the United States.

We'd come back and take more of your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. We want to answer your questions. And I think there's going to be a lot of questions, too, when they get into that second part of this debate and try to argue that the First Amendment and free speech, I'll throw that out, because this is an impeachment trial. We're not bound by the Constitution. So in the future, oh, we don't like that Jewish President, so we'll impeach them, because we're not bound by the no religious test clause in the Constitution. Just think about this. This is why it's absurd.

Even if you believe it's a gray area in the Constitution, it's absurd to go this way and not the other and say this is unconstitutional. We'll be right back. Go to ACLJ.org, read our memo, sign the petition.

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

ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

All right. No, it's not deja vu, and I wouldn't have been usually in this chair. It's the second impeachment trial. A new set of laws, and I think that's good for President Trump. By the way, in our private practice, separate from the ACLJ, we're still on President Trump's legal team. You'll see that when I'm on different news shows.

They'll say that as well. And so, you know, we're handling a lot of issues for President Trump. And unfortunately, because he is still under what I'd call lawfare, using the courts and legal systems to try and attack him, even though he is the former President, still go after him on issues.

Some that are front and center like the impeachment, others that might not get as much attention but are just as serious. And so, again, we're at an impeachment again, but you're hearing from the people that were actually there. I know my dad will be joining us back on the air tomorrow on the radio broadcast. He'll be able to walk through what was... And it will be strenuous when it gets to the second phase. Now, I want to take this call, because I want to answer this question in case other people have this question as well, from Nick in Iowa online to, hey, Nick, welcome to Sekulow.

You're on the air. Yeah, thanks for taking my call. But the question I had was, even though they deem it's unconstitutional, do you see them moving forward anyway? So if the vote was 51 votes to say that it was unconstitutional, that would be it.

They would not move forward. But the issue is, and Thanh, just to be clear, everybody, none of us expect that there's going to be 51 votes there. So it would take all the Republicans and a Democrat, and that did not happen the first time around, on the issue of do they even have jurisdiction.

That doesn't mean that those five Republicans believe that what the President did is an impeachable offense. It was whether or not they even have jurisdiction, Thanh. But I don't expect the trial to be over today. I think it should be, but I don't expect it.

I think you have to prepare for this, at least going for a full week. Yeah, that's right, Jordan. Essentially and functionally, this is going to be a motion to dismiss based on the jurisdiction question. Now, there is going to be an opportunity later in the trial for additional motions to be filed, so you might find additional similar votes later on. But functionally, it's going to be a motion to dismiss based on the constitutional arguments that we presented to the Senate just a couple of days ago. And if it got 51 votes, the rest of the trial would not happen.

The article would be dismissed, and the Court of Impeachment would adjourn. You know, I think what is going to be interesting, Andy, the second part of this is going to be that issue of, well, there's a couple, there's some unsettled issues. For instance, can Kamala Harris break a tie? That might not come about. There may not be a tie-breaking vote. But our witnesses, which I think is, again, for our impeachment, I think for this impeachment, is the big tell, not for who's, if the President's going to be acquitted or not, but for how long the country's going to be dragged through this. There's a timeline where this could be over with by early next week.

But if witnesses are allowed, and that will be, the House would have to, I think it would be the House managers would be the ones requesting it. Then the Senate would go back and kind of discuss it right then. I mean, under the rules, they would discuss, they would have time to discuss amongst themselves. And then they would hold a vote.

That's right, Jordan. And this is where the Senate has some wiggle room on this. I mean, if you read through the resolution on questions like this, as well as questions about timing, I mean, the only start time that's noted in the resolution is a noon start time for Wednesday, at least leading up to that.

After that, it's subsequent until Sunday. So on all of those questions, Jordan, the Senate has wide latitude under the Constitution, and a lot of them are unsettled. They would be able to discuss it. And then ultimately, in order to be dispositive, they'd have to get to 51 votes.

Right. So you get another four hours of debate, and then they would debate, and then when you call, each witness gets voted on after the deposition. So I mean, this again, I just quickly, Andy, this is how you take an impeachment trial that could be done in a week, because it was done in a day, the impeachment in the House in a two hour debate, but it could be dragged on into weeks, and even into a month plus, if you start taking depositions and then voting on whether or not each witness is going to testify, which is how it works. That's exactly right, Jordan. It could go on forever.

If you depose the witness, and then the witness testifies, then there's objections to the testimony on different grounds, admissibility, hearsay, and so forth. And then who breaks the tie? Is it Leahy who breaks the tie, or is it Kamala Harris who comes in and breaks the tie? It's a very complicated procedure. All right, folks, we get back. We take more of your phone calls on Secula.

That's 1-800-684-3110. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

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

Check the workout. Do we have the sound from Joe Biden? He was asked specifically about the President being asked to testify.

I want to play that for everybody. I talked about this morning on Newsmax because Mr. Unifier, you know, thinks the President of the United States should show up and testify. Agrees with the house managers that, you know, he should just be there and testify.

No one's ever done that. No, it would be absurd for him to do that. I don't think the President would be scared to do that.

I just think it's, again, it's a former President, like the other officials who they've tried to impeach in the past, that didn't show up either. They wouldn't even take service of process. And they went back to their states. I mean, the sergeant of arms couldn't even find them. And they went back and became elected officials.

It's a different time period, obviously, with technology. But, you know, I think I want to read a part of our memo because I think that we because we're very fair in our memo about how this is, again, it's not like this is settled by the Supreme Court about about these former officials. But we were honest in our memo. So we say this quote, at worst, the Senate lacks such a power by the dint of the clear constitutional text and its proceedings as such are ultra virus. And at best, and that means, again, outside of their power, and at best, the case at hand falls squarely in the gray area of whether a former President counts as, quote, the President for purposes of an impeachment trial. And the Senate proceeding against him as such is grounded on a dubious constitutional foundation. It lacks precedent and prudence. It's a bad decision. So even if you are one of those senators today who thinks you have the power to do it because of a constitutional gray area, we still argue in our memo, you should not do it because you're opening up a Pandora's box. You're opening up a door that doesn't need to be opened. We move forward as a country when we elect leaders or reelect leaders if we decide to do that.

But we don't we don't move backwards. And if an impeachment is for an immediate, you know, kind of you need to remove this person even though they were duly elected by the people. It's extreme, very extreme. So the founding fathers put a bar that's never been met for any President as partisan as our country's gotten. And it's happened many times throughout history. No President has been removed from office by impeachment.

Some have resigned because of the threat. So there's Nixon. But no one, no one has actually been found guilty by the U.S. Senate of the President. That's happened to judges. It's happened to lower ranking officials. But when it comes to the President, it's again, they take it that much more seriously. It's why the chief justice has to be there when it's the President.

It doesn't have to be there when it's not. So who is this that's being tried? I mean, that that's my question to ask to Harry, Wes, Andy as well.

I'll start with Harry is joining us now, too. I mean, if the chief justice isn't there and that means the President is not on trial, who is actually on trial? I mean, who is the Senate trying under their impeachment power?

I mean, that's the how do the House managers honestly get around that? I think you're asking a very brilliant question. And I think at the end of the day, if the trial proceeds, A, it is unconstitutional. And B, the trial becomes nothing more than a referendum on rhetoric and the scope of the First Amendment. Second, the history and the text and the rule of law are all on President Trump's side. Third, the Democrats hate Trump, but they are propelled by something greater than Trump hatred. They hate Trump voters more.

And in answering your question, Jordan, it's important to note that a recent Time magazine article shows that the elites in our country are the people that are associated with some of the major media companies, major unions. They have all gotten together in order to ensure that Trump voters are defeated. So at the end of the day, this impeachment, if it goes forward, puts Trump voters on trial. Edward on YouTube said, Impeach Carter. I mean, John Cornyn said, Impeach Obama, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, targeting by the IRS of conservative organizations. I mean, you go through actually a list. So if you don't want to go so far back as Jimmy Carter, just go to a couple back. I'm sure they could impeach Bush over what?

Weapons of mass destruction? So this to me, again, the idea is who is on trial here? It's really like what Harry said. It's the movement behind that person that's on trial because it's not the person anymore. You can't do anything to the person.

You can hurt the movement. And I agree with everything Harry said. It begs the question, why are the Democrats doing this? And I think here's the answer. They want to divide the GOP and make political gains in 2022. If these GOP senators vote to convict the President, they're going to face the wrath of the people who voted for Donald Trump. If they voted to acquit the President, then the Dems will accuse them of being supportive of all that happened on January the 6th. And so, you know, it's a political stunt that really it doesn't take the welfare of the nation or the unity of America or a new chapter in American life into count it all. The only witnesses, for example, that they have called is Donald Trump, which is proof that it's a political stunt.

You know, and the American people and their welfare be damned on that. You know, the irony is the GOP, the Republicans in the Senate would like to move on. They would like to debate some of the policies of Joe Biden.

They would like to look at some of his cabinet nominees. They can't move on because the Democrats will not let them move on. They are obsessed with Donald Trump. They're obsessed with using this for political gain. This is not about justice. This is not about doing what is right. It's not about holding Donald Trump accountable.

It's politically motivated completely. I mean, Andy, what do you think about Joe Biden? He's had this opportunity, the unity, unity, all that. Chris Wallace, again, I have no love for it all.

And Fox News, you know, and that's the greatest speech I've ever heard. I mean, it was like, really? It was not. I mean, it was fine. Impeachment was bizarre because of COVID.

And even just taking away from, you know, trying to be nonpartisan, looking at it, which is impossible now for anybody in America because we are partisan by nature and by the fact of how involved people are in the political process, especially this election cycle. But you knew his calls for all his unity talk was bogus even then because of the actions he was already planning to take. And then he gets asked about impeachment.

I got nothing to do with it. I think they need to do it. You know, he said for unity purposes. We need to drag the country through the mud for unity and blame half the country for what 200 bad people did for unity. But Joe Biden said this, I want to get your thoughts, Andy, by 44. This is just yesterday about the President showing up and testifying.

Look, we've got an offer to come and testify. He's decided not to. We'll let the Senate work that out. I mean, this again, that's not leadership.

He has not, you know, leadership could have been, Andy, knock this off Nancy Pelosi, knock this off Chuck Schumer, let's get to my business as President. I don't want Donald Trump being the distraction for a week or two weeks or a month and the focus. But yet the media, they love Donald Trump a lot more than Joe Biden because he gets better ratings. So they won't be talking about Joe Biden much the next week and a half. It'll be all about Donald Trump. And it seems like Joe Biden, he would love to have Donald Trump back in the spotlight again. Is he, he's like asking for it.

Yeah, that's true. This is the great unifier, the great hypocrite who spoke during the campaign about how important it is to bring the nation together, to unify us, that he was going to bring everyone together, his 47 years in Washington and all his experience in unifying and reaching across the aisle. And the first thing he does when he has the opportunity to unify, when he has the opportunity to tell Schumer and Pelosi, and don't tell me that he doesn't because he does knock it off. He takes the opportunity of saying, well, this must happen. I heard him say that this must happen. Why must it happen? There's no reason why it must happen. There's every reason why it should not happen.

Not that it must happen. And then he says, they've asked, the Senate has asked him to come and testify or that rather the house managers have invited him to come and testify. Well, he went to law school, Biden, apparently, some years ago. I'm not sure which law school because he always is David different schools and he's, he's been, he's been to many different universities that have no record of his attendance.

Yeah. I think he says he went to Syracuse law school. Didn't they teach him criminal law there? Didn't they teach him if you're charged with a high crime and misdemeanor, you have the absolute right to remain silent and you cannot be called to testify. Doesn't he know that? But instead of doing that, he prefers to make this call to unity, which is a fraudulent and fake call by a person who really doesn't appreciate the constitutional implications of what he's saying. Than, I think this was for you, Wayne in California line three. Hey, Wayne, welcome to Secular.

You're on the air. Hey, thanks for taking my call, Jordan. My question is, why are the Republicans going along with this sham of an impeachment trial again? Well, they don't have the votes to stop it. So that, so the first time around, remember the Senate, it, there could be a motion dismissed. There weren't the votes, even though it was a slimmer Republican majority, there weren't the votes there to dismiss it right off the bat.

You can always do that. Uh, but then this time around Republicans are in our, it's a 50 50 split and you got Republicans who just don't like President Trump, like the Mitt Romney's of the world, the votes, uh, are just not there. So it's not the majority of Republicans. 93% of them are on board. It's the rest. It's that small percent. Well, and Wayne, yeah, there's been a suggestion that senators should just boycott the proceedings, but you go back to article one, section three, clause six, it says that conviction will come down to concurrence of two thirds of the members.

Get this Wayne, present. So if the Republicans were to boycott, the level for conviction, uh, conviction would actually drop. And that's when you could see a conviction. They can't boycott the proceedings.

They have to show up and they have to vote the constitution. Yeah. All right. We'll continue to take your calls. One more segment coming up and then the impeachment trial begins literally as we go off the air. 1-800-684-3110. Call us. Music Welcome to 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.

We'll take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. So we're about like nine minutes away from this starting, unfortunately, for the country. Today, again, you're going to get a very legal argument, which if you're interested in constitutional law, I mean, this will be interesting four hours, but it's going to be very legal. It's not going to be the most, the stuff about the violence that occurred in the language from Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters and tweets from Nancy Pelosi about, you know, the election being hijacked, which she tweeted out about the last election. And, you know, no one has said she was inciting anything and no one's ever brought Bernie Sanders to be thrown out of the Senate because that shooter at that congressional Republican practice thought he was doing something for Bernie Sanders. And blaming Republicans for policy reasons wasn't just a crazy person, but was a crazy person doing it for political purposes. And no one would ever blame Bernie Sanders.

In fact, I feel bad for when that happens to political leaders and someone does something in their name that, you know, they didn't intend. That's not happening until tomorrow. And you're going to have to sit through straight eight hours, two days, 16 total of the Democrats first. And then you'll get the President's Lawyer's second two more days of that.

So you're getting towards the weekend. But you will get a key vote today. That key vote to watch for is do the 45 Republicans remain to say we don't even have jurisdiction here? Because that tells you there's not even close to enough number to acquit. So the rest of this is basically, it's just a political show trial, which is disgusting in the United States of America. They do show trials in dictatorships. They do show trials in countries you don't want to live in. It's sad that we're doing this in our country. Because it's the countries that we're usually condemning on the world stage that do these kind of show trials that are so outside the bounds of even their legal systems.

And that's one of these today. Listen to Senator Graham, because again, he's talking about what this does to the presidency of the United States, which I think has already been cheapened a lot by Mueller. The first junkie impeachment over a phone call when they couldn't get anything on Russia. It certainly switched to Ukraine, which is not an ally of Russia.

And it now is too close to Ukraine. And by the way, we found out that Hunter Biden is real about Hunter Biden. And there is a criminal investigation that's been ongoing since Donald Trump was President. But I guess the FBI didn't want to say anything there.

They could have cleared that up. By the way, we actually are investigating him for serious crimes. And then another Mueller impeachment in impeachment part two. They're walking into the Senate now. The House manager is going into the Senate as we speak.

But I want you to listen to Senator Graham by 13. When you combine a snap impeachment with an impeachment of a President who's out of office, you're going to destroy the presidency itself. I know you hate Trump, but please pull back before we set in motion the destruction of the presidency by never ending impeachments based on lack of due process and political retribution as the motive. So again, what does it mean? What does it mean for Joe Biden?

What does it mean? It might mean nothing for Joe Biden. He's kind of uninspiring, right? So he kind of could go away and no one ever wants to impeach him. But Obama was very divisive. People were very divisive. President Trump, divisive. George W. Bush, very divisive.

I mean, it's like he set the bar differently for each time. And certainly, if Kamala Harris runs and you've got someone running against her, you can see these policies are pretty divisive. People should break the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Are you just going to come up with reasons to impeach them because, oh, we're not bound by the Constitution. We have the power by the Constitution, but we're not bound by the freedom of speech.

We're not bound by no religious test. I mean, you see the absurdity this gets to. Let's go to Frank in Florida on Line 2. Hey, Frank.

Hi, thanks for taking my call. My question is this. If Patrick Leahy of Vermont is presiding as President pro tem of the Senate, will there be any signs of showing favoritism towards the House managers? Yes, absolutely. He will do whatever they want, unless enough Democrat senators don't want to do what they want. So he's going to go along with whatever the Democrats want, basically is what I'm saying. And I think he'll first defer to the senators. That's his body. So if the senators want a rule on something, that's where he's going to go to first and second.

Yes, he's going to be biased. That's why the chief justice isn't there. It's not as serious of an impeachment because it's not a real impeachment of a President.

It's fake. And Patrick Leahy sitting there makes it that much more fake and absurd. And in a fortunate event for our country, you cry about, laugh about, but you do have to take seriously to a point because you've got enough of these just angry politicians who would love to just impeach certain people so it helps their own political careers.

Because they're politicians. I mean, they're already thinking, well, maybe I want to run for President. If Donald Trump wants to run for President, that's going to hurt my fundraising efforts.

It's going to hurt me. He's got 40 plus percent of the support already in the Republican Party. If he keeps that for the next four years, I have no chance. I mean, how many are thinking that?

You think Mitt Romney thinks he could be Presidential candidate again? They have delusions of grandeur. Even U.S. senators, there's only 100. They've already made it pretty far in politics, but not far enough for any of them. Every one of them wants to be President. Some are better at, I think, hiding that. Some are better at strategically placing that, and others are good servants of the people. But to be honest with you, I mean, come on, it's politicians. And that's why you've got to really press them, Thanh, on the issue like constitutionality and holding those 45 feet to the fire one more time today. Well, every single one of them might want to be President, but they still have a duty to their voters to uphold the Constitution. And we have to continue to remind them of that.

And Jordan, I might add one thing to your list there. I mean, while this impeachment trial is going on, what they're not going to be considering is the COVID relief package. I mean, that is on the back burner till the end of this trial. And by the way, both the House and the Senate have passed a resolution saying that they're going to move that with only Democrat votes using the budget reconciliation process.

So look, you just as a voter, Jordan, you've got to look into this political fishbowl that we're in right now and realize what's happening. Those priorities, the pandemic relief efforts are being set on the back burner for what? For political considerations of 2022 and 2024. I don't think there's another justification for it. I really don't because you're not going to get to 67 votes.

No, I mean, again, just I want to go around the tables. This is the beginning now and the senators are starting. So you see how it's like three minutes until they're supposed to start. And then I think they'll probably start about on time, two hours a side. So, Thanh, just for the last point from you, just what do you think we get the vote around 6 p.m. Eastern time, somewhere around there? They'll take breaks for lunch, break for dinner. Today? Yeah, on the constitutionality. Yeah, I think dinner hour.

I think six o'clock's a good guess. All right. Andy, do you think anybody's persuaded at this point on the other side to say, you know what, now that I've heard this, now that I've had time to think about it, maybe this is a bad idea? Or do you think it just remains as partisan as it has been for the most part, with the five angry Republicans who don't like the President keep staying that way, too? Yeah, you're not going to get one Democratic vote to say that there's no jurisdiction and the five angry Republicans are going to stay five angry and wrong.

Harry, legally, by opening this door, even if it's ultimately a quiddle, they've opened the door. Absolutely, but the Democrats have never been serious about the rule of law, the text of the constitution, or due process unless it favors them politically or in terms of political theater. Yeah, and for the country, Wes, we can all talk about it, we can laugh, we can cry. It's mostly a cry moment. It is a cry moment for sure, you know, and for the Democrats to actually come up and say enough is enough would require some honor and integrity that their political motivations are overpowering.

They simply will not do it. No, it's all politics all the time. That's how our nation is now operating, and it's not a feel-good way to operate.

There's time for that. There's groups like us that exist for that, but this is absurd. This is a former President. I mean, who is on trial is the question that I think they all have to answer because the Chief Justice is not there, so it's not the President.

It's all of us that supported President Trump. 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.