President Trump Acquitted Again

This is Jordan Sekulow.

Today on Sekulow, did house impeachment managers actually falsify evidence of another private citizen during the impeachment trial? We'll talk about that and more today on Sekulow. 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 your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, so it's day two, day one, so it's day, I guess we're in two, day four of the impeachment trial. This is day one of President Trump's legal team's opportunity to put forward their opening remarks, which we're hearing, and I want to write to Than Bennett on this, actually, Than. We're hearing it may only be four hours or less, and tell people what that would mean to the timeline, because would you go right into the question and answer portion that's four hours long, and then have kind of like a normal eight-hour day, wrap that part up, closing statements possibly tomorrow, and then maybe either a vote on witnesses, or there is no vote on witnesses, and there's just a final vote on whether to convict or quit?

Yeah, you certainly could, Jordan, and we speculated about this yesterday. We thought that maybe the defense team would not need nearly the 16 hours over two days that is allotted to them. Now, look, I think as they start, they're certainly going to retain that right. They're going to get in their arguments and see where they want to yield back, but there was actually a question posed to one of the attorneys today of whether or not they thought they could wrap in the first three hours, and he said that he thought they might go a little bit longer than that, but, Jordan, yeah, if they only took, you know, four hours, that would leave four hours available for today to move into that four hours of debate on or questions from senators, and then you just have the debate over witnesses. So, Jordan, you speculated early in the week that maybe this could wrap as soon as Saturday. If that kind of timeline rolled out today, you could definitely be seeing that, and, Jordan, even if they take the entire day, a conclusion to this trial on Sunday is certainly now in play.

You know, I want to go to something from yesterday. They have not yet started. They're about to start.

We'll play some of the defense today, of course, for you on the radio as that's happening live, but that has not yet begun, but let me show you something up on the screen right now. If you're watching on Facebook and Periscope, this was a tweet used by Eric Swalwell, the house managers yesterday, and then the tweet, he's showing a tweet from Jennifer Lynn Lawrence, and she, in the tweet that they showed up on the screen, she has the blue check from Twitter, meaning she has a verified account. I have a verified account. What does that mean?

It means you speak with some kind of, you speak with, to some kind of group. You represent an organization. You're a media member, so you speak with some kind of authority, and maybe you're held to a higher bar on Twitter for what kind of statements you put out.

Well, guess what? That blue mark isn't on her Twitter account. She's not, does not have a verified account, so who on the house managers team falsified the evidence presented to those US senators? What kind of trouble will they face?

But it gets even worse because they misinterpreted what she said. They highlighted that we are bringing the Calvary, Mr. President, and that President Trump retweeted that. I want you to understand that the Calvary that she's referencing is the religious Calvary, not cavalry. Again, Calvary. Calvary, in the religious sense, refers to almost like bringing Christ to Washington, DC. Refers, of course, to where the crucifixion literally took place. But then you've got, again, Eric Swalwell, a military man himself, who gets that term confused, I'll go right to Harry on this, with Calvary, which is, again, bringing in like troops, with Calvary, the religious sense, which is spelled differently. One has an L before the V, one doesn't. Absolutely.

And the words are pronounced differently if we're going to be precise. I think we have clear and unmistakable evidence of possible prosecutorial misconduct, which deprives the defendant in this particular case of former President Trump of due process within the meaning of the law. I mean, Jennifer Large, she tweeted, I've never, and she doesn't have a verification word, I've never been verified on Twitter, so why did my tweet used in the fact-free impeachment include a verification bag? I'm assuming Democrats faked it. I mean, someone had to put that there, on their team, to make it seem like she was speaking to more people, she had more followers, she had more of a movement behind her. And I'm not taking away from her, maybe she does, but she wasn't verified on Twitter.

They were lying to you and they were lying about the words. 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, playing Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Hi, welcome back to secular radio. I want to go into this is Michael Van Der Veen from President Trump's legal team.

Let's go to some of these lives. This is the beginning of their chance to rebut, to go and lay out their case about why the President should not be convicted. Let's just take a listen live of his remarks. He then laid out a series of legislative steps that should be taken to improve democratic accountability going forward, such as passing universal voter ID legislation, banning ballot harvesting, requiring proof of citizen citizenship to vote, and turning out strong in the next primaries. Not only Presidents, these are not the words of someone inciting a violent insurrection. Not only President Trump's speech on January 6th, but indeed his entire challenge to the election results was squarely focused on how the proper civic process could address any concerns through the established legal and constitutional system. The President brought... So this is the part I think they're addressing right away is that this President, this idea of the stop, the steal, and that that was somehow incitement to violence, Harry, that the idea that there were legal challenges, you can bring those in court, and that's what the President was doing.

You can like those, you can not like those. You can like the proposals he wants for the future elections. You can say that there should have been all of these mail-in ballots without verification, and that's something everybody can debate, and that's not something you would get impeached over. Absolutely. And I think on this very program, we have pointed out some of the election deficiencies, particularly with respect to allowing individuals to mail in their ballot, even though the state legislatures have not allowed that process to go forward. So I think it is clear beyond question that the President was, within his rights, to argue for election integrity and election reform.

Those are clearly bipartisan issues well within the mainstream, and they do not constitute incitement to violence. Take a listen to this. Let's go back live again.

I want to go back live. This is them showing the Democrats objecting to President Trump's election 2016. From the state of Georgia on the grounds that the electoral votes were not.

There's no debate. I object to a certificate from the state of North Carolina. I object to the 15 votes from the state of North Carolina.

I object. I object to the certificate from the state of Alabama. The electors were not lawfully certified. Is it signed by a senator? Not as of yet, Mr. President. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained.

The objection cannot be entertained. These are the Democrats over and over again objecting to the certification of President Trump's election. Right before that, the President's attorney said, many of you in this room, Democrat senators, including some of those house impeachment managers, Jamie Raskin was in that video, but you also kept up a narrative for four years then that the Russians were the reason President Trump won the election. For four years, you said the election was stolen and yet no one is trying to take away your right to say that.

Whether or not we fundamentally disagree and we've proven you wrong on that. We've gone through Mueller who found no evidence of that. We went through the Ukraine impeachment.

President Trump was acquitted and vindicated. And now we're going through this again, but they had the same line that the election was stolen by the Russians. Well, so much of the underpinning of this case, Jordan, is rooted on the fact that there were objections to the counting of the electoral votes based on some of the irregularities that happened. And what that video, I wasn't able to see the whole thing, Jordan, but even the snippet I saw there, what it conclusively shows is that there is significant precedent for raising those objections on the floor. And the precedent was set, not just by Democrats, Jordan, it was set by the people bringing this very impeachment. I mean, Jamie Raskin was one of the people that rose on the floor of the House of Representatives in a previous election to object to the counting.

So it's just sort of a regular course of order. And I would say this, I mean, yesterday we said that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Look, on either of these issues, the First Amendment argument or whether or not it's appropriate to object to the counting of electoral votes, Jordan, I think it's okay for you to have either opinion, but guess what? The standard has to apply to both sides. If one side cannot object to the counting of electoral votes, then neither can the other side.

And the fact that Sheila Jackson Lee and Jamie Raskin and a whole slew of others have made a regular practice of objecting to the counting of those votes, Jordan, it shouldn't have been any surprise that on January 6th, especially an election like the one we just had, that objections were going to be raised. They set that precedent. Now they're pinning their impeachment hopes on saying that it's not permissible. I want to get back to how we started the show because people may wonder why are we saying that they may have lied yesterday in their presentation and misled senators intentionally, which would get you in a lot of trouble legally in a real court of law.

Let me play this. This is Eric Swalwell yesterday, bite 30, bite 39, take a listen. This was not just any old protest. President Trump was inciting something historic. The cavalry was coming and he was organized. In her post, Ms. Lawrence tagged Kylie Kremer, the organizer of the event, whose post we just saw President Trump retweet. Again, you see this is all connected.

Okay. He forgets a couple of things. He obviously won for a military guy, wasn't reading the words in front of him because they didn't change the words in her tweet, which said Calvary.

I want to go to Wes Smith on this. Wes, you're in the military, but you're also a minister. A big difference when you use the word Calvary and Calvert. Yeah. It's two words that are often confused, but Eric Swalwell knows the difference, I'm sure. This is embarrassing, at least for us religious types.

It should be embarrassing for Eric Swalwell, but I doubt that he will be shamed or embarrassed. Cavalry, what we call it in the military, they calve. In old days, it was a military unit mounted on horseback. Today, the cavalry has unique missions. We still have the cavalry around Jordan and their mission is to scout and perform rapid movements on a battlefield, as we see in the military, to shape the battlefield. I was assigned for several years to a cavalry unit and I still have my Stetson and my boots.

Instead of horses today, they use armored motorized vehicles and helicopters. But Calvary, which is what Ms. Lawrence used, is a blatantly religious term. It refers to Jesus' crucifixion.

But in modern parlance, it refers to any period of personal suffering. What Ms. Lawrence was drawing attention to was that they were leading a Bible study and a prayer vigil. She was not even on the ellipse, nor was she at the Capitol. When all this was taking place, she was in her hotel room with a pastor from the town where I live, Mount Juliet, Tennessee, Greg Locke, who's part of the Global Vision Bible Church. She was in a hotel doing what she had called and what she had tweeted the President they were going to do, and that is praying for God to intervene in the affairs of America. They were praying for President Trump. They were praying for the nation. They more than likely were praying for the members of Congress.

So it's a total misunderstanding on a lot of people's part between Calvary, which is referring to a crucifixion of Jesus, and Calvary, which is bringing in reinforcements as Swalwell was using it. But, you know, again, Swalwell epitomizes not only one who does not understand the religious significance of what Ms. Lawrence was tweeting, but also he epitomizes that penchant for the Democratic managers to jump to conclusions and to grasp at any innuendo or conjecture that fits their narrative and impugns Donald Trump. He should acknowledge what he did. He should apologize to Kylie and Jennifer Lawrence because he took what they said and what they were about, which was praying and leading a period of prayer on January the 6th, not attacking the Capitol or trying to do anything like that. He should apologize, Jordan, but I tell you what, I doubt, I seriously doubt that he will. Well, Jennifer Lynn Lawrence deserves an apology. She also deserves an apology for them editing. I mean, Harry, how much trouble would you be in with a judge if you edited someone's remarks that you were putting into evidence to make them as though they had this special account that was verified by Twitter, that they somehow led a movement, that they had this kind of influence that, again, she may or may not have, but had never applied to get that checkmark, but that someone went in there, sounds a lot like when they were, the FBI lawyer was taking things out of the evidence to get the FISA warrant on Carter Page. And here, someone on that Democrat team that they worked with inserted the verification mark that President Trump has, I'm sure Eric Swalwell has, I have, but most folks don't on Twitter and she doesn't, but they made it so it sounds like she had this kind of influence over people. Not only did they misinterpret her words, but they also put a fake blue checkmark next to her name.

Precise, your analysis is spot on, Jordan. In Miller versus Pate, the court overturned the conviction obtained after the prosecution had represented to the jury that a pair of men's shorts found near the scene of an attack belonged to the defendant, and they were stained with blood. The defendant showed in habeas corpus proceedings that no evidence connected him with the shorts, and furthermore, that the shorts were not in fact blood stained, and the prosecution knew these facts. That is clearly analogous to Eric Swalwell's misconduct, in my opinion here, and you can argue that it was deliberate misconduct.

Why? Because they added the blue checkmark and they misconstrued words which are blindingly different, and I think this amounts to prosecutorial error, and that demands either a mistrial or a clear acquittal. Again, we're continuing to cover what will be a much shorter presentation by President Trump's illegal team in the defense of the President.

We come back with more. 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. 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 Sekulow Radio. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We're monitoring closely what will likely be the opening remarks in the trial portion of this by the President's legal team that's on the ground for the impeachment, which will be probably over with early this afternoon. Then the question will be whether they go right into the question and answer period, which is they've been given four hours.

Do they use all that four hours? And then do we have a vote by this weekend? The question will then be on witnesses. The team right now is doing exactly what people expected. They've played the Chuck Schumer sound.

They've played all the objections, including by Jamie Raskin. Let's go and listen again to President Trump's team. And they're not going to stop after election day.

They're not going to let up and they should not. Such rhetoric continued even as hundreds of police officers across the nation were subjected to violent assaults at the hands of angry mobs. A man claiming to be inspired by the junior senator from Vermont came down here to Washington D.C. to watch a softball game and kill as many senators and congressmen as he could. It cannot be forgotten that President Trump did not blame the junior senator. The senior senator from Maine has had her house surrounded by angry mobs of protesters.

When that happened and unnerved her, one of the house managers, I forget which one, tweeted, Crimea River. Under the standards of the house impeachment article, each of these individuals should be retroactively censored, expelled, punished, or impeached for inciting violence by their supporters. Unlike the left, President Trump has been entirely consistent in his opposition to mob violence.

He opposes it in all forms. I think that was a very effective moment right there. Let me go around the table. Let me go to Than First, Washington D.C. These senators, obviously some huddled with, I think it was Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham. Not unusual, by the way, because it's not like a normal trial. It's not weird that they're also sitting in jurors for them to meet with the legal team. Of course, Democrats would be doing that with the house managers.

But this is, I think, a very effective way to begin. All of you under this same precedent that would be set should be sent home. Yeah, I agree with that, Jordan. First of all, on the point of the three senators huddling with the defense team, if that's not going to be allowed, then the submission of evidentiary material yesterday that wouldn't be allowed in a court of law would have to be thrown out as well. So look, we've stated many times this is a political trial. That's why that sort of thing happens.

But Jordan, yeah, the little piece you played there, I think that is extremely effective for a couple of reasons. Every single senator in that chamber has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. And you can like it or you cannot like it. But if this standard is going to be upheld, then every single one of them is going to be subject to an accusation whether they need to be censured or worse, they need to be impeached.

And Jordan, I would say one more thing. I think it would set a very dangerous precedent on First Amendment, because if we're going to have a robust First Amendment, if we're going to have the ability to engage in speech that is unpopular, or maybe even contrary to the views of the majority, Jordan, that's the exact speech that is going to need to be protected. You don't have to like it, but it's got to be protected. Harry, it was Eric Swalwell himself who tweeted boo hoo hoo about Collins being harassed like that in her home. Absolutely consistent with the character of Eric Swalwell. This is an individual who has launched his career, at least in part, even in California, based on vitriol. Meanwhile, he has also maintained a relationship with an individual who has been identified by the United States government as a spy for China. And yet he sits on a House Intelligence Committee. So Eric Swalwell has never been accused of being the brightest candle in the darkness, called the House of Representatives. But I think it is clear beyond question that he has engaged, at least in my humble opinion, in prosecutorial misconduct, particularly with respect to this individual citizen, Jennifer Lynn Lawrence, who was encouraging people to do what?

To attend a prayer meeting. He basically took her tweet and said, that means bring the military cavalry and basically launch an insurrection. This is clearly and unmistakably, at least in my opinion, a falsehood. And it amounts to duplicity and prosecutorial misconduct of the first order. The fact that they yesterday, Thanh, I thought was shocking as well, was that out of the mouth of Congressman Jamie Raskin, the lead House manager, was that the First Amendment does not apply. Now, first of all, in the impeachment trial, you can use whatever defense you want, because we've talked about it's not a normal trial. So if you want to bring up the First Amendment and protecting that, you certainly have the right to try and convince the senators of that.

So for him to declare it null and void, as he did yesterday, to me was shocking. Take a listen to House Manager Raskin say that the First Amendment no longer applies to a private citizen being impeached. President Trump's last ditch First Amendment arguments got nothing to do with the actual facts of the case.

He's been impeached for inciting violent insurrection against the government. Incitement to violent insurrection is not protected by free speech. There is no First Amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The idea itself is absurd. Except for we can't even put a mark really, Thanh, and he doubled down on it. But the idea that the First Amendment is not a defense, well, that's not up to him. It's up to his defense team and up to the senators to decide if they want a standard where they could all be held accountable for words that they say are similar, and they've played all those sound bites for everyone to hear. But the idea that the First Amendment plays no role in the United States in a trial, this is a constitutional attorney, Jamie Raskin, who teaches con law. He knows, I think, what's coming out of his mouth, or maybe he's not listening to himself.

Sounds so dangerous when our First Amendment right to free speech is such an important right. Well, it's a great point that he doesn't get to choose the defense. He could have chosen what to prosecute. They chose what they chose.

I don't think it was the greatest election, but it's not his choice. But Jordan, this is what I would ask Manager Raskin. Does your First Amendment right disappear after you leave office?

Because if so, you better be ready. And you know, Jordan, you know, Article One, Section Three, Clause Seven that we've talked about a lot makes it very clear that when an official leaves office, they are subject to criminal prosecution still liable to the laws of the land. Jordan, if you're still going to be liable to the laws of the land, the fundamental rights and protections under the law, they must apply as well. Otherwise, you're subject to prosecution without the fundamental rights. That just can't be the case. And I think Manager Raskin knows that it's not the case.

He doubled down. Take a listen. The whole First Amendment smokescreen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors governing a President who has violated his oath of office. Harry, they have to build that bar to act as if it's just a given that it's a distraction because the high crimes and misdemeanors, they have to prove those high crimes and misdemeanors.

I think they failed because yesterday they kept going and going with video and splicing and fake tweets and tweets that weren't read correctly and misusing evidence and never really getting to the point about what did the President do that actually violated their article of impeachment. And then this whole, this attack on the First Amendment to me, it's just, it's got to be scary to a lot of Americans. Absolutely. And it basically places the First Amendment under threat by the United States Congress and an alleged constitutional lawyer. Coming up in our second half hour, Rick Rinnell is joining us about an issue involving the nominee to be the next CIA director.

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

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, DC, Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow Radio.

We'll continue to break down. I think, you know, very effectively right now, Doug Schoen from the President's legal team has called this trial a constitutional cancel culture. He talks about how they said they made big deal about how they're bringing new video, new video to show yesterday.

Well, guess what? Any trial where they're promised due process as they were, the former President Trump would receive due process, you don't get to do that. You don't get to say this is new and not have the defense know anything about what you're about to do. So again, he talked about that. He talked about the constitutional cancel culture here.

We've heard about the First Amendment. Should it be, by the way, just a side note here, Governor Cuomo, who is being impeached right now is what we should be talking about. A guy who's lead a non-elected officials called like their secretary, but it's a much more important position.

It's not like a secretary, like an assistant role. It's only like a secretary of the state that's in a, but it's not, it's appointed, not elected, admitted that they held back the number of people who died in the nursing homes from COVID-19 and the number of people they put with COVID-19 into the nursing homes because they didn't want Donald Trump to have the info. They admitted this on a phone call with Democrat, their Democrat colleagues in the state legislature there. That is what we should be talking about right now in America. Is that a nation's governor, one of the largest states in the country, had his team cover up intentionally the number of people who are being put into nursing homes with COVID-19 leading to the number of deaths that they also didn't, they also covered up. And even the Democrat attorney general there and the Democrat state senators there are calling this are calling this a serious problem.

Will he face any, any real action consequences for his remarks, any at all? I mean that, that, and that again is not being discussed on MSNBC today. It's not going to get discussed on CNN today because we having an unconstitutional impeachment trial of a private citizen.

But to me, you know, Wes, you brought up this good point about truth, honor, dignity, you know, whether or not this is just political. And then, I mean, I guess we don't expect much from politicians anymore when it comes to actual, how they conduct themselves like Eric Swalwell. But this is again, when we have a real scandal, a real issue that could lead to an impeachment, Gavin Newsom being recalled, where the people are utilizing a state effort to go forward with it. That is a state constitutional effort. You gather the signatures, you can have the recall election, yet that's not getting any attention.

No. And if you really think about it and you listen to what's going on, you know, at Congress today, the blinding hypocrisy and duplicity and irony itself is lost. I mean, absolutely lost on these Democrats, you know, and, you know, as I mentioned during the break to you, in a court of law, there are certain rules. They're doing things that would not be allowed in a court of law. But even though they don't have to follow those rules, you would think that to these Democrat House managers into the Senate, that such things as honor and truth and integrity would still apply. That you may not have to follow, you know, the procedures of a courtroom, but you have to speak the truth.

You have to have some honor and some integrity in the things you're saying. And that, along with their ability to be embarrassed, seems to be totally lost on this group. I mean, they're saying right now that we have reason to believe the House managers manipulated evidence and selectively cut footage.

And if they did, and if this were a court of law, they would face sanctions. We've been talking about that since yesterday. And, Than, you just said this in our chat, it's pretty dangerous to ever say that the First Amendment is, quote, completely, is a, quote, completely irrelevant distraction. How disturbing that is. Jordan, it speaks to a fundamental right that every one of us has. And we got to be very careful with lowering the standard in a formal proceeding like this, because that's a standard that all of us rely on, including, by the way, Jordan, those of us who are not verified on Twitter.

You can't attack our First Amendment, right? It's one we depend on. You know, folks, we've got a lot more to talk about here. 1-800-684-3110. If you want to talk to us on air, that's 1-800-684-3110. It's not going to take them two days to splice and dice the entire House managers opening, trying, impeachment argument against President Trump.

Let me tell you that. We'll be right back on Secular Radio. Go to 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, 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. Now the next segment of the broadcast Rick Rinnell is going to be joining us. He's got a new piece up. I think it's big news because initially he liked the idea that the CIA nominee Joe Biden put forward was coming from the diplomatic corps and not the intel community. But now he's got serious concerns because of that person's ties to China and Chinese funding directly for their previous work and for their payroll to pay their salary. So he'll be joining us Rick Rinnell ACLJ special advisor for foreign policy national security in the next segment of the broadcast because I don't want to forget the other issues that are going on right now.

But I want to play for you Doug Schoen, President's attorney as well. They're getting into the part really where you know they talk finally the President says peacefully and patriotically. But he started with how they manipulate audio and video and their presentation. Take a listen. We have reason to believe the house managers manipulated evidence and selectively edited footage.

If they did and this were a court of law they would face sanctions from the judge. I don't raise this issue lightly. Rather it is a product of what we have found in just the limited time we have had since we first saw the evidence here with you this week. So they and they talked about that now right now they're showing the cutting the video where he says to peacefully protest and and patriotically protest at the Capitol. How they cut that out but they also hit on exactly what we started with today on the broadcast and this is great Harry and we'll get it for everybody we'll get the sound for everybody is the tweet. Now we know something new about the tweet which we didn't see because they had corrected this I guess before it was shown but they had put January 31st 2021 let's put those tweets on the screen from that they that they had put up as January 3rd tweets and the reason why is because the this was not an actual tweet this was a recreation of a tweet the house managers told the President's defense team and by recreating the tweet they did a couple things they backdated it they they wrong supposedly fixed that before they showed it put the blue checkmark in to show it was a verified count and of course misinterpreted calvary which is a religious reference not a reference to calvary in the sense of military.

So what we have here Jordan is an absolute festival of falsehoods and duplicity masquerading as alleged evidence of misconduct and incitement when and if you actually look at the real evidence it is clear beyond question that Jennifer Lynn Lawrence was not inciting any riot any insurrection she was urging people to go to a prayer meeting meeting and it is clear beyond question that Eric Swalwell who is known for his own commitment to duplicity he decided along with others to engage in a deconstruction of her tweet in order to in my opinion falsify evidence this is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and I think it calls for either a mistrial or directed verdict if this were a court of law in favor of the defendant. Here it is about the dates this is shocking this is new information by the way we didn't know this as even we were going through how this tweet was put forward manipulated. Look at the date on the very bottom of the screen on manager Raskin's computer screen when we zoom into the picture the date that appears is January 3rd 2020 not 2021. Why is that date wrong because this is not a real screenshot that he's working with this is a recreation of a tweet and you got the date wrong when you manufactured this graphic. So there you go there's the manufacturing of the date that is new and then the blue check mark that this was somehow a verified account take a listen.

Look at the blue check mark next to the twitter username of the account retweeted by the President it indicates that this is a verified account given the blue check by twitter to indicate it is run by a public figure the problem the user's real account is not verified and has no blue check mark as you can see. This again this is destroying the evidence and it's taking those it's taking the emotion out of the trial and going straight to see the this wild presentation they showed you that was being praised by the left well they didn't do their due diligence did they Harry. Absolutely not and so I think the democrats clearly and unmistakably were sloppy they have continuously overplayed their hand and they have shown to the American people that they do not necessarily believe in truth they lack a commitment to the constitution and to the rule of law they lack a commitment to due process why did they engage in this misconduct which is provable because they hated Trump so much they were blinded to their commitment to any integrity to the truth and I think at the end of the day they have been wonderfully and marvelously exposed before the entire nation and more importantly before the senate and I think this increases the odds that even senators who were previously inclined to vote against President Trump will now vote in favor of an acquittal. Because it's good it shows there are again they were not given the the truth and we knew they were splicing and dicing but then you know he they even had the guts I think and I think this is guts from the the President's legal team to play those remarks from Charlottesville and show that you know that that well they're good sides you know people and good for good people on both sides of that protest but not show the extended remarks where the President condemns neo-nazis and he condemns all those individuals I mean it neo-nazis and white supremacists right in the same remarks not the next day in the same remarks and yet the media never wanted to include that in the speech. Manufactured they're they're overreaching every senator sitting in that room today Democrat and Republican should be incensed and an indignant that these house managers are trying to mislead them if their evidence was as great and as strong as they say that it is in that two-hour snap impeachment that they produced on the other side of the capitol building if it were really that strong you wouldn't have to manufacture anything you wouldn't have to to come up with fake you know twitter pages on a screen or change dates or misinterpret what Jennifer Lawrence meant when she was calling for a prayer meeting and they turned her call and as I love the way she said it she said y'all need Jesus boy that's an understatement isn't it they really do need Jesus but instead of bringing Jesus to Washington the Democrats have turned it into an attack on the capitol that is just blatantly dishonest and wrong and but the dishonest things they are doing these tactics just continue to come. You know that we also now they also picked up on what we picked up on right the way we wanted to start the show Eric Swalwell misusing cavalry and calvary take a listen. House manager Swalwell showed you this tweet this week and he emphasized that this tweet reflected a call to arms he told you repeatedly that this was a promise to call in the cavalry for January 6th he expressly led you to believe that President Trump's supporter believed that the President wanted armed supporters at the January 6th speech paramilitary groups the cavalry ready for physical combat the problem is the actual text is exactly the opposite the tweeter promised to bring the calvary a public display of Christ's crucifixion a central symbol of her Christian faith with her to the President's speech a symbol of faith love and peace they just never want to seem to read the text and believe what the text means. They're not textualists we can put it that way Than. They don't love the constitution I think you know finally what people are trying to see is it is not that difficult I mean listen David Schoen is doing a great job right now but but it was it with all the media praise it is not going to be that difficult to show how they spliced and dice and when you splice and dice you start making errors they even caught the errors on Jamie Raskin the tweets they're showing you aren't even the real screenshots of tweets that they're adding things to it that they're misinterpreting words they're telling you one thing and they're just not being honest about the rhetoric they use on their side either or the rhetoric that was used by President Trump leading up to January 6 and on January 6. A couple of things Jordan first of all the cross of calvary has enormous significance and meaning to me so it's particularly offensive to me that that's the that's the switch that they are making but look just at a more fundamental nature words have meetings and manager Swalwell is not permitted to take someone else's words and change them to to match a narrative that he has pre-selected and Jordan we see this a lot in Washington DC where a final narrative a final conclusion is chosen and then you look around for facts and you even alter facts to match that predetermined narrative that is absolutely what happened in this case and I'll go back to something that I think Wes said a minute ago do I think it'll impact final votes well look Senator Cassidy said the entire reason he switched his vote initially on constitutional jurisdiction was because of an effective argument if that argument that we just saw on the floor of the senate is not effective I don't know what is I suspect Senator Cassidy is reconsidering his vote as we speak yeah I mean you're hearing about now the violent rhetoric used against President Trump about you know punching him beating him and then and then all of those kind of things that have been used that's being played now it's surrounding people assassinating the President even used by one of the members of congress when we get back uh Rick Rinnell ACLJ special advisor for foreign policy and national security is going to be joining us talk to himself about this impeachment trial but also he's got a brand new piece up at ACLJ.org and I want you to all check that out after the broadcast today he'll be talking about it this is important how the Biden CIA nominee Bill Burns had his support until troubling revelations of his connections with China surfaced you don't want to miss these news going on as well 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 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 of course we want you to stay with us the ACLJ I think I'll be doing some media interviews later on this afternoon with Newsmax we get those posted as well continued analysis even after the President Trump's team they may rest in their opening remarks earlier than not going to take two whole days up and what the question will be do they get into the question answers today then I don't know that we know the answer to that yet it probably depends on how long they actually do go yeah we don't know the answer Jordan but I'll tell you this there if all of the time is taken there's about 11 hours worth of proceedings left after the presentations are done so if they do get into those questions and if they get through the questions today that would shrink it to a maximum of about seven hours of deliberations left that could definitely fit into tomorrow and that would leave a vote on Sunday so I think we're moving to an end sooner rather than later Jordan right now they are playing the mega clip of all mega clips of Democrat elected officials using the words fight and all the different ways they use the term fight I think that you know it's pretty interesting to see we're trying to connect with Rick Renell when we do that we'll go to him on his new piece as well but I mean this is one of the longest ever and I think you know again when you listen I mean there's Tester again it's a fight now this is a guy who went to punch President Trump as well that is that they're showing right now but again all this fighting language that they're trying to blame on the President that is again at the end of the day just normal political speech and they're just showing that to people they're not trying to indict any of these people they're not trying to say that all of you should be in peace they're saying if you put your standard for it Harry you all should be impeached and by the way I think who should be in real trouble are these these house managers I think what just happened in about an atlasy less than an hour is that they lied to the U.S. Senate they manufactured evidence they misinterpreted words their splicing and dicing was even worse than we initially thought and they should they should you know you know how they face serious trouble we should be the liberal media should be mocking them today like they mocked President Trump's attorneys on that first day because wow Eric Swalwell probably just drained this on trying to get any more Republican support and House Manager Raskin is the ultimate one responsible for approving everything going forward maybe they shouldn't have used an outside law firm to put the video together for them maybe they should have done the work themselves absolutely and maybe they should have extended due process to the defendant in this particular case they should have had hearings they should have had witnesses and if they had done that they would not have made so many unforced errors I think at the end of the day when all is said and done with respect to this particular case the house managers they should resign from the House of Representatives and secondly if possible in their state those individuals should be recalled by the voters and if not thrown out at the earliest opportunity what is unbelievable is they are still playing a video of how long has this got on so you got Rick Rinnell is joining us now Rick video is still being played I mean in just less than an hour the house managers have been shown Rick and what we get to your piece of second we got we still got five minutes with you had a little problem with Skype but that's okay less than an hour that the President's attorneys were able to not only dismantle the case against President Trump but actually just destroy the house managers the fact that they manufactured tweets put blue check marks on people's tweets obviously don't know the difference between Calvary and Calvary and the idea of all this fighting word language the video is still being played as I speak I think it's been going on for over three or four minutes right now it didn't take it took less than an hour for them to say everything you heard over these last two days was spliced and diced incorrect altered evidence that you'd be in serious trouble for if you were as a house manager if you were in a real court of law look it's very clear that they have weaponized impeachment they have politicized that they're using it as a political tool and it's not surprising to those that are watching because look at the house managers I mean you've got Eric Swalwell and Ted Lew two of the most unbelievably you know California republic Democrats who have been pushing a Russian collusion narrative for four years they have literally been pushing the Beijing line to look over at Russia politicizing intelligence politicizing every issue they become the impeachment managers and what did they do they immediately politicize impeachment I've been saying don't be surprised when in the future impeachment just becomes a political tool used by both sides the Democrats have ruined impeachment yeah I mean this I will get into this more too because I mean they are still literally showing the video of just how many Democrats use the word fight and how how aggressive they use it they've also showed the video of the others that were more extreme like Schumer so we and you all have heard that I want to get your new piece Rick because this is a change actually so it's big news you initially liked the idea that Joe Biden had nominated someone to head up the CIA who was from the diplomatic corps and not the intelligence community but now you've got a serious problem with the nominee with your new piece up at aclj.org about how the nominee had your support until their troubling revelations of their connections with China surface which is so troubling right now with with all that we're even the you know world health organization oh no there's nothing to see there in China look the Biden administration has appointed several people who are very sympathetic to China and I think it's a big concern one when Bill Burns was nominated by President Biden to head up the CIA I like the fact that he was an outsider that he didn't grow up in the intelligence community learning the operational side but that he was an outsider as someone who consumes intelligence and could bring a perspective from the outside except this week we learned that for the last six years in his job as running an NGO he's been darting towards China he's been getting money from Chinese businessmen he's been getting staffers from the hill to to go over to China and cozy up to the communist regime this is a signal that he is the wrong person for the job I've changed my opinion on these new revelations I think that the Senate should reject Bill Burns as the nominee to run the CIA because of the recent revelations about China this is an administration the Biden administration that has demonstrated a weakness towards China we certainly don't need somebody who's cozied up to China the last six years and raised money from China running the most important intelligence agency the CIA you know I Rick you've got this up now it's at up at aclj.org I want you just we've got about a minute and a half left but it's a serious piece we're going to be all sharing it without getting all of our social media accounts we get out in our email as well people should sign up for that our weekend email aclj.org which kind of gives you a rundown email of all that that happened during the week at the ACLJ we'll make sure to include this what will people learn in this piece because I think you know this is this is a big thing that that you unfortunately something you thought was good is going to is turned out to be just someone else who's got had who's had China lining their pockets look Bill Burns has had a diplomatic career of 33 years and he's utilized intelligence so initially I thought it was a really good idea to have somebody from the outside except once he retired in 2015 he spent the last six years really uh cozy enough to China and that revelation I think changes the whole uh nomination process for him all right so check that out Grinnell Biden's CIA nominee Bill Burns had my support until troubling revelations of his connections with China's surface Rick final question to you I think for like the Bill Cassidy types I can't speak for them yet who may have been wavering a little more because of this what they thought was a strong presentation are now seeing that the presentation they saw was was really manipulated that that could change a lot of minds even the Republican side yeah look I think this is over let's move on let's not weaponize uh impeachment it it's over yeah it is over the President will be acquitted and vindicated and we will talk about with that with you on Monday 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