BREAKING: The Battle Over Electors in Congress and the Vice President’s Role

Happening today, the battle over Presidential electors in Congress and the vice President's unique role. We'll talk about that on JSecula Live.

And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. What would that process, if it was three versus six, what would that mean? Well, the three that would be chosen would still be outcome determinative. The vote, very difficult. Well, we're going to explain all of this in the vice President's role, too, because that's being discussed a lot.

But I think we first have to discuss Georgia. The Democrats, let's just be honest, they outworked, they outorganized, they were more enthusiastic, and they didn't buy into, I don't think it was most Republicans, because a lot of them showed up to vote. It wasn't like blowouts. But there were enough of those Republican voters who bought into that phony, my vote's not going to count, this is fraud, there's no business in me voting. And I think that was the difference, because remember I said yesterday, if we had over 950,000 plus people voting same day, Republicans would likely both win. 1.2 million plus people voted same day. Now, we don't have the numbers yet, I'm sure Republicans carried that, but to win it, they needed to carry about 62 to 64%, and they usually do.

That means they didn't. Now, I think that's probably the only group of voting they actually carried was same day voting, which was the smallest amount of voting, and then you had of course the absentee, which favored the Democrats, everyone knew that. But also, the in-person early voting usually splits about 50-50.

I have a feeling it's more like 55 Democrat, 45 Republican, maybe a little bit tighter than that, but not 50-50. And I think that Republicans did win the same day voting, so in effect they got to that magic number, but they didn't get to the percent of the number. Because the Democrats came out and you saw that in, especially in the Warnock-Laughlin race already, a pretty big victory.

I mean, a victory that, again, you really can't question. I mean, I have not seen a single report of anything wrong. I mean, there was a couple of places that had to open late that happened. I didn't love when DeKalb County said somehow their machines couldn't count 18,000. People could look into that, but they have paper ballots there to check as a backup, and again, 18,000 wouldn't change Loeffler's race.

Now, Purdue and Ossoff has not been called. There are still 17,000 international ballots out. A lot of those are military ballots.

That doesn't mean they're all going to come back. They have to arrive by Friday, and they were requested, and they would usually favor Republicans, so they would favor Purdue, but would it be enough to overcome the, I think it was now, is it 16,000? I think it's 16,000.

16,000, so that alone, probably not enough, and again, his campaign is going to go through all the legal options. Right now, they're right on the line of a, they can request a recount. They say it's close. It's not... It's right at.5 or less. It's.5 or less, and so it's hanging around there. That will probably depend on what happens Friday, but I think you have to assume right now, it's fair to assume to get into battle mode that the U.S. Senate is changing hands.

Because I always want to, you want to assume and get ready for the worst possible scenario, and the worst possible scenario likely occurred last night. It might just take a few days to finalize it with the absentee ballots, but again, we want to get into what Congress is doing today. That's very important when it comes to who is President. Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110.

Share this with your friends on Facebook, YouTube, Periscope. We'll be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena, and we have an exceptional track record of success, but here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you, and if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive, and that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support, and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Music So, of course, there's a rally in Washington, D.C. today. The President's speaking outside, I think, on the ellipse of the White House, and a lot of Trump supporters in Washington, D.C.

Things are heated. Now we're kind of switching. We've talked about Georgia. I think we can get into more analysis there later on, but I want to talk about today because today is one that's going to be another long day. This process of certifying the electoral vote, which usually gets no attention, didn't get even attention when it was Donald Trump, and it was Joe Biden who was in the chair having to certify it because the Democrats had the Senate at the time. You know, it was something that was a blip on the news. It was done.

But today, it's very different. Yeah, the President just said something, and I think we should try to get it on audio if we can, about the Vice President not picking which electors, which we talked about yesterday. Right. But rather this idea that if enough questions are raised, which there will be, can the Vice President serving as the presiding officer refer, he can't make a decision on which electors are going to be recognized, but can he send it back to those various states, let's say three states or whatever the number is, and say we want to certify, the chair demands a certification, and they may not change anything. They probably would not. So I know you've looked at it.

There's been other lawyers I've been looking at. The argument is this, that in many of these states, in Pennsylvania, by the way, their head of their state Senate wrote asking the Vice President to do this, not to take away their electoral votes, but to let the legislature look at certification again because of what's come to light. So what happens is in the Constitution, it's clear Article II, it's the state legislature's role to choose how electors are seated and how it's done.

They choose the manner. And so it says, there is no mention of the governor or the executive of the states in Article II, but yet in U.S. code, it allows the, which is not, which is a sui, you know, the Constitution supersedes U.S. code. There's never been an issue.

Sometimes they don't conflict because the issues never mattered. But the U.S. code allows the governor to certify. Now, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the governor has anything to do with electors or the executive branch has anything to do with electors. So these states that may be challenged, what they'd be asking them to do, what the Vice President would be doing is exactly what some of these senators are asking for them to do as well, which is not to, it's to take a look and decide, do you really want to certify these electors after these issues have been raised? You had a chance to do this earlier.

You didn't. I'm giving you one more chance now that, because Pennsylvania raised that they still had cases in court. And their governor kind of like decided, yes, and their governor decided to certify it.

So there is a real legal argument there. Is the Vice President taking away anybody's vote? No. Can he tell them they have to do different electors? No. Could those states in one hour reconvene and recertify?

Yes. And in the same election outcome. But it is an opportunity to kind of do what the Senate and House members would like to do but are not going to have enough votes for. Let's walk through what the House and the Senate is likely to see.

This will be a long day today. So what I think you're going to see about the third, depending on which states are picked for the objection, you'll see a challenge to the, let's say if it's Arizona, just picking Arizona because it's one that's been discussed. And there'll be an objection raised in the House and there'll be one in the Senate. So the Senator will come up and repeat that objection. So you'll have the objection joined. Now at that point, they've done a couple of states where they've accepted ballots or ballots have been taken.

Andy, you've looked at this thoroughly. What happens at the point where the objection is joined? Do the chambers, they go back to their chambers?

That is correct. Congress withdraws and votes separately, not for each objection but for each state that receives objections. So when you read the Electoral Act, Count Act together with the other statutes that are relevant, all right, all objections against a state's vote must be made and recognized at the same time. And then separate debates and votes must be held regarding the electors of that state under Title III, United Code, Section 17. Congress may not count any other state's electors until that state's electors' issues have been resolved. They will go back into the House, will go back into its chamber where they're already at. The Senate will go back to the Senate and they will debate it. And to obtain a successful resolution of the challenge, in other words, for the challenge to be sustained, in other words, for the challenge to reach the number that would constitute where those electors would be challenged and not accepted, you'd have to have a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate.

This is on the first normal process. It is highly unlikely, I would say impossible at this point, to envision where you're going to have enough members of the Democratic-controlled House West and the United States Senate where many members have already said no to this, that they're going to be able to meet that kind of challenge. Republican members have said no.

Yeah, the Republican Party is not united at all. I think the debate is limited, Andy, to two hours, if I read it correctly. But it'll be on each state. So if you had three states, it could be six hours. A minimum of six and a maximum of 12. Twelve hours, exactly. They love to go late, we know that.

And anybody can talk. Even if you object, if you had no position, you can get your two minutes if you have a position against or for. So, I mean, you've got 100 U.S. senators, you've got 435 members of the House. I think it's interesting, whenever Vice President Biden was a sitting vice President and this was happening, there were objections, of course, four years ago to Donald Trump's election and Vice President Biden then overruled the objections as the sitting vice President. So we're in uncharted waters. Normally, this is a ceremonial role by the vice President.

He's simply there to have the ballots opened in alphabetical order, to ask if there are any objections and to preserve order. But today, we may break some of that tradition. Yeah, I do not see a scenario where those objections will be sustained, just politically speaking.

The numbers are just not there. The House is controlled by the Democrats. They're not going to...

Right. No, they're not going there. I think what's good is that we'll have the debate before the vice President has to make any kind of decisions about that. And the American people will be able to watch that debate this afternoon and evening about why these senators and House members have decided to make these objections. And it's not in a court.

It is up to based off what they have learned and the law. And it's not about fraud. It's not about voting machines. It's about courts changing election rules instead of state legislatures, which again, constitutional issues. It's about changing rules of the game. It's about changing how you do signature verification and what is an absentee ballot versus what is a mail-in ballot.

And what if you didn't request an absentee ballot but you sent it back in, even though the state law requires you to request it first. I mean, these are the kind of issues that are going to be raised again by U.S. senators. At least, it looks like about 13 of them have joined this group. Now, it doesn't mean that all 13 will object to each one. It might just be like one House member, one senator, one House member, one senator, one House member, one senator.

It'll start at what's prescribed to start at 1 o'clock Eastern time today. Yeah, and the first state that would be likely is Arizona. Now, the President just spoke, and this is very interesting development in my view, and rather than the approach that was being advocated by some yesterday, which was this, that the vice President could reject a slate of electors and basically select another slate, pick alternate slates, which I made my point on that yesterday, which is just simply what the Constitution says, and the Constitution doesn't provide for that. This is what the President said today.

Take a listen to number 20. States want to revote. The states got defrauded.

They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify.

They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become President, and you are the happiest people. So this is a different approach. So this approach is the one we were just talking about earlier, and that we're going to get into it in the next segment, which is can the presiding officer, which happens to be the vice President of the United States, can the presiding officer, rather than ruling on objections, which he doesn't have the authority to do, can he say to the states, I need a certif—there's been contests. I've got a letter from the President of the Senate in Pennsylvania saying don't accept the certification.

We think it was improper, and that was from the Senate leader, which is controlled by the Republicans there. Can he then say to these three states or six states, whatever the number is, go back and—I'm not picking your slate. The vice President would not be picking the slate, but can he say recertify this? Now, we'll get into the legal questions of whether he can do that or can't do that, and there will be arguments on both sides, but that's very different. I want to be clear. That's very different than saying I'm going to, as the presiding officer, select who the slate's going to be.

Remember this. When I was before the United States Senate for weeks, and the chief justice of the United States was there as the presiding officer, some of you will remember this, but I certainly do. How many times did I say, with no disrespect to the chief justice, he is sitting here not as the chief justice of the United States to rule. He is sitting as the presiding officer for order. And that's really what the role of the vice President is in these kind of situations.

Yeah, there's a limited time where the chief justice could make decisions on questions, whether they were appropriate, and that's this issue, asking this question back to the states, not telling them what to do, just saying, can you answer it again for us? Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive, and that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

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

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

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

So what happened? So at 1 p.m. Eastern time today, a joint session of Congress is convened. This is by the Constitution, and the presiding officer is the President of the Senate, that is Vice President Mike Pence. They begin by receiving, it's actually in envelopes, each state's electoral votes.

They open up the envelope, one by one, one by one, in alphabetical order of the states, and they read out the votes. When you get to a state, and again we say this again because alphabetical, the states that we expect to see objections in, the first would be Arizona, then likely Georgia, possibly definitely Pennsylvania, and then it could be those three. You could also see Wisconsin, Michigan, or Nevada.

So you could see up to six. I think it's more likely on the three to four number because it gets to a point where one, it's a strategic move. What state, these are all state legislatures, by the way, that Republicans control. But which ones are, like Pennsylvanians, who said please do this for us. We want the chance to go and look at this again. So they're asking for this to be done.

It looks like Senator Cruz is going to object to Arizona, Senator Hawley is going to object to Pennsylvania, and Senator Loeffler is going to object to Georgia. Now the fact is, as you just said, Jordan, it's very detailed, Andy, within the statute as to exactly the manner in which this goes down and what happens. I mean, the envelopes are handled, how the envelope is opened, how it proceeds. I think it's important for people to understand this is already laid out statutorily. It's laid out very clearly. So there's not a lot of wiggle room on the procedure being handled here.

Well, no, and I'm holding up here, for those of you in our audience who can see it, Title III United States Code Section 15 goes into great detail as to how this happens. Having read the same in the presence of the hearing of houses, that is, having read the results from the state's electors, beginning with the state, it even says beginning with the letter A, then the tellers read them in the presence of the hearing. The votes having been ascertained and counted, the result is announced, and then the declaration is made, unless there is an objection, upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, that means from the state, with the certified electors of the state, the President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the United States, shall call for objections, if any. So that's his act. That's what he's supposed to do.

And that's his role. When all objections so made to any voter paper from a state have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and the objections shall be submitted to the Senate and to the House for their decisions. And then those decisions will be made and announced, and you go on to continue the roll call. Here's what's interesting, and Wes brought it up, Vice President Biden, when he was in this role, didn't just accept the objections and let him go debate, which is how that reads. There's no, like, judgment by the, it doesn't say, but he did, because he denied it. Well, if you can deny it, can you not accept it?

And can you accept it? Did he deny it, or did he say, or did he say, enough, this is a lost cause? What did he say exactly?

I don't know the exact words. The reports from that time say he overruled the objections. No, I remember what he said. Come on, it's over with. That's the, I watched it. He said, come on, it's over with.

We're going to get the exact, we're going to have our team look at that right now. So there is this space there where, again, this is part of, where it's all laid out very, you know, formally. But I don't think the role of the Vice President is adjudication. It is not. That is different than the role of the Vice President as Presiding Officer, where he could say, listen, question, I've got a letter here from the Pennsylvania, the head of the legislature, saying don't do this. I've got a constitutional obligation to know it as well.

I'm going to send it back to them. If they certify it, that's it again, you know. Right. And does he have that authority? I think arguments can be made that he does. There'll be arguments against that position. I'm not going to get into which argument prevails. I'm going to say that would be a legitimate constitutional exercise. It brings up the constitutional provision and a statutory provision that are kind of in conflict. But it's complicated.

Very. And it does not just, so everybody needs to be clear on this. It does not ever come to the point where the Vice President is selecting the elector. No. In this scenario that we're in.

It just, that's, I know people were really upset with me when I said that yesterday, but I'm just giving the facts. The Vice President could, I think he probably, the argument is strong enough that it could go back. By the way, that recertification could literally be, as Jordan said, 15 minutes. It could say, yes, that's what we, the electors we seated are the ones that should be respected by the House and Senate. So this could happen very quickly. But, the but is, there'll be an argument that he doesn't have that authority also.

Be clear. Yes. People, and I would not be shocked to see the Democratic National Committee move in federal court immediately to obtain an injunction. Oh, absolutely. If the Vice President were to exercise that course, would you arguably, and gave a good argument Jay, I have to say, you gave a good argument for the President and Vice President of the United States exercising that authority under the Constitution. I don't see an argument to be made, but I think there would be a move to enjoin him from doing that almost instantaneously.

Yeah. Whether the court would take jurisdiction of that, I don't know. Courts have stayed away assiduously from getting involved in these matters up to this point. We got a little bit of breaking news. Merrick Garland has been selected as the Attorney General of the United States, assuming Joe Biden becomes the President. Merrick Garland was the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was known as a moderate, more of a centrist, so this was not a bow to the left side of the party. Which is surprising.

Yeah, it is surprising. I figured the reason Biden waited until after the Georgia election was over is because he was going to pick someone very left-wing to be the Attorney General. I thought it was going to be a lot of people thought it was going to be Stacey Abrams. Yes.

You kind of went in the opposite direction of that. Yes, he picked a former judge. He was nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice by President Obama. Mitch McConnell had blocked the Republicans, and their right blocked that because it was election year. They said, we're the party in charge, like we talked about with the Barrett.

When you're the party in charge and separate from the President, you can do that. But Merrick, the reason why President Obama nominated him and thought he had a chance was because he was not as far to the left as the normal nominee that President Obama would have made, and thought maybe he's got a chance because he's more mainstream and not seen as a liberal activist. That being said, it's a different role as AG, very different than being a judge. And it's interesting, it's not an Eric Holder type. It's not somebody who's been like a confidant.

It's not like a Sally Yates. And I believe this was made because Hunter Biden is under serious investigation. And that's not me saying I think he is. We know he is. And Joe Biden wanted to nominate somebody that he could at least arguably say, listen, I got no control over this guy. He's not going to give my son a pass.

Which is not easy for anybody if they were a father. But I think he realized that that would haunt his presidency if he put in a Holder type that just dismissed everything. So there you go. That's a bit of a surprise, actually, that that was the pick.

But it was definitely being considered. That's the first non-Obama cabinet level, although he was not an Obama appointee to the federal bench. He was a Clinton appointee, I think, to the federal bench.

So he's been around Washington for a long time. Alright, we're going to take a break when we come back. We're going to get more into what this other move may look like.

I would ask this, though. Do you think he's got it out for Republicans? They blocked him from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I think what they're going to do, here's my view. They've got to look forward. They're going to have to look forward. No, no, but as AG, he can look forward to looking at not being happy with a lot of Republicans. Yeah, I don't see it. I don't know.

It would be an interesting pick. Because, again, he's not far left, but he was blocked by Republicans from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. We'll be right back. 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, welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live.

So, we've broken down, I think, Georgia for you. Listen, it's clear that Warnock has won that special election. He will be up for reelection again in two years, so he does not get a normal six-year Senate term. And it looks like Jon Ossoff has a lead that is very tough to overcome, but not impossible, so it hasn't been, he's been projected as a winner by some.

I was on Newsmax when they projected him, but it's not finalized. And that's because of outstanding, mostly foreign ballots that have a little extra time. We allow for military ballots to come in. But that is by Friday, and Georgia's Secretary of State said there's only 17,000 were requested. They'd have to all break to, I mean, not all of them will be returned by Friday.

Not all of them will be for Purdue. So, again, his campaign will go through and see if they put out all their legal options. They might be within the margin to request a recount. There may be an option for a paid recount.

So, they're not conceding anything yet, and no one is calling that yet. Some have projected Ossoff. Interesting to see the difference in those two votes, not so much on Republicans, but Democrats, who broke much more heavily in favor of Warnock, and I guess some of them just didn't vote for Ossoff or Purdue.

Yeah, that's what it appears. Look, I think the Georgia race is done. Georgia is a blue state. I don't know if I'd say blue state, purple state. I think that's fair.

It's still very close. Different kind of candidates needed next time around. I think the Georgia Republican Party has to do a lot of, I'll go to Wes and Andy on this quickly, I'll go to Wes first, needs to do a lot of soul searching on who their party candidates are.

Yeah, they really do. They've had some weak candidates in the last few years. The thing that's interesting about Georgia, and my family's been in Georgia for eight generations. I have a residence there. It has changed culturally and politically so much recently, and if you look at what happened both in the Presidential election and this senatorial election, there are 159 counties in the state of Georgia. Nine counties, all in the metro Atlanta area, 56% of all registered voters in the state are in those nine counties, and Atlanta is a Democratic stronghold. Is your residence in one of those counties? It is not. It is not. Andy?

Mine is. Yeah, so I mean the fact is that's where most people live. I mean, it's true, the great population bases are Atlanta. If you take Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah, and Columbus, you basically, that's probably, there just was not enough vote in South Georgia in the more conservative states.

When you get outside, it were North Georgia. And those two or three percent less they got this time, even though they still won by big margin, was enough to not do it. But you think it's more of a purple state, but trending blue. Yeah, well I think what happened was there was voter suppression by conservatives because they said- But just think about that for a moment. Because they said, your vote's not going to count, so don't even show up. And Loeffler and Perdue aren't doing enough for Trump. Well, they were trying to win, keep control of the U.S. Senate. I mean, you know, how much could they do? They were having to figure out how to do runoffs, and they were supposed to help a President who did worse than them in the state.

But they both outperformed President Trump the first time around. So what I would say is that, I was going to say, if the Democrats won really big, I was going to blame the Republicans in Georgia for all acting like babies. I think it was a smaller percent, but it was enough of a percent where there were enough people who came out and vote on election day yesterday. Way more than enough for Republicans to win. In fact, people said if it was over a million, Republicans definitely won. Because they'll get 60 plus percent of that. That means Republicans got less than 60 percent of that.

I think it's probably more like 58, 57. So they won the same day voting, but they lost all the others. And same day was the least.

It was the smallest amount. So, again, how much of that my vote doesn't count? Well, when you're 16,000 votes in a race, I mean, it doesn't take many people around the whole state that large to feel that way and not show up. And shame on those people who put those messages out. You're absolutely right. Hey, thank you again for those of you who supported the work of the ACLJ in the month of December. We had the biggest month of all time. Your support made a gigantic difference. From all of us on camera and everybody behind the scenes and the lawyers around the globe, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

This is Jordan Sekulow. We are going to get your phone calls. We want to bring in our special advisor, foreign policy, national security, Rick Rinnell to comment on what happened in Georgia, but also to what's happening today in Congress.

And Rick, I want to read out a tweet you sent out just a couple hours ago. You said the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House for the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. They overreached then and their party is even more left today.

Rest up and get ready to fight back. I know a lot of us have been up late and probably got very little sleep these last month and a half. And you're one of those people, Rick. But we have all been through that two-year battle. And when they go left like that, it usually turns out very bad for Democrats.

Look, God is in control. And we have to remember that every single morning when we wake up. Yeah, look, it's not a great day for Republicans, but the battle is not over. And I think that you have to take a long term view of this. We have to fight in the courts.

I think ACLJ is more important than ever this morning. And I would just encourage people to get involved, to realize that we do have an option of fighting in the courts. And we have to take that option. That's part of the rule of law. That's part of the democracy that we live in and that we fight for.

And I think today in Washington is the same way. This is all legal. This is all laid out in the Constitution. These are all options that we get to have.

Now I will give you that they're unique. They're not often used. But the Democrats have used these certainly in the 2000 election. You can go back and Google how many times the Democrats were objecting. And by the way, it's scary when you look at those videos in 2000 because there's a whole bunch of Congress people who are still there 20 years later.

No, you're right about that. And look, it was after the Bush versus Gore decision when it went then for certification in the Congress, it was Barbara Boxer out of your home state of California that led the objection. And in the recent 2016 election that Joe Biden presided over, there was a whole host of objections made. So that process is going to play out. Now I personally am of the view that I don't think those objections are going to carry because the numbers just aren't there. So as I like to say, it's not outcome-determinative.

What I do think is outcome-determinative is this. There is a realistic possibility that the United States Senate, I would say more than realistic possibility, it is probable unless something happens with Purdue's race that is going to be controlled. It's going to be split 50-50 giving Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris will have the gavel if there's a tie, which will make her a very busy and also raise her stature as vice President, usually presiding with the Senate is kind of a mundane thing, but she's the deciding vote. So Rick, you said something just a moment ago that I think is really, we've got to emphasize that is blocking in the courts now again, and also since it is 50-50, so they don't have a majority, you could fight back pretty aggressively on Capitol Hill too, but we're going to have to do, it's the full armor, so to speak. It's everything you have in your arsenal that you're going to have to be able to utilize to block some of these things. I'm thinking about your area of expertise, one of your areas of expertise, and that is the Middle East. I mean, we were seeing an entire reshaping of the Middle East under President Trump. I can't imagine.

I shudder to think what it's going to look like in this next administration. Well, first of all, I was going to say, Jay, that I thought when you said you want to emphasize one of the great points that I made that you were going to bring up the fact that I said God was in control. That's true also. That's the most important point, actually.

That's number one. I love your point about Kamala Harris having a really important and busy role, but I can't help but immediately think that that's going to raise Susan Rice's stature. That's exactly what Susan Rice wants, which is to have Kamala Harris busy over in the Senate. With kind of the process stuff so that she can grab hold of all of the policy stuff. I mean, she's been given this domestic policy adviser. She doesn't know anything about domestic policy.

This is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. She is going to be in charge of foreign policy and domestic policy and everything. Remember, Joe Biden wanted her to be the V.P. And rumors are that Barack Obama said, no, you need somebody with more legislative experience.

And so I think Kamala knows the Senate and that's a better fit than Susan Rice. But this is now unleashing Susan Rice to do what she wants in the Middle East, to do what she wants, all sorts of global affairs issues. Consensus with the U.N. is going to reign as part of the day. And so we were going to have to understand that they're going to try to move the America first agenda to the back seat. It's not going to be America first. It's going to be the U.N. first.

It's going to be Europe first. And we're just going to go along with what they say. So we have to fight and use every tool possible. We also have to look at some of the conservative Democrats and begin to make the case in West Virginia, so to speak, of why America first is important and fight on all of these issues. I would say I agree with Ben Shapiro that you should all have Senator Manchin's number in your speed dial because you're going to have to all, the public is going to have to be calling his office and pushing him as much as possible.

We're going to need every possible vote. Yeah, I mean, you bring up an issue, Senator Manchin is definitely the most moderate member of the U.S. Senate on the Democrat side and faces the most pressure at home to kind of maintain this balance of a kind of old school Democrat. And he's been willing in the past, not, I mean, on some of the tougher votes, he doesn't usually do it, but sometimes does come through.

And when it's this close and he's not planning right now to run again for anything, you have to expect maybe he wants that kind of an elevated role to go out on. And I think you're absolutely right. I mean, everybody's been talking about the role Joe Manchin is going to play is going to be as key as the role Kamala Harris is going to play because she can't be the tie-breaking vote if he's not number 50.

Yeah, I think that's right. Go ahead, Rick. Let's also remember on the Republican side, we're really going to need Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney. We're going to need these votes.

And so I think going to Alaska, going to Maine, going to Utah and having grassroots activists really help us secure the right votes are going to be important. You know, I know this isn't going to be another controversial statement, but I think we've got to play political reality here. And you're absolutely right. I was thinking about what also you said in the beginning, that God is in control. The Lord didn't wake up in the morning and say, oh my goodness, I'm surprised.

In Georgia, the two Democrats won. So we shouldn't operate in that thing. We have to deal with the temporal facts of what we have to deal with, but God is in control of the whole universe. So this is a factor that we deal with the evidence of this or the fallout of this. But the one thing I was thinking, and you just mentioned this, Rick, you talk about like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski. I mean, these are senators I worked with during the impeachment proceedings. I mean, I worked with all of the senators, obviously, but I was thinking about that.

And there's this kind of, you know, among some within the Republican Party, there's this kind of distaste for what they're doing and what they're saying. But those three votes all of a sudden become really important. Look, I think they are very important and we have to remember that all three of them are Republicans and we have to just make the case, you know, I know politics is not an altruistic sport.

It's filled with all sorts of calculations. And part of the calculation is going to be the people of those states. And so I think a grassroots effort, if you're living in Alaska, if you're living in Maine, if you're living in Utah, you're an important voice now. And, you know, you need to be a more active part of ACLJ.

We need your help to bring these arguments to the forefront and especially in the court systems. I think about someone like Susan Collins. She was in a very tough reelection battle and Republicans came to her aid, not because they always agreed with her on everything, but because when it was the tough issues, she did the right thing usually.

And she might have complained a little. She might have taken a different tact on some issues. But again, like you said, Rick, she is a Republican. She was reelected because she was able to fundraise from outside the state. I'll say it, outside of my role as ACLJ, I never thought I would send this donation to Susan Collins, send a few in. Not because I agree with every position she has.

I don't. But I knew that if she was gone, Maine was gone, and we would probably have a very difficult time of getting a Republican back there. Mitt Romney is not a lost cause on everything. I think he had a distaste for the current President.

He wanted to be President. And, you know, he's in the Senate, but we've all worked for him. Rick worked for him. I worked for him. Again, you don't want to just give up on these people, on core principles of the party.

And same goes for Lisa Murkowski, Shelley Moore Capito, and others. Can Rick stay during the break? Can we keep him on during the break? Will that work?

Technically, yeah. Rick, you can stay for two more minutes, because there is a question I want to ask when we come back. So if you're on Facebook or YouTube, share it with your friends right now, because I want to ask Rick a particular question. Oh, also, let me say this, and I should not have forgotten to say this, and I'm going to say it again for the third time today. We had the largest month in the ACLJ's history. It's a 30-year history in the month of December. It blew way past what our budgets were, what our stretch goals were, and that's because of your support, which allows us to have people like Rick Grenell on our team and others around the globe. And it's really ACLJ more than ever, right now.

All right, we'll be back with more in just a moment. 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.

43110. We're going to have a lot to analyze tomorrow because this is all going to begin right after, if you're listening to us live, we're live noon to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. 1 p.m. Eastern Time is when Congress convenes in joint session to begin this electoral certification, and we think that right off the bat with Arizona, there's going to be an objection, which will then lead to a two-hour debate where the chambers are separate. So in the House, they go in debate.

In the Senate, they go in debate. And they have a certain amount, a lot of time they can go, so that can go on for up to two hours. We see three of these, which is kind of like the minimum that we expect. That's five, six hours of debate, at least. I've got that on good knowledge from members. And if you see six of these, I mean, you're talking about 12 hours.

Now, you don't always have to go the full two hours. But again, this could go easily into the evening, and then it brings up the vice President's role. I think we've talked about all of that enough to now take your questions, and then we're going to see what happens today. We're going to see if the objections are made like they said they would make and where the debates go and how many are made. And then the vice President, will he take any kind of action? Because we know the votes are not there in the House to do this or the Senate.

So to get any kind of relook by the states, it would take the vice President doing something that hasn't been done before. Let's go to the phones. I'm going to go in order.

People have been holding on. Let's go to Nicole in Rhode Island, on Line 1. Nicole, welcome to JCECIO Live.

Yes, thank you. I want us to go back in time for just a second, or so many seconds, to think of our founding fathers that debated from June, July, until August, September, the exact words they wanted to put into our United States Constitution. Now, just think of that right now and just, like, put yourself there and get rid of all the minutia of the newscast and what everybody's going to say. And let's just go back. Let's just go back to, like, what really matters and what does the Constitution say, what is supposed to happen.

Forget what everybody's going to think about us or whatever. So quickly go ahead with your question. Thank you, because I'm going to say, like, two paragraphs, okay? We're really tight on time, so give me your question.

I want you to talk, Nicole, but you've got to give me your question. Okay, well, we've got Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2, that clearly states that it's supposed to be decided by the legislature. Right, right.

We can't imagine that back then, before airplanes and... So there's a constitutional process in place inside that same document you're talking about in the United States Constitution on how it's handled if there is a concern over electors. And that's where the Senate and the House can raise objections, and that is going to happen. The problem here is, for those that are advocating that the objection be made, is that there's not going to be enough votes to carry it.

So the other option that some have discussed, which does not make any constitutional sense, is, well, does the vice President just rules that these slate of electors are not appropriate and not going to be counted? But I want you to think, you said you want to go back in history? Let me go back in history four years. Joe Biden was the presiding officer of the United States Senate and House when they were in joint session for the Electoral College submission and tally. What if he would have said, you know what, I don't like the way... Hillary Clinton got five million more votes than the President, or three million... Donald Trump was with the Russians.

Yeah, Donald Trump, there's all these allegations. I'm going to... You know what, I don't think these Electoral Colleges are right. I'm going to decide that I'm going to recognize only the ones that were for the... To get Hillary into 270. To get Hillary Clinton into 270.

Or I'll just send it back to the House myself. Do you think that would be a good constitutional option? I don't think so. And that's the same if it's a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, whatever party it is. There you go.

No, I think again... But let's play in reality. A lot of this is confusion too.

There's a lot of junk out there in the social media world. And then there's... You've got to find truth tellers in this, even if you don't like what you're hearing. We're not saying there's no options here for the vice President, but we are saying that it's limited. It will be challenged in court, and he still...

It'd be the states making the decision, which is what you were just reading, which is the Article 2. Saying that that's what should be... Who should be certifying is... But to put the pressure on Mike Pence to do something that he can't do, and that people are saying... They're writing letters to Mike Pence, like, you know, do something, people are emailing.

That's... He's got legitimate issue. You've got the head of the Senate in Pennsylvania saying, hey, there's a problem here. So there's a novel argument to make. There's a novel argument that could be made that maybe he can then say to the Pennsylvania legislature, hey, you're telling me you don't want this certified. You have electors.

Now you're saying you don't want them. You're the legislature. You're supposed to be deciding this. Who is your electors?

That's diff... He's not going to decide who the electors are. And there's arguments that he has the right to do that, and there's arguments that he doesn't. And the question is, will the court even hear that, and will those states just say...

If the courts don't hear it, those states could all just... They can come back and certify in ten minutes. Right.

As quickly as they can convene. All right. Back to the phones we go. Let's go to Diana in Texas on Line 3. Diana, welcome to JCECIO Live. Thank you.

It's an honor and a privilege to be able to get on a call with you guys. I only have one short and sweet question for you guys. Yep. Due to all of the findings of Mr. Poulter, that the minion machines were hooked up to the internet and so forth and so on, how are we expected to trust another election using the same machines?

Okay, so you raise a quite... We're tight on time, so I'm going to go to that. The evidence that was presented did not convince a judge or an appellate court or the Supreme Court of the United States. Yeah, I mean, that's it. And I don't know if there was any actual good evidence to show that they were hooked up to the outside internet. Supposedly there was somebody that was connected to the internet. Well, there's internal that they're allowed to. There's external. External, they can't... These are up to the states.

The states make the decision about what election systems they want to use. All right, grab the last call. And let me tell you something. That had nothing to do with what happened in Georgia last night. Democrats just outdid the Republicans. It happens.

That's politics. I mean, you know, they came in with momentum. They weren't just kind of like tired out by what they had done a month, six weeks ago.

They were still excited. Let's take Judy's call really quick. Hey, Judy, Pennsylvania, you're on the air. Thank you.

Thanks for taking my call really quickly. So in Pennsylvania, we basically have two issues. One is the illegal and constitutional change in the rules, and the other is the evidence of changing the vote.

Assuming nothing changes today with Congress, what recourse do we, the people, have for these things that happened illegally in Pennsylvania? Elect new legislatures in your state. And the reason I say that, Andy, and I'll go to Andy what's really quickly on this, is these states that are complaining the day before certification or the day of certification could have taken action themselves two months ago and put it on a slate of electors.

That's right. It's up to your legislature. The Constitution is very clear that the means, manner, and method of accepting an election. Of accepting and deciding that constitutional electors is left to the legislatures of the states. They were looking first. They wanted the Supreme Court to tell them they had to do it, but the Supreme Court was thinking, wait, we don't need to tell you this.

You can already do this. Now they're looking for Vice President Pence to tell them to do it. And I'm still not convinced that if he says go back and look at it, that they've got enough guts to actually change anything because they didn't do it before. Here's the bottom line. It's going to be a long day and an interesting day, but at the end of the day, in spite of the objections of 13 senators and over 100 members of Congress, it will have no effect on Joe Biden being inaugurated in 14 days.

That's probably the reality. Unless the states do some kind of recertification. Unless three of those states switch on the recertification. Which they have the power to do. Or the votes somehow mysteriously, you know, the Senate says, you know what, this is wrong.

But he's about to get the House. So it's going to be what the problem here was. The states didn't do it. Be mad at them. Don't be mad at the Vice President. Don't be mad at Donald Trump. Don't be mad at senators, House members.

State legislators in the six states that had the problems didn't step up, didn't have the guts to do it. We will talk to you tomorrow. Stay up to speed. I'm going to be on the Newsmax in a few minutes, third time today, talking about all these issues. And again, ACLJ.org. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.