House to Impeach Wednesday

Jay Sekulow breaking news articles of impeachment to be voted on tomorrow. Live from Washington DC.

Phone lines are open for your questions right now called one 800-6843 1-101-800-6841 10 and the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow broadcast on the quick update because things are moving to Washington very very quickly. If you do not get Jeffrey's broadcaster deny because the news the House of Representatives has entered a introduce a one count impeachment resolution focusing on's inciting insurrection. That's the primary focus of the allegation and that is the President's actions and their best what they're saying the President's actions incited insurrection that took place in the nation's capital. Now there's all kind of legal debates as to whether that speech itself was protected speech under the First Amendment. Alan Dershowitz noted First Amendment lawyer said it is consciously protected speech. I think you have to put that aside right now as to what's culpable and what's not culpable. Look at the reality of what is happening. I think you could argue that protected speech is protected speech. But that's not really relevant to this conversation because was relevant to this conversation is where does it stand down the article the impeachments being introduced has been introduced, and it looks like and go to fan Bennett on this. It looks like it could go up as a vote tomorrow that that's right, Jay.

It's good schedule to be on the floor of the house tomorrow after they vote on basically need to try to push the vice President to invoke at the 23rd amendment tonight. Tomorrow they're going to move to impeachment J the latest that I'm hearing is that you would probably expect some procedural votes, a vote on the rule. Around 1030 in the morning, then you have debate throughout the afternoon and evoked sometime late afternoon or early evening and in jail the status. There were 160 Democrat cosponsors when it was introduced yesterday. The reports now from the lead sponsor David selenium is that that's up to a 220 or more. So essentially what you have on the Democrat side of the aisle is every member or very very close to it by the time this is called up tomorrow will be a cosponsor that legislation or that resolution so you're expecting what's the total number of people that you think will be sponsoring, what's the breakdown Democrat Republican to be 220 or more Democrats.

There's 222 Democrats who are sworn into the house right now. There still some moving parts on that J but that the total number cosponsor II suspect, probably by the time it's called at every single Democrat number. I will be on it at this point there are no Republicans cosponsoring their date yet to be seen how many of the envelope for what you think you may idea I've been been asking around today J and the most common number I'm hearing is somewhere between 20 and 25, but I think I think it's really important.

As I say that to also say the next 24 hours have a lot to say about that number. Both the action of the President. The actions of Speaker Pelosi if she moves this into a more partisan realm JI think that number would go down and what's the significance of that fact. There was 25 Republican signing onto this part of impeachment like the first impeachment that we handle.

It was completely partisan of the House of Representatives, not a single Republican moderate or to the far right of those who may have not like Pres. Trump thought that what closing the Democrats were doing was correct, so none of them signed on and none of them voted to impeach that here it looks like you get a sizable number of Republicans me to get to 2025.

That's bipartisan in this day and age, and it sends a bipartisan impeachment on one count impeachment to the U.S. Senate. Did the problems arise with that when that trial begins, and we can get into that later broadcast because so many issues there as well but I think that is right. You see the President comments today. He condemned the violence but he said what he said he did nothing wrong but you said was totally appropriate to that move more Republicans in Nancy Pelosi's way and did you watch her rhetoric very closely because I don't think she wants that many Republicans on this June. To use this to hurt Republicans in the midterm elections coming up in two years so she doesn't really want to bipartisan I take your calls and comments 100-684-3110 and the question President be convicted when is no longer enough challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines injecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging the American Center for Law and Justice is on your side you're already a member. Thank you Knox well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable in voice. 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called like it will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question free copy of mission in life today online/looks like there's a vote tomorrow on these articles, this article of impeachment for excitement. That's the focus of it. There's legal questions also being raised right now about a Nancy Pelosi putting forward for any resolution on the 25th amendment is that move forward yes it is being debated in the House rules committee right now J and essentially what she's doing just just practically and functionally she's using that debate on that resolution and that vote tonight to make sure that all of the members come back for the impeachment vote tonight see urgency to votes on the floor of the house tonight. The first one probably around 730, which will be of vote on the rule for that at that legislation that resolution and then a final vote late in the evening, maybe 1030 11 o'clock and essentially what that resolution does J's calls on the vice President to initiate the 25th amendment.

Now just just issue people straight here on the 25th amendment. I know you'll get in the practicalities that it that's it that's an executive branch initiated efforts that this piece of resolution. It's a messaging item J but it really is not only for the nano forward is no force of impact on the back of the house passed a threat to my parents that if he doesn't exercise the 25th amendment. There's only an article impeachment voted on his is a threat. So it's is a threat in the sense that this is not self-fulfilling.

It's not self executing and also get to understand the 25th amendment 20 that the member doesn't just say vice President and the majority of the cabinet vote and say the President is not capable of serving and therefore he's out, it's not the way it works. So Andy's look at this in great detail any composting account for the ACLJ. Any there's a process that has to go forward. There is a process is initiated by the vice President. By the way it was enacted back in 1967 with Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack and there was a question as his capability to continue to serve as President or for that matter any President in its initiated by the vice President United States and the members of the executive branch. The principal officers is the word that is used in the constitutional amendment. The principal officers of the executive branch of government, and I don't know how many of those (now because of been so many resignations do you know in that area so you have the Secretary of State I think is still there. The secretary of the treasury's their transportation is left and I think commerce is still there but the others are probably being executed by acting persons I in that capacity, but the cabinet then has to remove the President because he is unable to serve, and the vice President becomes in the terms of the 25th amendment. The acting President, but it doesn't end there because at that point the President can say I disagree with you.

I take back my position.

Your position that I am not able to execute my duties in your action is a nullity and void and I resume my office of President United States a Pres. Trump would have the ability to do that. What happens then it goes to the Congress of the United States and then both the Senate and the house have to decide the issue of whether or not the President is in fact be removed or whether he stays in on how many days is that it four days. If it's a complicated it's a very complicated process this thing through several times and it's a very complicated process that has to go through. I just don't see it. I don't see majority of the C vice President to answer and I don't see majority the cabinet going forward with take two thirds vote in both the House and the Senate to get to that problem and talk about where the President is disagree with the cabinet. They know you're not ready come back. This is a help provision was a provision put in place because mixing presents then a shot. Mixing presents with had to go under anesthesia is invoked those times when they present is having yet he had a surgery and is unable to function is present so has to be someone in place they can make decisions. The vice President it is used for that and that that alone is why 25 May exist. This is more of a threat for the President to say, resign or be impeached, but they did want to put it that way sleep with some formalized language in that they know wasn't going to happen is important that there's not much cabinet left anyways and that no indication by princes interest in doing so what should we expect I expect it impeachment bipartisan impeachment of Pres. Trump for the second time tomorrow in the U.S. House, the keyword their course which one just said is the word bipartisan less because in the previous minute was not. It was only partisan vote and even in the Senate. There was one vote to convict by Mitt Romney, but only on one count and not guilty acquitted on the other count this as a seems to be taking a whole different dimension to it and we are in a time of the national political crisis, no doubt, but there is so much drama as opposed to well thought out reasoning. There is so much of that going on so much emotion that you just will not cover your ears and say please make it stop. For example, concerning the impeachment thing.

Jim Clyburn suggests the congressman from South Carolina number three in the house that we go ahead and impeach him now and then wait another two, three, four months to two current take the trial to the Senate. If the goal is a quick rebuke that makes absolutely no sense what the Nancy Pelosi steps up as well. What we need to do is impeach him so that he cannot run for office again that's going to require two things a two thirds vote in the Senate and did a separate resolution in the Senate to prevent him from running again. Again, that's that is not only a little unlikely is impossible and then Nancy Pelosi goes further and says well we have to impeach him because he is a threat to national security. He's dangerous well all of this hoopla law in impeachment is not going to be finished until after Joe Biden's President said that makes no sense either on there's a lot of emotion and a lot of spite fullness and not a lot of thinking what's good for the country in impeachment would not be good for America. I grew you know Joe mansion split the sample Joe mansion. I want to play. This was from Sen. mansion yesterday. If we do have available when you only have it let me know please. Okay.

And they were looking for. I will have the sound from Joe mansion is the Democratic senator from West Virginia take John's call from California John go-ahead on their legal right real legal question on whether or not you could, they could certainly they could go to impeach tomorrow and they may well may looks like that's where it's headed.

Then the question is when they deliver to the Senate and is as was pointed out by Weston Phan and Jordan. They talk about waiting. They may wait 100 day schedule binds cabinet can get in then you're talking about in impeachment anyway. The calendar goes, you talk about impeaching the President is no longer in office so then there's a legal question during we talk about this yesterday jurisdictional question as to whether the Senate, in fact actually is jurisdiction to do this.

The problem is for the courts to get involved is the Constitution says all matters of impeachment rest with the Congress, Jordan, the question if the courts didn't get involved. I still think they would probably pump this is a political question but because it's something new I noticed that he absolutely would.

Is that why does the Senate.

Why would the students still have jurisdiction over a private citizen, it would be when it's clear that under these impeachment rules of the Constitution. It is officers of the United States. It is the President and vice President. Other officers and judges.

Members of the judiciary that are subject to impeach, but do but when their longer officers when they are no longer the President when they are no longer in office. Is there any jurisdiction of the US and or Congress at all. I to have a trial to, in effect, bring them back to take away some of their fundamental rights doubts because you can't point out your the out of office. So that's that that's the key. We all know what the key is here. It's not because they want take down from stress typing away or is travel budget away a second hurting so much what they want to do what they want to do is disqualify him for potentially running in 2024, which is very telling it with even all this chaos surrounding the President right now that worried about his comeback in four years. I think if you look at it and to me, that is what the aim of this is a lot of this is to stop him from being able to run again in 2024 episodes choose yeah I think that's all of the J. Even for those who think it's justified on both sides, because look what is the fastest way to get Donald Trump out of office is that if that's what you're aiming for is to let his term expire on the 20th and the West talked about how the trial in the Senate would extend past the 20th. It most certainly would. I mean even if leader McConnell and leader humor regardless of whose control in the chamber at the time decide to bring the chamber back earlier and it's not getting it done before that NJ idea. I did think it was interesting that Joe Biden is been very quiet on this, but he even he came out and said look I think the idea of punting 100 days is a really terrible one.

If you're going to have a trial in the Senate. I want you to divide your days. I want you to focus on my nominations and my agenda in the morning and then I want you to do the trial in the afternoon President alongside the right thing at the Senate rules do not allow the currently that does the Senate rules that you must start the trial at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. It would take a resolution that says were not gonna take it up at nine in the morning like like they did in the previous impeachment they would have to pass a separate resolution that said work in a on subsequent days were not in the start of the afternoon as well. I will talk about all of this when talk about what where the Democratic senators are coming out on this because that's what ultimately this will go will take your calls and comments 800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110.

There's a lot of legal issues surrounding and impeachment of the President or trouble present is no longer serving in office direct only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. 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, defendant the right to life.

We created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to as many ways your membership is powering the right question for mission life today online/challenges facing Americans as time went on our freedom or constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms and rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. 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. You are already a member. Thank you. Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us.

ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ. Make no mistake that the goal of all of this is to make sure that Donald Trump does not run again for President the end of the day. That is the goal where you fall on the weather was impeach black or nonobese black.

The Constitution doesn't allow state by separate office. The goal is for him not to.

That's what that's why this impeachment is being put forward is to bar him for life from running for office not Joe mansion, the senator from West Virginia has been very cautious on how this plays out in very cautious about the whole idea of rushing to impeachment confirmations will happen quickly. I sure hope this impeachment doesn't help anything that's something I'm talking about makes no sense whatsoever. We would push this impeachment thinking around the development of this little bit of that work that way. The judicial system do its job. If you still think is needed from patient. It would later at the bottom line want us to put the government together confirm immediately that this email is idea of a delay trial now let me ask you this way first.

And do you see any way in which they actually do start to try to technically they get them delivered, they can start the next day at 1 o'clock. Gonna start the next day at 1 o'clock and as it stands right now, the Senate will be imposter to receive them until the 19th and leader. McConnell has said that he is not in favor of changing that J the only way they can change that would be if leader humor and leader McConnell. I want to stress this day, even if leader humor takes over control of the Senate there out on unanimous consent so the only way they could bring it back without unanimous consent.

If that is if both the Majority Leader and the magic minority leader agree to that. Now maybe they could J but you know that's still not can happen until the 16th or the 17th and then they start the next day. Let's say that's the 18th. By the way, the 6X excludes Mondays are you getting it through an entire trial where the President is allowed to put on a defense and a vote happens before the 20th. In my view, J the clear answer to that is no no I trial is not in the finished in the United States Senate before this determinants of that yet. The interesting aspect of this. The impeachment proceeding in the house door. No could go through literally tomorrow. Committee tested that I met on whether or not this with actual speech that cited violent snowball professors of constitutional experts, First Amendment experts on either side. I just a straight up here were to have a vote to impeach.

There will be some debate as they talked about and then by the evening boat which is an up or down vote.

They have the votes to do it. Only question now is how many Republicans join on into this effort.

We won't know that until the vote occurs, I think because of what's happening today. I think on the one hand balance this President trumps in his first remark said as he was boarding Marine one said there was nothing wrong in what he said is that upset Republicans who wish that he would settle maybe. Maybe things were taken out of context or something like that that encourage more Republicans join, but then if Nancy Pelosi starts making this very partisan start attacking all Republicans say that her call never step wouldn't stop this present moment. I think you get less Republicans on this the real goal of this is to punish Dr. Donald Trump but the Republican party in the midterm elections coming up because Nancy Pelosi sees the numbers are dwindling for her. Chuck Schumer trying to damage already right out of the gate.

Republicans in the midterm elections and we just imagine is how political they are billing that it's pretty uncertain if you can even have this impeachment trial and then second, if you do, how hard it is to get to two thirds is interested, let's go to D in Oklahoma online 1D had gone there gentlemen I listener and contributor and my question is that impeachment is such a nasty thing would be smart of Trump to resign today. Hence becomes President, and then parents go through the process of pardoning name and that it makes us 74 million about leaving me very happy.

The President resigns seriously. Date I'd be happy if he resigned, and he hardened his fans whatever they are, then I will make the left crazy.

I love Trump look Richard Nixon resigned and avoided impeachment. I don't. I can't imagine anything can happen, but resignation does not seem to be in Donald Trump's eyes. They make up no I don't think so. Janet think resignation is his within his DNA within his Constitution, and I use that in the physical sense, rather than in the written word. I don't think he has it in him to do that and I think that it would not be a prudent thing to do without certain legal protections and other things that would have to fall into place simply resigning as presently united stated they would then again there was and there would be no guarantee of a pardon, whether that what happened in the remains up in the air. I wouldn't counsel Rudy resignation went, what he thinks ornament that I think that's probably past this point that what we're hearing is that the relationships they are not great and I get to see the presence you going to do a border trip to damage that that's what you do if your resigning, you don't talk to the press and defend your comments if you think you're just in a resign incredibly quiet. I don't know how aggressive he's going to be in the next, and in these next eight days or so about defending his his comments are how much media he's going to do, but it certainly is not able to utilize social media. The way he was the pack so that's changed a lot about his ability to communicate, but also to his ability to kind of put out there the statements they kind of irked the traditional Republican in the House and the Senate, which might be a blessing for him if the students is determined to have some kind of jurisdiction over this utilize out of office because I think it will make it that much tougher for them to actually get to two thirds and so they beat yes he be impeached twice to be to failed impeachments of the same crowd say present. So I wonder if the problem is the I think you are, in this resignation idea that that time prime fame probably has passed, because if you look at it just probably both the impeachment article out tomorrow. Once that articles out he resigning at your own peril.

I mean, it doesn't void the impeachment. I don't think a minute. I mean the lesser some theory I'm missing what we think less correct early early day.

I think it is right now resigning is not in this presence, DNA, loving or hating, and there are many people on both sides of that he loves a fight.

The other thing about him resigning, is that as you mentioned, J, I don't think it's a given that Mike Pentz would pardon him.

I don't know that one where the other, but it would put Mike Pentz in a very bad political situation. If he's President for eight days because if he pardon him. People are loving. If he doesn't, people are gonna hating men on both as love and hate. If he is thinking about running for President someday himself having a political future President Trump resigning is not in Mike Pentz's best interest so that massive. That's a very important night wouldn't be here for another 30 to lower the broadcast go over to Facebook go over to YouTube. Subscribe thereto. By the way same thing on the Facebook and also force ACLJ.org and a lot of other social media will be here for flower ticket causing, break one 800-6843 11. Get pellets in the face.

Well, and on YouTube. Take some of those against what the work of the ACLJ can do that by going simply to aclj.org@aclj.org back with your calls and comments for decades.

ACLJ on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC. Jay Sekulow, counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow 6430 just joining us here is what has happened. The house representatives will be voting for and it looks like tomorrow on the article of impeachment you voting tomorrow there in about tonight on the 25th amendment resolution about tomorrow on impeachment will get going in the morning with a vote around 1030 on the rule, then you will see some debate, we don't know exactly how much J but we expected to take most of the afternoon and then a vote that night. According to Speaker Pelosi and David to Cellini who drafted the article of impeachment. They both say that they already have the votes to pass it that that parts not surprising J because as you know, Democrats control the House of Representatives.

I would expect every Democrat to vote for it at this point it looks like there will be some Republicans on it as well. Although I do think it's important to stress, something that Jordan said a minute ago I actually think of that could change a lot over the course of the next 24 hours. I think most of the Republicans believe that pursuing impeachment is not a helpful healing idea. They want to see the President pursue a peaceful transition. They want to see Speaker Pelosi move away from partisanship and III think Speaker Pelosi would quite frankly like to see Republicans backed the President on this so you know the number. I'm hearing is 20 to 25 Republicans are expected to vote for it of a J I think that minimum number can move both up or down quite a lot over the next 24 hours before there's a vote majority said this early if there in fact is 20 or 25 or more Republicans are join this that's can it that's a whole different ballgame that we handled last year we had a completely partisan impeachment.

So when we went into the US. That was one of our first tech kind of arguments with it was the evidence put forward in the house for tonight.

During this time, but without the people they put forward all the different witnesses they interviewed that a single Republican decided to vote with the Democrats.

They did on a just Democrat majority of vote that seems to be very different now. So you're not going to the Senate having just a completely partisan impeachment and in seconds I we know there are a handful at least Republican senators right now. Support impeachment we can't get that I can't count you to 17 yet but I can certainly count to five, six or seven and I think the others would be totally dependent upon how the proceedings went.

I don't think it's a slamdunk.

Either way, I also think there's a legal issue again asked whether present that's no longer an office can be tried.

I just I it's not the way the Constitution reads that is such a big point here. That's why Chuck Schumer I think was trying to focus idea. Maybe we could do this in emergency session because I get up and avoid that because they know to this then brings up an issue of its first time they've never tried to do this with someone who's who's actually finished their tour so the only time they did it with in history was adjudged. The judge that the lifetime appointment reside so they can close the impeachment also secretary of war. They tried it with anything acquitted. I don't know if there was a secretary work with our prefinished doubt there's arguments on both sides because of the privileges encumbered being a former President stipend travel budget. The Secret Service protection and of course your ability to run for office again that to be is the key.

They even with all this. It's interesting to me, Democrat, and I think many Republicans right now you look at what's happened look at the polling even from Republican posters and present trucks with very damaged by what is happened the past we could hack for week and they are still worried still worry that his movement will be the juggernaut that they will have to face in 2024. They are dead set on trying to prevent him from being able to run again if he so chooses to do so if you've any doubt about that in the you know that that that's what the what is that that's the aim. The aim is to disable him from ever putting together a political campaign again to be President is no doubt about that. The question is, after all, this puts the political viability anyways and I constantly judge that possible say I we come back in the bread village attempt to keep trying hundred 6430 went in to get the comments and on Facebook and YouTube as well. Will be back the challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontline protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court 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, you're already a member. Thank you. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable in voice. 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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later, when Obama care means to the many ways your membership is powering the right question free copy of mission in life today online/relational really rests on this is the goal here that Donald J. Trump 45th President of the United States cannot run to be the 47th President of the United States and if they want that, whether they delay it in our or three months will not make a difference to some people say well they delay it hundred days like mention is that they'll never get to it. If the desire Jordan Hennepin is for the President not to be able to run again in 2024. They will move forward absolutely going to report we noted before the house and there's no one talking about there not moving forward in the Senate. I heard anybody in their only Republicans brought up the idea. Republicans, by the way, who may be inclined to vote for this impeachment, but I heard considered incest say units, a huge constitutional question about whether or not we still have jurisdiction to do this but I'm not hearing that from Chuck Schumer Joe mansion didn't bring that up as one of the problems even say the problem was. This is this is not doable because he's no longer present. He sends Dr. for the country to get to two thirds so it could be another failed impeachment that continue to divide the country instead of peeling the country but but keeps pointing out and I think this is what we have to watch for the behavior present Trump behavior Democrat leaders so personal story. Pelosi then sugar it closing Schumer push this into just a partisan row.

Well, you might get the impeachment vote in the house tomorrow never get there. The Senate even if there is a trial they think they believe that they do have jurisdiction. Second, if you have Republicans start joining NAC.

This is a bigger effort to kind of crush what Donald Trump was created, which I don't think you're seeing right now. Right now you are singularly focused on keeping Donald Trump from being able to run for office 2024. But they don't have the votes to do that right now even in the US it yeah I agree with all that I think maybe the one layer that I would add is Speaker Pelosi has taken total control over whether or not she waits those hundred days to send the articles over once she sends the articles over J the Senate doesn't have any choice but to move immediately towards it so that part of it is in Speaker Pelosi's control. Here's the one dynamic though that I don't die die. Do you think would change if they weighed 100 days, J think it would get fewer votes in the United States Senate. I'm I think right now, you would see Republicans that took those articles mandated by the Constitution to look at them and they would look at them inserted that rubric that Jordan just talked about soberly based on the article that was written and then and then render a judgment either guilty or not guilty based on that if they wait 100 days day.

I would really wager that there can be Republican senators that say luck I was willing to look at this soberly with you, but you're playing political games. That's not good for the country are knocking to go along with that, I think the vote sunk on conviction J would be lower. 100 days later than they would be immediately Frank was calling from Florida online. My co-author. One question relation be imposed on Donald Trump the 25th amendment and second in article 2, section 4 "on wide Congress or anyone that's not the standard is on the 25th amendment and he certainly does member expert is unable to perform so I mean that's really the question that's right is the language say the languages is unable to discharge the duties of his office.

He doesn't say anything about psychiatric evaluations and were not in a court of law. These are not legal questions were not talking about competency competency to stand trial or incumbency to enter a plea of guilty or something like that. What were talking about is a political decision under the 25th amendment. Whether my pants and a majority of the existing cabinet find them unable to perform the duties of his office, and if they do, and he is removed he can then turn around and say that's not true I am capable of performing the duties of my office and he's back again and the whole matter goes to the Congress so were not due psychiatric evaluations in matters like that. This is a political process. This is not a legal process.

This is a political decision and a political process and that's very important to remember were not talking about competency and incompetency is an interesting this Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi over the weekend about the possibility that they do this and ends up in an acquittal can take a listen.

There is a possibility that after all of this. There is no punishment, no consequence, and he could run again for President motivation for people half advocating for impeachment so that answers the question of why they're wanting to do that is that their concern is that he would run again for President now. I'm not getting in the political calculation I had my guide I would defer to manage or not having to see the politics lining this up right now what the political strength of the present would be a wimpy and the question yelled four years from that's a whole different world.

But I want to start with the with the predicate being very clear glass that they want to do this so that he doesn't run for President.

Absolutely yeah you know we were talking during the brakes as Nancy Pelosi gets older she has less of a political filter and a younger more student Nancy Plessis would not have admitted that like she would not have admitted that they held up covert relief until Joe Biden got elected but she said it in its true and that is their prime motivation.

I think they fear President run again.

They feared the movement. The people that are behind him and so that's their motivation in this something that is out of the news this morning as an obscure, you know, part of the Constitution.

She's even queried her Democrat caucus on a conference call to research the section 3 of the 14th amendment, which was established after the American Civil War which that a person who is engaged in insurrection can't run for office. She wants them to even explore that even though this rather obscure again.

Her motivation being that she doesn't want Donald Trump to run again and that rule by the way it was set up so that if in a court. There was a court opinion that someone had engaged in insurrection or rebellion. They could not run again and there is no court opinion about Donald Trump being an insurrectionist there's no criminal charge, not yet, but that's what she's looking at, and it would have to be something like that for that part of the cost should be used to she's working hard at Tria. Whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump and those are tough cases of really got serious First Amendment issues that that are in play there, but it raises the question Jordan and fan of the Jordan first on on the political potency of Donald Trump right now.

I mean, how is it viewed and does the fact that Republicans join in on this impact that it will it make him more of a difference if in fact even if they fall short in the Senate but you have Republican voting for conviction. So I think short-term politically damaged. The President has been politically damage Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer looking they are looking long term there looking at the movement that he built in your hearing from callers.

We call it and they are saying if if we can get him impeached.

We can prevent them from being on the ballot. His movement falls apart. So I think their calculation is if he so chooses.

He can rebuild the movement and that will be one that is very difficult to beat. It will take them to task. Being a bully. They obviously were able to win this past election notes mired in controversy, but that they don't want to have to run against him again and they don't want to have to run against his chosen candidates for the house and send it again. They don't like this movement, just like they did like the tea party but I think on a bigger scale, citing long-term there, thinking he could rebuild. He has a family that's very popular. Politically, they can go out and rebuild it. They so choose to do so and ended you give them a couple years and he's a major force in the midterms and that in the Presidential race you political fortunes change very quickly and in short term I think we saw the ramifications of this divide down in the Georgia Senate race, but longer term I think God that the goal is Speaker Pelosi would not only to the book to bar the President from Ronnie, but to paint all Republicans with the same brush that goes to the point of why I actually don't think she wanted to be dramatically bipartisan. I think they want she wants Republicans to support the President in this and I think one of the calculations that will determine which way the pendulum swings of the next 24 hours is what the President says any like I can just tell you Jay for having the ear to the ground. The use of the words perfectly appropriate for the speech that probably drove more votes toward supporting this resolution. I think there a lot of Republicans that don't think he incited that riot but I don't think they think that describing it is perfectly appropriate is the right call either. I don't think so. I think that that's the Andy and less that's the language issue that these can be very those of the kinds of things that have gotten them in trouble. You don't say that everything is per no one is perfect. There's no one except Christ. To walk the earth is perfect and, therefore, to say this was a perfect call. This was a perfect speech doesn't help things. Yet his hyperbole and overstating things has been something that Hispanic Achilles' heel for him since he took office, but we'll see how that plays out all right last name will try to get your calls. Comments coming into does the Constitution have rules regarding impeachment after the present leaves office. This is from Facebook. This was Mel Mel you brace a great question and then ended bitterly silent. The question is will a court entertain a hearing on whether, in fact, jurisdiction vested in the Senate. The President is no longer in office and that's that's an open question is an open question whether the court would actually take the jurisdiction to hear the case themselves.

So whom we don't know what we did but would this very uncharted territory present twice and they thought they'd say that was like that happen tomorrow, but will take more Republican by collapsing the broadcast only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

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, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the Obama care means to as many ways your membership is empowering the right question free copy of mission life today online/challenges facing Americans as time went on our freedom sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting your freedoms and rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work 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. You are already a member. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ call Jody first in Louisiana online one Jay Sekulow library here. I join me in guiding riot shimmer and they tell the attacking of the conservatives like they're talking about here to talk about physical attack on the capital, and by the way did Democrats control the House of Representatives. Of course, and I can bring impeachment articles or central articles against their own party for that. This was at a different level. I mean we have to be honest here, and I'm not casting blame on who did what. I'm just saying. Looking at the facts in this attack on the United States capital that was real.

It was a those that were involved are guilty of a whole list of federal crimes should be in jail for a long time, and abide by some of the stuff that was out there that this was antique and others. That's been proven to be totally incorrect that the leaders of these groups of Artie been identified, a body, and remember to get the pictures taken posting about social media so that that met fallacy this this was a group of mob vigilantism is what it was and never in our history have we had that on the capital and never said we have it again. I do think Jordan discussed what you said and I and I think it's important for people understand that what the President says today, tomorrow and have a big impact on how this goes. Because of all the sun you turn around and you have 30 or 40 Republicans signing onto an impeachment that's a very different case is very different.

I think his language already today saying condemns violence but what he his words were totally appropriate.

Whether that whether they were under the legal sense of the terms of incitement to violence that's not what that link the law doesn't cover the impeachment seated by the white and constitutional law doesn't govern impeachment. I think it again. If he keeps making statements like that at every opportunity. Can so when he gets to the border later today.

Please ask questions about this and he keeps saying how great of a speech he gave in and how wonderful the words were and yes he condemns violence that's good. I think push more and more Republican say you know what this is someone who only got reports that he acknowledged the Kevin McCarthy there may have been some issues with what he said and it may cause some of the trouble that again just even talking about it and trying to try to say that what he did was totally appropriate not try to take a position on this. I'm just telling people the truth. Here push more Republicans who have long-term political futures ahead of them to to the Democrats not the Democrats actually want him or not the fun part is, this is not funny. Scenario impeachment but I think we'll see what any of these Republicans around. I don't think they wanted listed in either they would have to have some to actually to convict. This is purely partisans they can run ads say this person didn't do this, especially in swing districts and that's good to be tougher for them because more and more the swing districts middle-of-the-road Republicans to get elected in tougher, more purple your house districts or states arguments that you know what I decide on this. This President continues to stir the pot every chance you get.

Even a social media than your thoughts.

Yeah I mean I think the best case scenario is that this the threat of the attack that we saw on Wednesday is over. On January 20, but JI think it's dangerous at this point for President Trumper Speaker Pelosi or leader Schumer leader McConnell or any of them. J. To assume that it's over. I think all of them have an obligation to focus primarily on making sure the threat that was clearly evident and that remains today is quelled and I think any move to move that in a partisan direction by either side is wholly inappropriate.

I think the President should lead on that. I think Speaker Pelosi should lead on that and quite frankly if both of them do that.

I think both of them should allow the other one to do it. That's the primary goal here Jade is to quell the threat that we saw on Wednesday. I still think that the impeachment is a wrong move for the country say that guy I just don't think the matter what you view how you view the facts here, it's just the presence out of office in the eight days I mean put the country through this to me is is very risky.

Tensions are high, emotions are high. Why would you if you let up 75 million people voted for Donald Trump's I'm anti-I just want you all that apply was calling from New Jersey like too loudly on their underwriting will make you feel weak, that there was a large group of people in Washington DC on January 6. Why would they not better prepare and make secure chambers in every area. Considering everything that you dispatcher for use works closely one for Columbia say something that the reports yesterday that police officers are being suspended because they may have been working with the protesters the more than protesters. The anarchists is really's scary. And of course what took place up there was terrific but the idea that law enforcement not most of them obviously but some were involved is just just very, very dangerous. When I think that I agree with the call learning is so obvious that it did defies you know really explanation you know that there is going to be a huge crowd of people, where in the world is law enforcement and that's a good question. Law enforcement should have been there in substantial numbers to protect the capital barricade should not of been moved the capital should have been surrounded there should have been precautions taken by law enforcement, federal, state, whatever the jurisdiction is to have prevented this onslaught onto the onto the capital building and that is a failing that somebody should look into whenever you have protests of this nature. It is obvious that you have a potential tinderbox that could explode it did in this case. Where was law enforcement to prevent the protect the capital. It wasn't there an LD can blame the President for that Omar Scully from New Jersey. Go ahead. A mark on their my question political run would be on on senators that I it's a really good question. I think it's in the pen on what actually happens, but I will defer to join in Panama. So first of all what statement from and how well-liked a mistake to some are pretty protected by their own since it the people in their state.

Really like them and so they can they can vote to impeach that second hurt them as much because he built up their own political machine to the state if you're talking about. If they got national aspirations. I think that it could it could hurt them because as you said 75 million people voting for President Trumper and I think that the longer this goes on 75 day which may have been dwindling a bit may start building back up if they start this impeachment so I think the rescue boat for most Republicans, unless you are in places like that name like Susan Collins of the party said how you feel like Lisa Murkowski and incest Nebraska base. He said he would go to impeach except for is that constitutionally they got the authority to do it because it will be after the presents itself get dessert dessert is a pretty wide spectrum in the far more conservative side most moderate side who are considering this this vote quickly. Yet I think that's correct. I think just to get color to work inside that building. I know those hallways. They almost got there Jan I think that's can inform some of these senators votes when it comes down to it in the proximity that the those that entered the capital to do harm.

Got to the various offices into the commerce of the centers of the staff was incredible but anyways this is the political ramifications we will know tomorrow where this is going keep you posted on the frontline protecting your rights in court and Congress in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

If you're already a member. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ