Political Hypocrisy on Full Display in Washington DC

Today on Sekulow Radio, political hypocrisy on display in Washington DC.

Live from Washington DC, JSekulow Live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Just massive political hypocrisy on display in Washington DC. We pointed it out yesterday with playing that soundbite from Chuck Schumer when he was on the steps of the US Supreme Court threatening Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch saying you won't know the whirlwind is coming, you won't know what hit you. Those are lifetime appointments, so they're not like politicians like, hey we're going to run a campaign against you to beat you in the next election cycle. You can't interpret that that way because that's not what it is for lifetime appointments for judicial nominees.

So, I mean, you won't know what hit you sounds violent, right? Did anyone think that, the Chief Justice I think at the time did think that what Chuck Schumer did was inappropriate and he said that. But again, talking about separation of powers and attacking a separate co-equal branch of government and threatening them with violent words, fighting words as we would call it. Again, was Chuck Schumer censured in the Senate? Did anybody call for him to resign? Did anybody call for him to start the process in Congress to have him removed?

They have their own process to do that. No. And would it have been appropriate? Now we played it as rhetoric, as kind of ridiculous, absurd rhetoric, but I think maybe we've gotten so used to being free speech advocates and now in this new world where AOC wants to regulate the news? I mean, like Russia?

Like China? We're going to regulate the news. Rain in the news is what she said.

I mean, this is dangerous, folks, because if you truly believe in free speech, that doesn't mean you let anything go. You know, one of the Supreme Court justices said famously, what's not allowed under this? He said, I can't write it down, but I can tell you when I see it. And that was on pornography? No, that wasn't Justice White. No, it was on pornography and I think it was Justice Douglas.

He said, I don't know it, I can't write it in a phrase or a test, but you know it when you see it. Right, and that's about it when it comes to restrictions on, when it's no longer speech that's protected by the First Amendment and it goes to another level. That's why broadcast stations have different standards than cable standards and that's why HBO can air something different than what ABC can air. And they get in trouble for what happens at Super Bowl halftime games, things like halftime shows, is those kind of rules. But we're very cautious about that.

Very cautious about that. That was Potter Stewart, by the way. Justice Potter Stewart said that.

To be clear. So I think that what we have put together is, of course, we have Schumer, which I want you to see because for those of you on Facebook, on YouTube, watching on Rumble later in the day on Periscope through Twitter, you've got to see what he's also, his face and kind of the reaction. It's not just the words but also what he's putting out there and the people surrounding him.

Take a listen or watch. I want to tell you, Gorzuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. All right, so John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United States, after those statements were given, said the following. This morning, and this is coming from the Chief Justice of the United States, this morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two members of the court by name and said he wanted to tell them that, quote, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. Justices know that criticism comes with the territory but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.

All members of the court will continue to do their job without fear of favor from whatever quarter. Now that was Chuck Schumer who is going to be presiding over a Senate impeachment trial because of words. Let that sink in for a minute. Folks, we're taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Your questions too on Facebook, on YouTube. We'll get to those as well. And also this question again of can you even impeach a President? Can this trial go forward when he is no longer in office? The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

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

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Right now we're focusing on the political hypocrisy of the politicians in Washington D.C. Those who have used extreme rhetoric recently have been condemned by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm talking about Chuck Schumer, who will soon be the majority leader of the U.S. Senate and in charge of a questionable impeachment trial. Reading the news right now, I mean, some are talking about this trial not beginning for months. I mean, I think that even ups the ante of it being unconstitutional because the timeliness is gone. And I think that the founders did, it was a timeliness thing. It was a, there's an emergency, we need to remove this person. And when you go and you say, well, we don't really, well, that person's already gone, and so we'll just do the trial three months later to strip them of other rights that are due to them as being a President of the United States.

I think that makes it even more unconstitutional. But we're going to get to that. You know, we're also going to get to, President Trump has ordered the declassification of everything involving Russia and the FBI.

That should come later today or Monday. I mean, it's a lot of information will be declassified. We're talking about all the Christopher Steele interviews, all of the dossier info, all of the documents that were classified will be declassified. So we're going to learn so much about what Bob Mueller's team was looking at and how they put together a report that was unreadable and could come to, of course, no issues that they had with the President.

The President was completely exonerated there. And so that's coming. We're going to talk to Rick Rinnell about that later on in the broadcast. Let's take a look at, I think, the way to start this conversation.

And I'll go to Andy, then Harry, because I think this is important. Our office in Washington DC is closed right now and is closed all the way through next week because of the horrific acts that took place in our nation's capital. And that was criminality at a level we haven't seen. It was an attack on our very institutions of government that we have never seen at that scale. But the rhetoric is very high on both sides, which I think is part of the difficulty here. The rhetoric is really loud. I mean, you heard that in Chuck Schumer. You heard it in speeches given on January 6th.

So we're not trying to draw parallels. We're just trying to say, what is the way forward here? But the first thing that is going to spike this, if you will, I think, and this is my concern, is what happened just two days ago in the United States House, Andy, with that impeachment. The way it went down, the way it was handled, no witnesses, no hearing, nothing. Just impeach. Yeah, I think Senator Graham commented on that and other members of Congress commented on that. You've got to give whoever you are targeting new process of law, Jay.

You've got to give the opportunity for the process of regular order to take place. And that is not what happened in the House of Representatives with respect to this impeachment article that was passed. You didn't go to the Judiciary Committee. No one was called as a witness. There were just a bunch of speeches on both sides.

The debate was limited to two hours. And what you come out with is an article impeaching the President of the United States of America on that kind of, quote, evidence, unquote, if that in fact is admissible evidence, which I don't think it is. We've got to have a process. We have to have a process.

There was no process. And articles that are enacted or that are passed without that kind of due process really undermine the whole idea of the constitutional requirement of due process of law, Jay. Well, there's two issues that I think that are going to come up in this if it goes to the Senate.

And that's going to be the issue, Harry, of whether it's even constitutional to impeach a President after he's already out of office. And then, of course, the defense, I would suspect, would be free speech. But right now, focusing on the free speech issue, and again, we're not equating anything here.

I'm just trying to draw parallels of where we have to be careful. Jordan said it earlier. AOC calling for news regulation. You know, Schumer's statements in front of the Supreme Court that require John Roberts to respond. The January 6th speeches that were given, look at all of those and say, and by the way, I'm not saying Schumer's isn't protected speech. I think it's wrong. I think it's insightful, okay, to use the word that's being used for this impeachment.

But they've cheapened what it means to be impeached. Absolutely. And so one of the key issues, I think, is to go back to our founding documents and to go back to the history of the interpretation, for instance, of the Free Speech Clause. Freedom of speech is clearly not without limits. However, it is a core human value enshrined in the First Amendment as recognized by our government and our history, and it operates on the basis of a free exchange of ideas rather than violence or coercion.

So the state may regulate expression for communicative content, but government restraint must meet the strictest scrutiny, as in the case of obscenity. And so one of the things that we need to keep in mind here is a balanced analysis and also to keep in mind this particular question with respect to the impeachment. Did the House of Representatives engaged in a balanced, impartial review of the evidence? Did they actually adduce evidence, and did they allow the other side to provide another perspective? And I think clearly if you look at what happened this week with respect to the whole impeachment scenario, we did not have balanced analysis.

And then you have the additional question of whether or not you can impeach a President after he has left office. And so I think at the end of the day, I think the American people may indeed be somewhat upset with the entire process. Why?

Because it was not impartial and it was not balanced. You know, I'm looking to, this was Nancy Pelosi back in June about uprisings. Uprisings. Take a listen. Uprisings.

What is that about? Uprisings all over the country. You know, endorsing that kind of uprising. Kamala Harris, let's go to there, saying that these riots, they're not going to stop. We're not going to let the riots stop. Not until Election Day.

They're going to go into Election Day by 2015. They're not going to stop. They're not going to stop. And this is a movement, I'm telling you, they're not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be, everyone should take note of that on both levels.

That they're not going to let up, and they should not. And we should not. I was going to say, everyone beware. Yeah, those are fighting words. Those are words, threatening words. You beware of violence. You beware not of a political movement.

Okay? You beware of something that's going to happen to you that could impact you physically. Like a whirlwind that you won't know what hit you when you are a lifetime appointed judge or justice. Which means they're not, be very clear. They're not talking about politics. They're not talking about running a candidate against you.

Right, you can't remove them from that. So, I mean, again, and threatening that if they don't rule a certain way on a certain case, that you won't know what hit you. And the only way to interpret that is violence. Is threatening their families.

Is making it dangerous for them to live. And we already know that's a problem for a lot of the more high-profile, well-known people in Washington, D.C. You know, we have 535 members of Congress. Most people wouldn't recognize most of them. But the ones that do get recognized, the ones who speak out either for truth and justice, or who speak out with these ridiculous statements. Both, I think, you know, when they do this now, you start, and you start bringing Supreme Court justices into it. You know, everybody doesn't have the security that Nancy Pelosi gets, Chuck Schumer gets. Or Supreme Court justices.

You know, when you're just a regular senator walking around Washington, D.C., you're literally walking around Washington, D.C. You might have your staff, but unless there's a specific threat against you, you don't have security. Listen to Chris Cuomo from CNN. I like Chris. I mean, I've been on his program many times.

We're friends. But listen to what he said. This was in June of 2020. Now, too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets. Persistent and poisonous inequities and injustice. And please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.

Dr. Martin Luther King. I mean, polite and peaceful. They were attacked, and they still remain peaceful. Civil disobedience.

There is no line. They don't understand the line between civil disobedience and attacking police officers or destroying property. And you could say that for the people who raided the Capitol, who are destroying property and loss of life. You could say that for the people who are destroying Fifth Avenue. Now, I think doing it to the Capitol, the symbolism is much worse. But when you're walking around New York, smashing every window you can, that's not just a protest that's not peaceful. That's gone to a different level of violence.

And to endorse that or encourage that is the problem. And yet, were any of these people taken off Twitter? Were any of them deplatformed? Was CNN taken off the air? No. Today is Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.

We celebrated it on Monday, but it's actually today. So I thought playing the Chris Cuomo bite, tying in Dr. King was perfectly appropriate. I do think what you said is right. I think in the next segment, what I'd like to get into is there are lines, Jordan.

Like they said, we need to talk about how those lines are supposed to operate and why this impeachment is going to fuel it up to another level, I'm afraid. Yep. 1-800-684-3110 to talk to us on air. We'll be right back on Secular Radio. This is called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

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

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

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

ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular Radio. So we've kind of compiled, because there was a lot of unrest in the country over the last year, over 2020, leading into the election.

You had the protests that were taking to the streets, whether you want to call it the Black Lives Matter protest, but then they kind of got into this own Antifa movement, the far left. But we've compiled for you both elected officials and people in the media and the protesters themselves, none of whom have been condemned, none of whom have been deplatformed, none of whom have been arrested or taken off Twitter or taken off of Facebook or YouTube. And yet, take a listen.

And of course, if you're watching, you can watch all this because it's all on camera as well. Interesting enough. This also includes, by the way, the former attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder, talking about kicking people when they're down. Okay, so that's the kind of rhetoric they're using.

Take a listen, though. The Speaker of the House said to us just moments ago, words matter. But apparently those words don't matter when they're uttered by Democrats. I denounced political violence from all ends of the spectrum. But make no mistake, the left in America has incited far more political violence than the right.

For months, our cities burned and they said nothing or they're cheer-led for it and they fundraised for it. If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence or Jeff Sessions, who would it be? Does one of us have to come out alive? I think you need to go back and punch him in the face. If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them. They asked me, would I like to debate this gentleman? And I said, no.

I said, if we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him. They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump and that's a fact. I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country and maybe there will be. You're bleeding to death at second base because a Bernie Sanders supporter thought he had to kill Republicans. Do they understand that these deranged people just need a go sign? When they go low, we go high.

No. When they go low, we kick them. Go to the Hill today. Get up and, please, get up in the face of some Congress people.

I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. Any reasonable person would say we shouldn't be destroying other people's property, but these are not reasonable times.

Thank goodness for the looters, man. And, please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. One of the statements in there was from Eric Holder and it was, when they go low, we go high, which President Obama used as a statement. And he said, and they said, and they all said, hi, and he said, no. When they go low, we kick them. Andy? Well, Eric Holder is a despicable person and was a terrible attorney general and I don't have any personal respect for him whatsoever.

But for the attorney general, but he was attorney general of the United States and he held the highest position in the Justice Department. And when he makes the statement, when they go low, we go high, and the crowd says yes, and he says, no, that's not what you do. When they go low, we kick them. Don't tell me that does not incite to and is meant to increase violence. What is kick, Jay?

No, no. Kick means physical violence. We kick them. Or when Biden said, I want to beat the H out of them outside the place, or put a bullet through Trump's head, these are incitements to violence. There are limits to free speech.

We know that. We have defended free speech at the American Center for Law and Justice for what? Forty years. Forty years.

Forty years since I've known you, we have done that. But we know the limits to which it goes, and inciting to physical violence, kick them, beat the H out of them, shoot them, are not acceptable forms of speech. Jordan said this, and he's absolutely right. If you were going to start the impeachment proceedings, if they actually have a hearing in the Senate, I think if I was the lawyers, I think that'd be the first I'd play that montage. But, Harry, this is the problem now when you have impeachment by speech.

Absolutely. And I also think one of the things to keep in mind here is that we just don't have balanced analysis coming from what might be called charitably the mainstream media. So when progressives basically engage in flame throwing, we give them a pass. Why? Because we have the view in our country, particularly among the media, that progressives are attempting to do what?

To create heaven on earth. But the reality is progressive policies more likely than not wind up creating a terrestrial hell on earth. But nonetheless, their language is indeed protected by the United States Constitution. Stacey Abrams had a rally just back in October, and Eric Holder, former Attorney General of the United States, was there. And listen to what he said. Michelle always says, Michelle Obama, I love her, you know, but Michelle says that, you know, when they go low, we go up.

No. When they go low, we kick them. That's what this new Democratic Party is about. That's what this new Democratic Party is about. And they are impeaching the President for his speech and ignoring their own. And they're making speech a basis upon which you can impeach a President, which they've done.

And there's all kinds. We'll get the second half of it, we'll get into the legal issues on the hearings. But, Jordan, you look at this, and they have set up their own standard to not only make the consequence of impeachment less than significant. I mean, the idea – we only had three impeachments in our history, except now we've had two. And we had one of them literally a week before the President was out of office.

Done in two hours. Yes. I mean, literally, they wrote up articles of impeachment, they came back into session. They tried to bully the vice President using the 25th Amendment for the purpose it's not created for. Which it's created for, like, if the President has to have a surgery so that there's an acting President, the vice President. And then when they're done, they've come out of surgery, their anesthesia's done, and they're able to. And then, you know, their mind is clear.

That's it. That's what the 25th Amendment's for. It's not for removing Presidents forever. And in fact, the process makes it so that it's tough for the cabinet to do that, because if they try, the President can go back to the Congress. But we don't have to explain that. Remember, they tried to bully him into doing that.

He said no. So then they just put forward one article of impeachment and two hours of debate. There were no hearings.

There were no experts on incitement to violence, on speech, on freedom of speech, on precedents in our system. Even though they don't have to abide by those, they usually bring in all their liberal law professor experts, and conservatives, Republicans get to bring in other experts as well on speech. And by the way, you could find a lot of experts on the other side, if they were being honest and truthful, who have written extensively trying to protect this kind of speech before a more extreme speech. And yet there was none of that, and now we're supposed to have a trial for a former President. So a private citizen now, a private citizen of the United States, is going to be tried by the U.S. Senate and either convicted or acquitted to be impeached, but they can't be removed anymore? This is, again, I think the hypocrisy goes to so many levels, so many levels, and the votes are not there, and the longer they wait, the less votes there will be even on the Republican side, because they're all questioning, even some who would vote to impeach the President, they're questioning whether or not it's even constitutional to have the trial in its first place, and that's the truth. And whether or not the courts weigh it or not, I think this is wrong for our country. How much do we need to play for you to show you the violent, inspiring speech?

Presidents not use words like that ever, ever, and yet those officials, they get a complete pass. 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.

Welcome back to the second half hour of Sekulow Radio. We are taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We're talking about the hypocrisy of the left trying to impeach this President. We've played for you extensively. You know, members of Congress saying if you see any of the Trump cabinet officials getting gas or eating, surround them. Surround them. You know, get in their face.

Heard that from Cory Booker. Get in their face, if you see those members of Congress. Go get in their face. Yeah, that causes good interactions. We saw, of course, the uprisings that Nancy Pelosi was talking about. Kamala Harris joking with Ellen DeGeneres about if she had to be on this elevator with Mike Pence and Donald Trump, does anybody have to come out?

Do they have to come out alive? Implying that she would kill them. Okay. I mean, that's where, you know, you saw a former Republican, a consultant who's gone totally off the deep end say, Donald Trump deserves a, you know, I mean, this is a bullet. This is where, this is where this whole process, and I think what's happened here is the process itself has now, this impeachment process has now created an environment for more problems.

This doesn't calm anything down. This actually exacerbates the situation in my view, Andy, because what you've done is you've had this snap, as Professor Jonathan Turley calls it, this snap impeachment, which was never the intent of the founders. You have the snap impeachment and now you're supposed to move to a snap trial.

Yeah. Well, that doesn't mean due process of law. A snap impeachment is not, this is a cherished right of the House of Representatives that has been sparingly used. If you look at how many times it's been used in the history of this country, and it's not intended to be a political weapon.

It is a political process, but not a political weapon. And that's what happened in the House of Representatives when they passed this article of impeachment on two hours of debate. Two hours of debate, not one witness called. Nobody called except a bunch of speeches being made. Now they want to send it over to the Senate, yet which has to try to beginning the day at one o'clock the day after it arrives, whenever that is.

And then we say, we can handle that and we can handle our own, our business during the day. At the same time, we can talk about COVID relief and we can approve Biden's cabinet officers. Wait a minute, you're talking about impeachment of a President of the United States and trying to, who's not even the President anymore. Which raises that question, Harry. I mean, this whole idea that now the President's gone on Wednesday as President, he's a former President, still referred to as President, but he's not the President, which is what the clause talks about. So that raises that whole issue.

Absolutely. So I think if you look at the legalities, if you look at due process, if you look at the Constitution, all of those things have apparently gone out of the window. And instead we are focused on inflammatory animus and inflammatory rhetoric driven by one thing, that is the Democrats' insistent pursuit of unlimited power. They believe that they have an advantage politically in pushing this particular agenda. And they really don't care what the United States Constitution says. They really don't care what the US Senate's Presidents say. They are pushing a particular agenda because they believe in the short run it advances their power agenda. My own view is that this approach will indeed backfire and it should. The question is, Jordan, does it backfire and what does it mean long-term politically? I mean, we could talk about that later, but that's the question. I mean, the President's out of office. If he's not convicted, and I don't see a way he's convicted, it means he could run again if he wants to.

That's going to be up to him. But there's a whole political movement that's been created here. Right.

And what happens to it? I think that what you are going to see is likely the Democrats' worst nightmare if Donald Trump so chooses, which is a reinvigorated Trump support base with more Americans who say, I'm just sick and tired of these people. They're canceling people. We've got German chancellor criticizing that it's Germany criticizing the canceling out of the President of the United States for being able to use Twitter to communicate. This is the country.

We have Congresswoman AOC saying we need to rein in the media. Sounds like Mao. Sounds like a communist.

Sounds like a dictator. This is not the US. And so I think they're right on the edge of just creating a whole new Trump movement. 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.

Alright, welcome back to Jay Sekio Live. Rick Grinnell, our Special Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy is joining us now because a word came out yesterday and it should be, it looks like it could be this afternoon, no later than Monday, that the President has declassified all of the FBI memos on Christopher Steele. Basically everything involving the Steele dossier, the Clinton campaign's work with Christopher Steele that led to Mueller and that all of this has been declassified so we want to bring in Rick to talk about this. This is going to be a treasure trove of information because much of this, while we were defending the President from Mueller, this was the info they were looking at.

And keeping from us. Yeah, Rick, I know you dealt with this as the acting DNI, but one of the things that's already being reported is that, and this is our friend John Solomon from Just the News said that among the bombshell revelations and his mission by Christopher Steele that he violated his confidential human source agreement with the FBI and leaked information from the dossier to news medias in the final weeks of the election because he wanted to counteract new revelations in the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Now I'm not asking, you're obviously not going to disclose anything, but you've seen all this stuff and you know what's in here. Here's the interesting thing to me. Are we going to finally find out what a hoax this hoax really was? Jay, I think we already know that, don't we? I mean, we've had so much information that has been put forward in an effort to be transparent that we realize that from the early days of this Russian collusion investigation that there were a number of warning signs.

More than one. Multiple warning signs from career intelligence officials who would say that this is wrong, this is misinformation, it's Russian disinformation, it's not credible, we shouldn't use it. But the problem is that every one of those warnings were pushed aside and classified away. So now what we're seeing is a lot of the warnings that the insiders knew from the beginning, but the public did not know. Because those who were in charge or getting briefings on the Hill only spoonfed certain pieces of information.

So without getting into details of what's coming, I think that for anyone who really wants to look at what's currently available, there are lots of nuggets and pieces that already point in a direction that we, I should say, that we will see in the future. But some of that information is already out. Look at the footnotes that were declassified.

That's all available on the DNI website. You will see that these individuals were not as adamant that Donald Trump was a Russian asset or that he was dealing with the Russians. The warning signs were pushed aside, unfortunately. So I mean, Rick, people are making a big deal about this. Honestly, I think that it will show what we know was happening to President Trump. But I guess it becomes, it'll be interesting to see, do you think the mainstream media will just try to completely ignore it, the fact that this will prove, I mean, in real FBI documentation that the President's campaign was being spied on? That there was, that it wasn't really a belief that the President was actually some Russian agent, that it was, this was moved by Christopher Steele in the Clinton campaign to just get attention off of her using her server, then destroying the server with bleach bit and all of that, so they need a new narrative to distract people with. But do you think the mainstream media will cover it at all?

Well, I certainly hope they will, and they absolutely should. We already know that this investigation from the very beginning was something that shouldn't have gone forward. And the warning signs are all there. I think what we're going to see now are more warning signs, people that, multiple people on the inside, including the actual authors who cast doubt on what they were saying.

I do have to say this. This is an important point. This is not just about intelligence officials. This is also about former State Department officials, some who are being talked about coming back into a Biden administration. These State Department officials knew the truth. They had top secret security clearances. They knew that the Russian dossier was misinformation. They knew Christopher Steele was peddling misinformation and that our own intelligence officials felt like it was shoddy. Those warnings were pushed aside, and State Department officials continued to push this forward. And I think those individuals are going to have to be asked some very tough questions in their confirmation because they knew the truth and they hid the truth.

Those are just the facts, and we're going to see more information that proves that. I was also wondering this, Rick, we've got this impeachment now behind us in one sense. I mean, they've impeached the President of the United States for the speech. We played these clips of what the Democrats have been saying and the Chuck Schumer threats on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

But I was also thinking about this. I mean, just in your experience in Washington and around the globe, actually, the lack of civil discourse right now is incredible. And when I read, there's a statement that Hillary Clinton made. And I want to play the sound because she basically says we will never have civil discourse until the Democrats have complete control of all three branches of government.

Take a listen to this. You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. Part of that is it's civility only if there's one view of thought.

Civility meant you could disagree, disagree aggressively, but still operate within the framework of our Constitution and the government. What Hillary Clinton is saying is we will only have civility if we all are thinking the same way and have control of the mechanisms of government. Thank God she was never President because she politicizes everything. Every single thing is that she is the perfect queen and her party is a bunch of angels and the other side are out to destroy everything that's good. And there's just no negotiating with her.

There's no nuance. And she's absolutely always going for the most radical political idea. And she tries to make it mainstream. I think that we have to reject this type of political analysis. And let's also remember that she is trying to make sure that the Democrats get to weaponize their power when they control the House, the Senate and the White House. And that's where I have to have a court system, Jay, that is free, fair and independent. We can't have politics come into the courts because that is our only way to challenge the legislative and executive branches when we disagree. So the courts are going to become even more important over the next two years. And I hate to say this and nobody's told me to say it, but that's why organizations like ACLJ are crucial to support right now because courts for the next two years are going to be the way that we stop some of this bad stuff.

We just got a report. Eric Swalwell, Rick, is going to be an impeachment House manager. And I thought that was a signal to try and drive away, actually, Republican support. They didn't want Republican support. They wanted to be able to use this against Republicans. So the number that we were looking at, maybe it was up to 25 House Republicans.

It got down to 10 and they're getting a lot of criticism. But there's a new report out just now breaking it that Swalwell is going to stay on the Intelligence Committee. No review, no special investigation there, even though remember Kevin McCarthy, Rick and Nancy Pelosi were briefed and Nancy Pelosi was silenced after that briefing. No, and Kevin McCarthy said it was really disturbing what he had heard and yet they are keeping him on the Intel Committee so that he will still receive the highly classified information and briefings.

They'll select few members of Congress that get that information. Look, something else happened this week that relates to this that people are not connecting the dots on. Barbara Boxer, another California Democrat, another Northern California Democrat, San Francisco area, was just caught representing a Chinese technology firm that is literally denying human rights to the Uyghurs. This is an outrage, but it also points to the fact of a problem in California with the Democrats who have become a tool of Beijing. They constantly push the Chinese line. That's Eric Swalwell, that's Dianne Feinstein, that's Nancy Pelosi who has celebrated China. This is a real problem and I think that Nancy Pelosi is protecting Eric Swalwell because it's what China wants. Barbara Boxer is now a registered foreign agent of China. That's what Rick is saying. You can do that in a way of countries that are not enemies of the United States or haven't caused so much trouble. Think about it, just COVID alone.

Maybe she'd think twice about being a foreign agent as a former U.S. Senator. Rick, we appreciate it. As always, appreciate your insight. I'm sure next week we will have a lot more questions on a lot more documents.

Thank you very much. But I'll tell you folks, as Rick said, this is also a time to support the work of the ACLJ now more than ever. And our teams around the country and around the globe are at work for you. We are beefing up our teams.

Your support of the ACLJ makes a huge difference. We're adding to our teams right now, specifically in Washington, D.C., looking at adding teams there because we know the fight, like Rick said, it is going to be much tougher, much harder. We're ready for battle. We're ready to do the work. We need your support at ACLJ.org. Donate today.

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

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

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

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

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

ACLJ.org. Welcome back to JCECCO Live, final segment of this week. And what a week it's been. I mean, the first President to be impeached twice, he's literally leaving office Tuesday at noon.

And he'll be on his way to, I think, Florida. And you've got a new President being sworn in, and yet we're still talking about a potential impeachment trial in the Senate sometime in the next 100 days. Well, there's no date.

Yeah, I mean, it looks like unless they're allowed to split their time, which I'm not sure they will be able to do. Has the parliamentarian said when he's going to come back with an answer? There's nothing from that yet. So I was going to ask Harry that. It's interesting because this has been days. Yeah. So when we did the impeachment trial, when they went into an impeachment hearing, the Senate, when the three of us were on the floor of the Senate, everything else stopped. There was no other business. Absolutely. Which is the rules and protocol. Biden's team has said, well, can't you basically chew gum and walk at the same time?

Can't we do two things? And the history has been, no, you start the trial at one o'clock the day after the documents are delivered. Well, I think this is precisely an illustration of how the Democrats intend to do business going forward. In other words, the rules, the precedents, perhaps even the Constitution, they are inapplicable to Democrats when and if it constrains their power or their particular agenda. And so I think they're quite willing to waive all of these rules when they believe it benefits them. And I believe that the American people, particularly those individuals who are actually listening and reading and keeping abreast of what's going on. At some point, the American people are going to realize that the Democrats are simply proposing two systems of government and two systems of rules, one for Democrats and one for the rest of us, particularly individuals who live in flyover country.

But at the end of the day, the mainstream media will, more likely than not, endorse the approach taken by the Democrats and will provide cover. So then it brings up this question, Andy. Well, let's go ahead and take this call from Daniel in New Hampshire. He's been holding.

Daniel, go ahead. Yeah, I understand Article One, Section Two gives the House sole power of impeachment. But my question is, given Article Three, Section Two begins, the judicial power shall extend to all cases. Is there any check and balance available to this impeachment now that it's been done for the President to come back and appeal it based on lack of due process? So as to the impeachment that took place in the House, the answer is no. First of all, it's been done, it's been docketed, it's been concluded. It's over.

All they're now doing is they're going to deliver, supposedly, the articles of impeachment to the United States Senate. But there is, and we'll get into this more next week, there is a significant, we talked about this yesterday, Andy, jurisdictional issue. Because in cases you have to have two types of jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the person, and subject matter jurisdiction that I actually, this is a controversy I can engage in. I think there's no personal jurisdiction here and no subject matter jurisdiction under the Constitution's framework on the way they set it up.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think there is subject matter jurisdiction because he's left office. Certainly no personal jurisdiction for the same reason. Who could force him to show up? You don't show up, but who could force him to even manifest?

Who could force him to, who could actually enforce these rules? I think, you know, you wait to see almost like, what do they do? And then you say, wait, you're going to strip me of my right to run for office because you beat me after I left office? I'm challenged to that in court.

I think you challenge all these steps in court along the way once you know when this trial is actually going to begin, if it is ever going to begin. I think there's a question there too that we can throw out there because 100 days from now is this really what the Senate wants to be doing? Because let me tell you how difficult that is on these senators. It's tough enough on the lawyers, the House managers, but they love, the House managers, they love the spotlight. They love to be in the U.S. Senate and be on TV, but for the senators, they have to remain silent.

They write questions on little placards, postcard-sized things. They can't really leave. They can only leave to go to the restroom or grab water, or if they need to do an emergency call, they have to leave the floor. They don't actually leave the Senate. They'll go back to their office. They come right back in because they're required to be there and listen and hear everything. And it lasted, you know, three weeks and they're saying, oh, we could do this one quicker. Well, I mean, not necessarily, maybe a week quicker because you only did one article. But the President still gets to put on a full defense if he wants to.

Right, and as much, and take up a considerable amount of time. I say if he wants to because I've wondered, I've wondered, do you just say, have you proceeding, I'm not going to show up? That's what I would say. I mean, he's not showing up anyways, like you said. But like you said, but you're, by your lawyers, I'd show you, you're not, you're saying like, this is not even legitimate proceeding.

This is a kagaru court. Who would represent him? Biden's White House counsel? I mean, that's an interesting story.

No, because you don't, there isn't, there's people that ask about that. Well, Pat Cipollone's office, the office is gone. But why not Biden's?

Why not Biden's? I mean, that's the thing, it's like if you're still... Because it's not, this time it's not the office of the President, see, anymore. This is why this makes no sense. It's just a person? Yes. And so there's your answer right there. Isn't that the answer, Professor Hutchinson? Isn't that the answer? I think, I think that's... You're right.

I think your analysis is precisely spot on. The impeachment power only applies, at least in my view, to current office holders. And according to Professor Alan Dershowitz, the Constitution specifically says the President shall be removed from office upon impeachment, noting that it does not say the former President. In addition to what Alan Dershowitz has said, Cass Sunstein also agrees. And so I think at the end of the day, there is no precedent and there is no text within the Constitution that would support a trial.

Yes, the House of Representatives, they clearly had the power to impeach the President, but the question becomes, does the United States Senate have the power to try a private citizen? I think the answer to that question is no. I think you're, I think Harry's right. Yeah, no, I think that this is going to be something we get into a lot next week as well. We're doing full analysis of this at the ACLJ so that we can present to you why we believe this is absolutely incorrect and wrong under our Constitution, under the laws of the United States. But let's take a final phone call, Kathy in Ohio, online for... Kathy, welcome to JCECU Alive. Hi there.

Thank you for taking my call. I basically just have a comment that, you know, with seeing all that's going on with not much of a process for this impeachment, it just goes to a quick decision. And I'm just wondering when I hear Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, all these people that seem to be inciting violence, why isn't either the Republican Party, why are we not able to bring that to trial and to the public? Why does it seem like only one side has their way in all of this and we can never get the other side to step up and show all this hypocrisy? And I just don't understand what prevents that. Is it only going to be from now on that we only hear one side of it?

Well, I mean, I think this is it. One is there's a difference between how you hold members of Congress accountable and how you hold Presidents accountable and things like that. One is they're elected every two years. And right now they have the majority's house. They're going to have the majority of the Senate. They're going to have the White House.

So it's going to be a tough couple of years. But I say couple because you could take back the House and take back the Senate in those two years. That will be up to conservatives organizing and putting up good candidates to do that. And then I think, you know, accountability can be held. I don't think we never would. You never want to become the party of just random impeachments. It just cheapens the process.

And they did that. It's absurd. We will talk to you on Monday about more about why we believe this is wrong. 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.