Share This Episode
Sekulow Radio Show Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow Logo

BREAKING: Pelosi to Deliver Impeachment Article to Senate on Monday

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
January 22, 2021 12:00 pm

BREAKING: Pelosi to Deliver Impeachment Article to Senate on Monday

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 1057 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


January 22, 2021 12:00 pm

BREAKING: Pelosi to Deliver Impeachment Article to Senate on Monday.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Breaking news today on Sekulow Radio.

Nancy Pelosi says she will deliver the Article of Impeachment to the U.S. Senate on Monday. But when will the trial begin? That's the big question. We'll talk about that today on Sekulow Radio.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Thanks for listening this Truth Network Podcast. But essentially, he wanted the first step to take place on Thursday. I think both the Democrats and the Republicans, and quite frankly, President Trump's team as well, I think they're all pretty close on this, Jay. You definitely have to give the President time to prepare a defense. I actually think the Democrats in the Senate might want a couple of days to do a couple more nominations.

So I think they will reach an agreement here. I can't tell you exactly when the beginning of that will be. But I do think it will be next week, Jay. Well, I don't think the proceedings are going to start next week. I don't think you'll be on the floor of the Senate next week, fan.

Well, I guess it depends what you consider on the floor of the Senate. I mean, when you're doing the arguments and the trial actually beginning, because they're going to have to file briefs, opening briefs. I think you're probably, I think it's probable that it's going to be mid-February, early February, which is not that far away, Andy, for this to start. Just based on what has to happen.

That would be appropriate, it would seem to me. Also, you've got to give the time for the President to prepare a defense. You know, although the Senate doesn't have to give anybody due process, I think an impeachment trial is reasonable to allow him to prepare a defense to what is his article of impeachment. And I think the timeframe that you have set forth, Jay, is reasonable and appropriate and ought to be followed. You know, fan, you could tell there is a lot of angst among Republicans and Democrats about really starting this.

I mean, you see it in the comments, you see it in the hedging. This is not a unity start, and the President is going to end up being acquitted. So, the whole thing is, again, a political show. And, granted, the House has the authority to do it and the Senate has an obligation to hear it. Of course, they could do a motion to dismiss, but with the Senate this closely divided, I don't think that's likely.

It doesn't mean don't bring it, by the way, but I think it's very possible that it's made. The lawyer, Butch Bowers from South Carolina, is a very well-known lawyer in election law matters, is going to be trying the case on the floor of the Senate and doing the work before. But it's not going to be, I think it's going to look very different than the proceeding you saw me and Andy and Jordan in a year ago, which went on for almost three weeks, 12 and 13 hours a day. I don't see that in this one.

This is a one-count issue. We had separation of powers issues. We had, I mean, we had a whole host of issues that just don't exist here. Yeah, it's going to look very different. And to be honest with you, Jay, some of that angst, even though it's not spilling out in public, has spread to the Democrat side of the aisle because of how this has rolled out. Now, look, I suspect they'll all fall in line behind Leader Schumer and whatever arrangement comes out here. But you're right. I mean, I think maybe a couple of weeks ago, there might have been some bipartisan interest in pursuing this in a sober manner. That's not where we're at, Jay. That hasn't been rolled out this way. And I think you're right to describe it as bipartisan angst for how it's proceeding.

But look, here we go. The articles will be delivered on Monday. Later in the broadcast, when we joined by Rick Grenell, our senior advisor on international affairs, because we've been talking about this Iran situation, the President is going to appoint Rob Malley to direct Iran policy. He is very sympathetic to the Iranian regime. He has an animus towards Israel.

There was already an issue with the Israeli ambassador's Twitter account. We'll talk about all that in the second half hour, but I want to let you know that's coming. We're also taking your calls on the impeachment issue. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 800-684-3110. Don't forget to support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, 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 issues that's significant in this upcoming impeachment, it's hard for me to believe we're talking about another impeachment of a President that's not even in office right now, but nevertheless, there it is. One of the big issues involved in this is whether you could actually impeach a President who's no longer in office. The way I read the Constitution, you can't.

There's scholarship on both sides, and there's a lot of scholarship saying you can, there's scholarship saying you can't. But it's interesting to me that Professor Dershowitz, Professor Mike Luede, the former U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the Fourth Circuit, and now Professor John Yoo from the University of California Law School at Berkeley have all come to the same conclusion that I've come to. That is, that it is not constitutional to proceed this way. Let's take a listen to what John Yoo had to say about that on Fox News last night.

The three-day be a show trial and it'd be embarrassing for the Senate to do it, but worse than anything, it would contravene the constitutional text, which seems only to extend impeachment to the President, vice President, officers of the United States. It doesn't say former officers, former Presidents. So Andy, you have read literally, well, there's no cases, and I don't think this is going to ever get to court. I really do not. No. See this, I don't think the court would take this case.

No. So it's because the power of impeachment rests with the Senate. The scholarship is both ways, but if you're looking at contemporary scholars, it seems to be more tilting towards it makes no sense to impeach a former President.

That's true. Because the significant part of it is removal. Removal from office. Well, let me just first of all, to your first point, the Supreme Court, to those who might be interested, is not going to take a part in this thing. In the United States versus Nixon, it specifically said the judiciary, and in particular the Supreme Court, does not have any involvement in impeachment proceedings. So those of you who are looking for action there, that's not going to happen. The scholarship was, and I've read law review article after law review article, there are no cases that I have read.

There are no cases. Yes, I have read instances of impeachment, Secretary of War Belknap and so forth. It seemed that the earlier scholarship seemed to suggest that you could, following the English system, impeach after someone has left office. But the recent, more recent scholarship that I have seen, and that includes Professor Dershowitz and Professor Yu, to whose attention you called me the other night, last night, is that once you have left office, you are no longer subject to impeachment and trial because you're not incumbent. And the remedy for impeachment is removal from office. To do other things and to try to mark a person with some sort of taint subsequent to that and permanent disqualification, the current scholarship seems to suggest is the granting of a bill of attainder, which is a taint on the person and his family and his parentage and his heritage, which was loathed and objected to and opposed to by the framers of the Constitution. It was interesting because, John, you also talked about the fact that the reason it makes no sense with a former President is, and the ability, and they, because a lot of people are, Ted, those on the, that are saying you can try the former President, including former members of the Federalist Society, so it's all over the lot here, folks. What they're saying is because you have this removal and then also the possibility of not barring from office, John, you had a very interesting answer to that.

Take a listen. Impeachment, the remedy is just to remove someone from office, maybe disqualify them. President Trump's already been removed from office and the American people can disqualify him for future office just by never voting for him again. So I think a better course, a more prudent course for the Senate is not to break traditions and try a President for the first, a former President for the first time in our history and undermine the independence of the executive branch. You know, it's interesting because he said the words, I think the better course, the more prudent course for the Senate is not to break tradition and try a former President.

Jordan, your thoughts? Yeah, I think, listen, this is going to be very divisive. And if you heard the comments from Senator Lindsey Graham, there seems to be building support amongst the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate that regardless of how you feel about these remarks on January 6, that this is not where the Senate should go. The Senate should not go forward with a trial of a former President and not set a precedent like that. So I think you've got a twofold kind of approach to getting the acquittal votes.

And one of those is actually a vote to just dismiss this. And there might be some on the Democrat side. I mean, it would only take one if all Republicans joined to dismiss this without a trial. But if it does go to trial, I think what you're starting to see is Republicans who totally oppose this and think this is just wrong because it's not an impeachable offense and it's ridiculous. And then you've got Republicans who may have voted to impeach, but still think this is a constitutional crisis that they don't want to create. They don't want to create a new President. So with that, I think it becomes very difficult for the Democrats to get to 17. Republicans. Yeah, I don't see any way in which they get there. But the interesting thing to me is following up with what Jordan said, but also what John, you said, and that is I think the better course, he said, the more prudent course for the Senate is not to break traditions and try a President. Wes, you touched on that yesterday.

Yeah. The Constitution is pretty clear that impeachment, the results of impeachment are removal from office and disqualification, which are two separate votes in the Senate, not removal from office or disqualification. So they're really trying to do something that, and I'm not a legal scholar, but seems to really violate the plain meaning of the Constitution. It certainly violates tradition and pragmatism. And not only that, as you said earlier, there is no way in the world that this Senate is going to vote to convict the President. So that means without a conviction, they can't disqualify him from running again. And in the meantime, in spite of Biden's calls for unity, this completely divides the American people in a way that is completely unnecessary. Well, there's no doubt it divides.

I mean, but it also, this is the part, I'll let Jordan and Than answer this, because this is the part that makes no sense to me. If they want the President, former President, President Trump to kind of fade into the history, why would you provide a photo opportunity that ultimately, and I'm looking at everybody in our studio, and I'm looking at Than in Washington, and I'm looking at everybody that's watching us and listening to us around the country. You know what he's going to do. It's going to be an acquittal, and the front page of the New York Times is going to say, or the Washington Post, Trump acquitted again, and he's going to hold it up at Mar-a-Lago, and they're going to take a picture.

It's going to be the front page of every paper. Why in the world politically would you do that, Jordan? I think they rushed in the House. Thinking they could get a conviction. They thought they could rush through this in the House and then get to the Senate, and there would still be all these tempers, and the problem was when they rushed it through the House, and the House managers they chose, and the partisan language they used during the two hours they had of House debate, which was absurd to send an article of impeachment over, were so divisive that they were automatically turning off Republicans.

I agree with you. They may think this damages President Trump, but what this does is put President Trump, especially if this trial, as Mitch McConnell's talking about, is not until mid-February, it brings back Donald Trump right at the beginning of the first 100 days, smack dab in the first 30 days of the Biden administration, and he's going to be acquitted for any wrongdoing on January 6th, the second time the liberal Democrat House has failed in trying to impeach this President, and this time the goal not removal, the goal to prevent him from running again for office, and I think it actually kind of encourages him to say, you know what, if they're so afraid of me, maybe I should run for office again, because they are trying to do anything possible to convince, to stop him from having the ability to run for office. Thanh, I am trying to figure out how the political calculation is such that this makes any sense for the Democrats.

Well, I think Jordan's correct as it applies to President Trump. I think maybe there was a second layer that they were trying to apply it to other elected officials, elected Republicans in both the House and the Senate for 2022, but here's why I think it's likely to backfire on them, Jay. We talked yesterday in the broadcast how, you know, there were reports and public comments that somewhere in the neighborhood of five or six Republicans might be open to voting to convict. Jay, I can tell you, everything that I'm hearing on Capitol Hill is that some of the great angst and hesitation about the prudence of this and even the constitutionality of it exist in that group of five or six Republican senators who are willing to convict. They also don't know if they have the power to do this, and Jay, if you're correct, if you're correct that the courts don't take this up, then it does fall to senators to answer that question for themselves. Do we have the power to do this?

And Jay, in a limited form of government, you would want your elected officials to restrain themselves and not take more authority than the Constitution grants them. I don't know if we have this sound, but I could read this quote from Senator Schumer. It says, make no mistake, a trial will be held in the United States Senate, and there will be a vote to convict the President, and saying any argument otherwise defies basic, we have it, let's go listen to him actually say it. Make no mistake, a trial will be held in the United States Senate, and there will be a vote whether to convict the President.

So, Andy, I say, okay, we've got a minute left here. They've done this before. This one is going to have, may have a few more votes. We only had a half a vote for a Republican vote for conviction last time. This is going to be another acquittal. And I don't see the courts engaging it. No, and I'll quote you from Nixon versus United States, 1993.

And this is a quote, the judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. So don't think that you're going to run to the Supreme Court, anybody, and get the Supreme Court to intervene in this matter. It's not going to happen. All right, we're going to keep you posted on it. We've got more coming up. The second half hour, we're going to go into more in the Middle East with Iran.

We're going to have Rick Rinnell joining us, our senior policy advisor on foreign policy and intelligence. We've got a lot to discuss there. Support the work of the ACLJ. You do that at ACLJ.org.

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

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

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

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

This is Jordan Sekulow. And let me tell you, folks, there's a lot to talk about today. You know, we've got Nancy Pelosi announcing she will deliver the article, the single article of impeachment, to the U.S. Senate on Monday. But we are not clear about whether or not the trial will start as it usually would the next day at 1 p.m. Eastern time.

And then following that at noon each day, because there's a proposal out there by Mitch McConnell, which is getting some Democrat support, that this should be held over until early February for briefing and then mid-February for a very short trial, three days. The President now has his legal team in place for that. I was clear on Newsmax this morning, you know, in our private capacity, we're still handling a lot of issues for President Trump.

And I want to make that clear to everybody. We're not former Trump attorneys. We are current Trump attorneys in the private sector outside of the ACLJ. And because he is experiencing, I said this on Newsmax, total all-out lawfare is what we call it. Is the truth.

Yeah. And so before we take the call, Dad, do you want to tell people just, I tried to explain that term on Newsmax, what we mean by that, but it was like the witch hunt, like the harassment he received as President, but now it's like it's not stopping. Well, the phrase lawfare actually came up, Andy, you'll remember this, in the context of the attacks on Israel.

They were, and Wes, we've talked about this before, too. They, instead of using bullets and armies, you use legal process. In Israel's case, it's the international legal process. In this case, it's domestic legal process. The President's getting, they're trying to pick them apart, so to speak. Not successfully, but they're trying.

They were doing that before while he was President, but now as former President, it's not stopping. So that is the lawfare angle on it. And you have to treat lawfare seriously. And we're doing that, as Jordan said, while we're not going to be the lawyers on the floor of the Senate, he's got a team that's handling that, which is great. We're dealing with a variety of other cases where, again, it all had the same goal, and that is to diminish the brand, if you will, to diminish the standing of this former President. I used Israel as the example for lawfare.

It's actually a good one to use because, look, and we're talking about this in a minute with Rick, in a few minutes with Rick Rinnell. The fact is, look what was accomplished in the Middle East, but they are using this to pick him apart. Yes, and they haven't stopped, and they won't stop.

It seems that their whole aim is the consolidation of power in the Democratic Party to their benefit. And, look, let's face it, they attacked this President before he became President when they spied on his campaign. They attacked him when he became President with the Mueller investigation, which lasted for two years, three years, however long. Then they attacked him over a phone call and impeached him over that. He was acquitted over that.

Then COVID came and said he didn't handle it right, and he was wrong. Then we had the House and Senate committees asking for documents. We went to the Supreme Court three times on that.

Successful in two out of three of them, and actually successful in all three in the sense that documents were never handed over. But you're right. I mean, this has been, but lawfare is, you know, we've talked about it, Wes, in the form of Israel.

And then, Jordan, let's get ready to take a call. But that's what this is. So, all we're seeing at the Senate is just another avenue of lawfare, except there's really a predetermined conclusion of what happens here. Yeah, there absolutely is. And they simply, it would appear, lacked the ability to let it go, even if that's in the best interest of the American people. You know, obsession, whether you're obsessed with something really good or something really bad, obsession is never a good thing psychologically, spiritually.

They are obsessed with Donald Trump, and they simply can't let it go. You're right. All right, Jordan, let's take a call. Yeah, let's go to Randy in North Carolina on Line 3. Hey, Randy, welcome to Secular Radio. Hi, thank you.

Thanks for taking my call. I was saying that I don't know that the Democrats realize that what they're trying to do is a two-edged sword. They either don't realize it or they don't care because it could come back, it could come back to haunt them with a future President. Well, Randy, that's just what I said, and, Than, that's what I said. I mean, you know the photo, what it's going to look like.

You already know. I think here's what happened. After the initial incident, horrible incident, at the nation's capital, they thought for a moment we could get an impeachment and conviction. And then everybody started looking at the facts, which is what happens, and it looked less likely, but they still were insisting they went back down. And now they're going to create their own distraction from President Biden's agenda for his first 100 days, and at the same time, the President ends up with an acquittal.

Yeah, I think Randy's correct on two points. First of all, it's not just future Presidents that will have this hanging over their head. It's every past President as well, including Democrat Presidents. There's no reason that the reach back to former Presidents couldn't extend to them.

But then the second reason that Randy's correct is the point that Jordan already made. It makes President Trump a very central figure going forward well into the Biden administration. And Jay, even if the timeline that Leader McConnell proposed is the one that happens, there's still going to be a great majority of President Biden's nominees and the issues that he has promised would be on the floor of the Senate in the first 100 days that won't have been on the floor of the Senate yet.

So it's exactly correct. President Trump will be in the news, and the agenda that President Biden promised, Jay, that won't be being considered while impeachment is moving forward. All right, so let me play this statement from Alan Dershowitz, who was our co-counsel with me and Jordan and Andy in the first impeachment trial that we successfully concluded.

Listen to what Professor Dershowitz had to say. There is no jurisdiction. You cannot put citizen Trump on trial. If you could do that, it would be a bill of attainder, number one, putting somebody on trial who is not a sitting President. And number two, the implications would be horrendous.

Well, there you have it. Jordan, the implications would be horrendous. Absolutely, because there would be no end. So what would prevent you from going back and impeaching President Obama one day or a future President one day who served out their full term? I mean, let's say Joe Biden only serves one term. Can you just go back and impeach him after he leaves office? Just because you didn't like his policies, you come up with a reason because of whatever Hunter Biden's criminal tax investigation goes to. So we're going to impeach now.

What has been past practice has totally been flipped over. Past practice has been, yes, you're still going to look at Hillary Clinton and the classified information, but you're not going to really target Hillary Clinton. You know, that was the difference. You know, Huma Abedin didn't go to jail. Hillary Clinton didn't go to jail. You look and make sure our classified information was secured so that doesn't ever happen again. Instead, though, what we're seeing now is the continued attack on a former President. And that is horrendous precedent to set on both sides of the aisle.

Because guess what, folks? The Democrats may seem tough on this, but if you gave Republicans this tool, especially this new Republican Party, this tool, beware Democrats of what you were opening up, what gates you were opening up, if you will. Is this the new normal? Going forward in America, God, I think they've cheapened impeachment.

They really have. Is the new normal going to be we will use impeachment for revenge going forward? I pray that that is not the new normal in America or in American politics.

It's a horrible thing. Yeah, but I'm afraid it may be, but they have changed the nature of what constitutes an impeachment, and they will for all of history. All right, we're taking a break. When we come back, we're going to be joined by our senior foreign policy advisor, special advisor to the ACLJ, and also our advisor on international, not only international affairs, but national intelligence, because we've got some information there.

An envoy for Iran has been selected. You're not going to believe it when we get into the details of this. What is it, Yogi Berra, the famous manager? It's deja vu all over again. It's the same group creating the same mess just four years later. Here we go again. You know what we do, though? We fight back. We fight back on the policies. We fight back at the UN.

We fight back aggressively. Your support of the ACLJ makes a huge difference. Let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org. Have your voice heard.

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

I'm talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow Radio. Folks, this is a critical time in our country. We now know that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will be delivering the article of impeachment to the U.S. Senate on Monday. What we don't know, Dad, is that in usual practice, they would figure out they're supposed to start the next day, but in this case, they may actually start potentially not until February, and actually the trial might not be until mid-February. The President has his legal team set for the impeachment. We're working on other issues for the President as part of his legal team. But that's the big question now, is they're going to get the articles delivered, when does the trial actually begin?

Because there's briefing that also occurs in this. Yeah, so I think that's the first, if you remember, the first thing that takes place, and you remember we worked on this, of course, was presenting the trial brief, basically. That takes place before the proceedings begin.

That's correct, and we had prepared a comprehensive trial brief, and it takes time to put that together so that the senators have an idea what the legal position is, and the President is entitled, in my view, to have at least that much due process to be able to put forward his defense in the form of a brief before the senators. And I think they'll come up with a schedule in the next day or so that says maybe it's 10 days to get the opening brief, and then another 10 days for the other side to file a brief, and then a reply brief. Sounds like, to me, it's moving into February pretty evidently. Yeah, I really do think they're going to come to a resolution. Right now, the latest proposals that I've heard really only have it a couple of days apart. Maybe proceedings starting as early as somewhere around a week and a half into February, and then maybe on the other side thinking more like two and a half weeks into February.

But bottom line is, Jay, I don't think the Senate rules that mandate the proceedings that start the next day will ultimately be what carry. I think there is going to be a resolution agreed to. There will be a briefing schedule. Each side will have time like before to file their brief. And I would expect we'll probably get news of that over the weekend, Jay, and then by the time the articles are presented and read and maybe there's a formal summons issued, I think we will know that schedule.

It'll be laid out. Alright, Jordan, let's go ahead and take the phone call. Yeah, Ann Marie called in from Georgia online for Ann Marie with a great question. Welcome to Secular Radio.

You're on the air. Thank you. It's a question that I've been wanting to ask really since Donald Trump was still in office, but now that he's out of office, I have the same question. Prior to his leaving office, you were saying that he, first of all, they don't have time to impeach him before he leaves office. Well, they could have done that if they wanted to, so go on with your question. Right.

And now that he's out of office, you're saying there's no constitutional way they can try a non-sitting President. Correct. I mean, that's the view we take. There are differing views on this, to be clear, though. I mean, there are scholars on both sides. Go ahead.

Right. And my question is, and please understand, I'm not talking guilt or innocence. I believe the man is completely innocent, okay?

My question is from the process itself. Is there now, are there other entities other than our Congress, are there federal judges or whatever that could bring him up on the exact same charge as a private citizen? Well, okay, so look, I mean, could they, in other words, could they bring, it is a great question, could some prosecutor try to bring a charge that the President's speech was inciting insurrection or inciting a riot? Isn't the district attorney for the District of Columbia trying to do the same thing? He's called the attorney general for the District of Columbia, and he is trying to do the same thing. The obstacle in that case, though, Jordan, we only got 40 seconds here left, is called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yeah, there's Supreme Court precedent. This would go nowhere. This would go nowhere.

The Brandenburg standard is no way. The Senate's not bound by those standards, but courts are, and there was no way that anything President Trump said would be considered criminal, so they could try to bring it, but it would be tossed out of court very quickly because of Supreme Court precedent. I think that's absolutely correct. It's going to be a busy time analyzing this for you. By the way, we've got teams of lawyers here at the ACLJ and our media team that are going to be analyzing this as it comes.

Obviously, it's going to start breaking in the next 10 days, so we'll be covering it. We'll be giving you legal analysis, what the law is, how it's going, what our predictions are, how we see it playing out, because obviously we have more experience than anybody else in the United States on impeachment proceedings. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

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

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

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

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

We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. We are joined now by Rick Rinnell, our Special Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy. A lot to talk about with Rick. One, this new Iran envoy who was, interesting enough, is not really flowing in line with the rest of the appointments President Biden has made on Iran. And, Dad, this is an envoy I want to talk to Rick about because this envoy is one who really thinks that they've got to reach out to Iran and make nice with Iran. And it kind of goes against what Blinken and others have said, Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State nominee, who said, let's just, we're going to take it slow even with getting back into the agreement with the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Which I think is good news, at least that they're going to not rush right in, but then you put someone like this in place and you're going to get a lot of pressure to rush right in. So, Rob Malley, Rick, is going to be appointed as the envoy to direct Iran policy. Now, he was very, very involved in the JCPOA. He wanted, if I recall correctly, negotiations with Hamas, which of course calls for the destruction of Israel.

And I would say, agree with Jordan, way out of the mainstream of even Joe Biden's mainstream, I would think. Yeah, he's the New York Times go-to guy when attacking the Trump administration's Iran policy. He's consistently attacked my work in Europe and in Germany trying to really push this idea that engagement is the goal and engagement is just a tactic to get. And I remember that the Europeans and the Americans both agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon.

We disagree on tactics. So, the interesting part of that, I thought about this, Wes, with your experience in the Middle East and the military, this, Iran is at a crippling point right now. I mean, their economy has ruined, their senior military advisor was taken out by the Trump administration, and now this let's make nice and build it back to where we are is just going to embolden them.

It already has emboldened them. They were hanging on by a thread. They were afraid that Donald Trump was going to be reelected. And in that case, they were going to have to change their behavior and come back to the negotiating table.

Now, all those bets are off. The interesting thing about Rob Malley, and I've looked at his bio this morning, in spite of all of his missteps and controversy over the years, he's been around D.C. forever. He's a Harvard lawyer, law school grab. Back when Clinton was President and the Middle East talks fell apart, and Clinton, President Clinton blamed the Palestinians for the falling apart because they would not negotiate in good faith, Malley criticized President Clinton over that. He was actually not only encouraging talks with Hamas, he got caught having unauthorized talks with Hamas. And then when Pompeo a couple of years ago, the secretary of state for President Trump, came up with the 12 conditions that we would go back and talk with Iran if they did these 12 things, among them forsaking terrorism, stop testing ballistic missiles.

Malley roundly criticized Pompeo because he thought that was harsh on Iran and unrealistic. And on his bio, though, Jay, you know what his specialty is on his own bio? Conflict resolution.

He has that on his bio. Yeah, conflict resolution, which sounds like to me, Rick, I'll go to Rick first then Jordan, it sounds like to me, Rick, that this is going to not only embolden the Iranians, but what a message we're sending to our allies. Well, look, let's be very clear that the Abraham Accords are such a good thing moving forward, but we would not have had these accords if not for the disastrous Obama policy in the Middle East that Rob really helped push. The idea that so many Arab nations are seeking peace with Israel is because they saw what it was like when America was withdrawn and America was somehow allowing the Iranian regime to bully the neighbors.

And they don't want to go back to that. And Rob is somebody who is going to take us back to where our allies are fearful of a weak America. Jordan, I was thinking about that, you know, you, me, Andy, we've negotiated a lot of transactions in the Middle East, especially with the three faith groups, which is very complex when you have to get them all to agree. Rick knows that in his work and that he's done as an envoy. And I'm thinking about, of all the people, I knew it was going to be, I knew he would show back up.

I knew Rob Malley would be back in the mix. But what a statement it is sending to our allies. Oh, it's a horrible statement sending to our allies, especially are the allies that we had, but Israel had not had formal agreements with that they do now through the Abraham Accords. And then you put this guy back in place who says, I want to make nice with Iran.

And so what? And it's also a conflicting message. We have the secretary of state nominee, Tony Blinken, say we're going to take our time to see if we really can reenter the JCPOA or the Iran nuclear deal, as it's known, or if Iran has just gone too far. I think that's something to take as encouraging.

But then you put Malley back in. I mean, this again, to me, it is going to really, I think, scare a lot of our new allies and these new trilateral agreements we put together with the Gulf states. One there because they don't like when the U.S. comes in initially under the Trump administration to isolate Iran and then so quickly under the Biden administration, you've got this conflicting on the one hand. Let's rush back to Iran.

On the other hand, we're supposed to slow walk. Who is going to win the day out when they're talking to President Biden about how to reengage with Iran? We know they're going to do it, but the one group wants to take it slow. And I think that's the right approach if you're going to reengage, which I don't agree with at all. But if you're going to do it, at least take it slowly and maybe decide at the end that, you know what, we can't do this again with Iran.

Blinken left that open. But Malley is the type who wants to rush right back in and start having tea with Zarif. Yes. So here's the problem. The destabilization of this approach to the region, Andy, has real consequences. And we've worked that region. Well, we have worked that region extensively.

And I know the multifaceted nature of the dealings that you have in that region. But appointing someone like this as the envoy to Iran really undermines the Abraham Accords. It seriously compromises them. And in our views of our allies, it weakens us and it makes us look foolish. Look, there is one thing that is foolish, and that is engagement. The idea that engagement with rogues is the way to tame them. That is a foolish concept.

Jay, we were at Oxford and we had a professor there at Oxford. And I'm not going to say what he said, but what he said was- And he was very left of center. We might as well say it. He said, there's no way that you can deal with these people. They're animals. Professor Yanambu, what do you say we do to them? And he said in his accent, kill them. And this is what he said, kill them. There is no way to engage with rogues in the idea that you're going to bring them to the table and we're all going to be lovey-dovey. It ain't working.

So Rick, what does this do now? If this becomes the internal, you have an internal fight, but this becomes the envoy is starting to make these representations, engaging Iran this way. They got to be thrilled today.

Yeah. Look, to be a successful envoy, you have to have both sides trusting you. Probably both sides criticizing you. Probably both sides saying, well, he's done some good things and some bad things.

But you have to have a balance. You can't have one side celebrating. Clearly, Iran is celebrating. I actually think that this JCPOA Iran issue is no longer just a Shia versus Sunni issue or a Israel versus Iran issue. This is now about the region and whether or not people, countries in the region can deal with a hostile regime like the Iranian regime or not. And what Rob Malley's possible envoy-ship means is that Iran celebrates and the rest of the region is fearful. I think that this is going to happen because there's such a blowback to him.

So let's wait and see if he actually gets appointed. You know, it's interesting here. Tom Cotton fan said this. He said in a tweet, appointing radicals like Malley gives a lie to all of President Biden and Tony Blinken's rhetoric of unity. Yeah, and he's correct. That sentiment is building.

Rick is correct on this. Look, it's interesting to me, Jay, that the reporting on this seems to indicate that this is the first sign of a shift on policy for Israel and Iran. Jay, I couldn't disagree with that more. I mean, we need to remember, you know, a lot of those stories point to Tony Blinken's rhetoric. They point to Jake Sullivan's rhetoric. Look, Jake Sullivan, who's the national security adviser, he was one of the primary architects of the JCPOA.

He's an outside business partner with Ben Rhodes. This might be the most high-profile indication that President Biden has taken this policy in another direction. But Jay, this has been coming for a while now, and the United States Senate is starting to wake up for him. It's not just Tom Cotton. Rick is correct. There are dozens of senators who see this as very problematic, and I will add, Jay, some of them are on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Yeah, no, I think this is right. So, Jordan, this is what we have to look forward to. Now, the next segment of the broadcast, we're going to switch from Iran and get into some national intelligence and international intelligence and some leaks, and nobody to talk to better than that than Rick Grenell, the former director of national intelligence.

That's right. We're going to take more of your phone calls as well at 1-800-684-3110, because, Dad, I know there's more folks who've got questions about the impeachment as well. We're going to be a great resource for that as we are part of President Trump's legal team. So give us a call, 1-800-684-3110, and support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice at ACLJ.org. That's ACLJ.org.

Support the work of the ACLJ. We'll be right back with Rick Grenell. We'll be taking your questions. We'll be talking about national security, national security leaks, Adam Schiff raising his head again.

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

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

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

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

This is Jordan Sekula. We've got the full team assembled here. And with my dad, with Wes Smith, with Andy Kahneman, of course, our senior advisor for national security and foreign policy, Rick Rinnell. Because, Rick, I want to go right to you on this. You got into kind of this tit for tat with Adam Schiff. He's one of our favorites, of course, because we faced him in the impeachment trial, the first impeachment trial. He's not such a nice guy and a pretty just nasty partisan actor. But you accused him pretty directly of his office, his committee, of being responsible for many classified leaks.

And he tried to hit back at you and say you were this partisan actor. But the fact is he didn't really answer the question about the leaks. Yeah, look, this is this is so well known within the intelligence community. I mean, people make what they what they do when they go to brief Adam Schiff's committee or Adam Schiff's team or Adam Schiff is they literally adjust what they're going to say. This is now what intelligence officers have to do. They know that everything that is said is going to leak in a partisan way. And so it's one of the reasons why the the intelligence community career officials came to me and said, hey, can we do some sort of a public document after our briefing so that we don't get spun by these politicians like Adam Schiff? I mean, there are people who are angry with him for ruining their careers with misinformation. And so the idea that Adam Schiff is not leaking is ridiculous.

Everyone knows he is. And lastly, let me just say this. When I was there, I called Adam Schiff multiple times to try to coordinate. I actually really enjoy a debate.

I'm a nice guy that wants to talk through issues and find common ground. He wouldn't even return my phone call. I think that's really, you know, chicken to not take a phone call and not try to coordinate reform. I mean, this is silly. That's second grade stuff. And so, you know, we can have disagreements.

We should be able to talk about it. I spent two and a half, almost three weeks on the floor of the United States Senate with Adam Schiff. And what people quickly recognized was the way it was paired off. Basically, when Adam Schiff spoke, then I would go.

We were the kind of point counterpoint. The thing that concerns me about all of this, and it ties back from whether it's intelligence leaks or information that gets put out with these committees and then they get it to other committees and then it gets leaked. Or an impeachment proceeding that has on it, Jamie Raskin, who argues in 2016 that the election should not be certified. The same thing they're complaining about the President doing.

He voted that way. And then Eric Swalwell, we've talked about that before, who had the Chinese spy in his office. And this is all cheapening the institutions.

And I think we've got to, you know, I'll go to you first on this, Wes, and then I want Rick to respond too. But the integrity of the institutions, you were in a big institution, the army, is very important. Oh, absolutely. And the American people have to trust that, generally speaking, the institutions are honest and they do what they're designed to do.

And when this kind of thing happens, it not only cheapens the institution, it totally demolishes the American people's trust in some of these institutions, which is not good for any of us. Yeah. I mean, I was saying, you know, Rick, you ran a big institution.

You were, of course, the ambassador to Germany as well, but you were the director of national intelligence. And it's disheartening to see where it has gone. Yeah. You hit it right on the head, is that we need to still be able to talk. I mean, when you have members of Congress and senators unwilling to talk, unwilling to engage with people who are running agencies, that's no way to run a country and it certainly sends a terrible message to the American people. I think weaponizing government's power is one of the real problems that we have on both sides of the aisle, the Washington way to kind of hold information and spoon feed it out and pretend like the American people are stupid. And that's what's got to change. The outsiders need to go to Washington and change it.

And that's why I supported President Trump. He was the ultimate outsider trying to change the system and all of the insiders attacked him nonstop. So, Jordan, you look at all of this, you look at the appointment of Malley as the envoy and you realize very quickly what's in play here. We are looking at a rehash of the Obama-Biden administration.

Maybe worse. The interesting part about this is he is not trying to carve his own path. This is someone who has sought the presidency three times, run for President three times, finally successful in getting the nomination and then getting elected. And yet he doesn't want to chart his own path. He's letting, and Rick really had a window into this very early on, he's bringing in the closest advisors President Obama had, that really their loyalty lies with the Obama at least strategy, if not the former President Obama anymore. So people like Susan Rice being right there in the White House with the ear to Joe Biden and then having someone to the left like Kamala Harris, who is going to agree with those more left policies anyways, instead of carving out your own administration's path when it comes to foreign policy, when he finally has the chance to do that as President of the United States, it kind of baffles me that Joe Biden just said I'm going to hire all the former people before and not bring in my own folks to run this. And I don't know if that was pressure from just the people around him or whether he just didn't have the team assembled to do it, but I'm worried it's going to be Obama 2.0 and maybe more dangerous.

Rick, what do you think? Binders full of Obama staffers. I mean, we literally have the same pool and Joe Biden has been there for 47 years, I'm not sure that he knows anybody outside of the circles that he's been accustomed to. I'm more concerned about the fact that every single person is a Washington insider that has had some sort of consulting gig right down the street in Washington DC and they're circling the wagons around the ultimate insider.

Fan, is that getting attention in the Senate? They're confirming these people that some of these don't need confirmations, but Republicans have to know what's going on here, I would think. Yeah, it's getting attention, but honestly, Jay, I don't think it's surprising to them because it's very easy to write off the Obama administration as Barack Obama's team, but look, Joe Biden was on that team. I mean, he helped pick those people the last time around, so I'm frankly not shocked.

I'm disappointed, but I'm not shocked that he's going that direction again. And look, we said so many times that personnel is policy, association is policy as well, and I'll say it again, I said it earlier in the broadcast, Jake Sullivan and Ben Rhodes are outside partners in the National Security Action Pack. Look, I think that tells you all you need to know, the JCPOA, Jay, it's their top priority.

It was four years ago, it is today. And it will be again, and we saw firsthand when you didn't have that JCPOA with U.S. support, Andy, the difference it made for the region, and now the coming together of majority Muslim country, Arab countries with Israel was unprecedented in these last months. This was one of the greatest legacies of the Trump administration, the Abraham Accords. What you've got with Joe Biden, to use a little more polished term, is Obama redux.

He's back again. All right, Wes, you've got a piece coming up today on Iran. This afternoon, five reasons why Iran is a major issue for the Biden administration. It articulates what we've been talking about on radio today and how that it seems like the missteps just keep on coming. Rick, in 15 seconds, how significant is this envoy appointment? I think it's a very serious appointment that will deconstruct all of the Middle East. I think he should be stopped. Yeah.

Well, we'll see what happens. I mean, this is where you got, you know, your voice has to be heard. That's why we have the American Center for Law and Justice, this radio broadcast, TV broadcast on all these social media platforms. And that's why supporting the work of the ACLJ is so critical. Go to ACLJ.org, have your voice heard. ACLJ.org.

Have a good weekend. 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.
Whisper: medium.en / 2024-01-01 02:00:17 / 2024-01-01 02:23:28 / 23

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime