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

Is Impeachment “Dead on Arrival” in Senate After Vote on Constitutionality?

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
January 27, 2021 12:00 pm

Is Impeachment “Dead on Arrival” in Senate After Vote on Constitutionality?

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 680 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


January 27, 2021 12:00 pm

Is Impeachment “Dead on Arrival” in Senate After Vote on Constitutionality?

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Steve Noble Show
Steve Noble
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Radio's impeachment on arrival in the U.S. Senate on its constitutionality yesterday on the US and talk about that more today on second line 45 people 45 above insiders say that the whole charade is unconstitutional. So what is that main means that impeachment. The trial was dead on arrival. I think probably so. Here's why. 45 Republicans voted to not even have a trial they believe it's unconstitutional to try a former President, Chief Justice, is there unconstitutional, procedurally wrong can't proceed now that vote. Of course, didn't succeed, so there still is a trial scheduled what is it made only five Republicans voted along with Democrats to say that this trial could proceed.

So what does that mean they are they they are way short of set the 17 Republicans you would need to vote to convict Pres. Trump and impeach him and then have the vote to bar him from office. So again let's look at these numbers wise at significant of these five.

By the way, even by voting that they think that the trial is okay to have doesn't mean that they will vote to impeach the President.

The five who voted that it's okay to have the tribal trial Susan Collins Lisa Murkowski Mitt Romney Princess and Pat Toomey out of that group.

I only feel like it's really Mitt Romney who I would say is it a probably a yes vote to impeachment all of the rest. I think just had a different view of the Constitution and are still not necessarily yes votes and suchlike the grandpa said with certainty that I listen you can even guarantee those five are going to vote for impeachment you're getting nowhere close to the 67 you need which would include 17 Republicans to actually have this impeachment so now people like Democrat Sen. Tim Kaine are putting out there that maybe we should have this trial at all.

Take a listen while knowing you'll find those maps seems to me to be not right. Prioritization of you because we do this the last impeach, we count those before you have these test motets with these are right and we put the numbers together, you realize yesterday beware things can happen and trial witnesses really tells you early on, you're going in with a huge advantage, and they are going in with the basically insurmountable disadvantage because of this vote. The senator said it's unconstitutional. Doesn't matter what you tell us. He did what we hear right you don't have the authority to vote on this.

This is basically the court, the Senate, saying in 45 member saying there's no jurisdiction upon which to cure this when Randy and I talked about in the very beginning of this proceeding, and none of the Chief Justice of the United States in the chair so that tells you this is not an impeachment of a President so what is this an impeachment up was really not.

Impeachment is more like us is more like a political harassment trial and then you got 45 members of the Congress and you know we don't think we would have jurisdiction to hear this. So why are we proceeding now as you said what makes that significant is the fact that of those 45 if it just stays that way they don't get anywhere near what they need to get to for a conviction for impeachment. So in that sense it's over before it starts. Because these are these are senators and eat very quickly really got a minute left that are saying no jurisdiction. Going with the senator saying that there's no jurisdiction to try similar to what you and I have been saying all along. In order to drive somebody you've got to have personal jurisdiction over the person and you have to have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter that you are litigating in this case, the question of the impeachment in the senator's 45 senators from the Republican side said we don't have any business trying this case because we don't have jurisdiction. The first thing that a court does before it does anything is to determine whether it has jurisdiction that is the power to say that's the literal meaning of jurisdiction, the power to decide on the power to say over a proceeding that's not in existence in the Senate.

In this case will take your calls 164 3110 B).

The challenges facing Americans are substantial time and are now free to store constitutional rights are under attack with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you. Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable voice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called life will show you how you are personally and includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications.

40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the what Obama care means many ways your membership is empowering the right question free copy mission life today online/secular rate is the first five minutes every day. What happened yesterday the U.S. Senate lately started off with a resolution before by Sen. Rand Paul, that was a resolution to say you know what we love authority here is unconstitutional.

It did not pass, but he got 45 Republican votes. So, only five Republicans join 50 Democrats and say that you can even have this trial.

What does that mean getting to 17 Republicans is nearly if not totally impossible because what those Republicans did by voting. This is unconstitutional and I think they need to be held to this by the way they been on this Washington DC fan, but by voting to say that this is unconstitutional fan. It should not matter what they hear. If there is a trial which is now in doubt because what's in it, Kaine said, but if there is a trial, assuming that all goes forward to hear this parade of horrible's about the President shouldn't change any of their votes because they say they don't even jurisdiction to hear this case.

We can't change their votes. Jordan I thought Sen. Paul said it best when he came off the floor. He said it shows that impeachment is dead on arrival. Because if you voted that it was unconstitutional how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this is so going back to what you said and even hypothetically if there's a senator like Sen. McConnell or Sen. Portman, who is said, I'm very concerned about what happened on January 6 but now they have voted to say the Senate doesn't have any jurisdiction in this matter. Jordan, II would say would be a violation of violation of their oath to defend the Constitution if they say the proceeding itself is unconstitutional and yet I'm in a cast a vote to convict so I Sen. Paul got it correct the maximum vote you have for conviction in the United States Senate.

At this point is 55 and you need 67 Dorn I think this thing is over by grandma so sure you get that that it's going to be 55 because I think there to be a number of Republicans that did not like a prehearing decision, but that would revisit it upon argument right at the actual trial, but it does break this question and I think it's I think it's an important question that is what is the political endgame of the Democrats here other than to sully up the President present from because what some think about the unity speak to them thinking about. We note that many were very deflated.

Yes, I think in their head they thought they were to be able to. This was me like eight 2520 by voting Republicans and that they somehow thought that would happen right and that illusion pretty well is been decimated enough. What this is is a needless devices political drill in. It's a drill it's partisan politics is pretty unprecedented and they are pretending Schumer and the Democrats are pretending to be oblivious as to how this hurts the nation and I say pretending because Jake they know they know what's going happen.

They know the end result, and they know this hurts the nation is just that their agenda and their desire for revenge is more important than the impact on the country but doesn't it also say something Andy that the Chief Justice of the United States who under the Constitution is to be the presiding officer in the impeachment of the President declined to participate.

This is what Rahe really bothers me. J you have on the Constitution United States says when a President is impeached, the trial shall be presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States 90 Donald Trump is no longer the President, but he was a President of the United States and he is being impeached for acts that he is alleged to have committed while he was President. Where is the Chief Justice that to me legitimizes this entire proceeding because unless the Chief Justice is presiding. I don't believe you have complied with the requirements of the Constitution take the President pro tem of the Senate. Maybe he can preside over the trial of the impeachment trial of a federal judge or a cabinet officer a lesser political figure civil officer in the government which are talking about the President of the United States and you're saying you're getting a signal from the Chief Justice.

I want have anything to do with that. I'm not coming over. I think that's a big message you bring to petition a lot of you been asking even on social media. I saw after being on some of the broadcast. I do other than Trish Newsmax and David Brody show for just the news and people sick. How can we take action enjoyed the race of this, we launched a brand-new petition, stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate. It's very simple. I can read through 40/50,000 you have joined since we launch this smoking. We want a significant number were hoping to get to for 500,000 people to sign this now ACLJ.org and get it to your friends and family as well. What is it say the radical left is conducting unconstitutional impeachment of a former President. There's nothing in the Constitution allows the Senate to do this if they are trying to conduct a trial of present Trump as a private citizen. This is clearly unconstitutional and we are going to put it says the leaders, the ACLJ's legal team at more experience with impeachment than anyone else were mobilizing on Capitol Hill to defend the Constitution will break this up so your senators know that you signed this was state-by-state as well. So join today with us and sign the petition to and the unconstitutional Senate impeachment trial of the former presence right on the top of the homepage. You go to ACLJ.org right now if you look right to the right of your screen you'll see where he could cite it right there on the homepage so let me say this. Also about this under the Constitution. We have the right to petition the government for redress of grievance. The grievance here is not even what took place in the capital which was horrific. The grievance here is that a process is underway which is fundamentally flawed if really flawed from the beginning it was creating a flawed manner. When the bait at a hearing or proceeding in in the house with no witnesses, no hearing, just past articles of impeachment a snap impeachment scalding setting a terrible precedent that goes over the Senate and I guess they thought they were getting get more votes and they got the Democrats with the end result was 45 Republicans so we should even be hearing this, which means it's over before it starts. But they are going to put the country through this. So what we want to do is let our 45 senators know but also the rest of the United States Senate. No, all of them that we think the process is wrong and we will be publishing next week.

A brief that we have all legal brief on this issue of the unconstitutionality of this proceeding. But as Andy said that's we want you to sign it. ACLJ.org.

I'm sure sending out some emails on it as well put on the social media platforms, but do I find it ironic that anything the Chief Justice that actually the right thing by refusing to participate, but that's kinda your opening line at DR if you can argue the case manager. The lawyers are not going to say this is you know, with due respect to Sen. Patrick lady he's not the presiding officer under the Constitution of the impeachment of the President of the President.

Maybe that's because adding this isn't the impeachment of the present. It's an attempt to impeach a President but not the President, which is what the Constitution says a private is an attempted basket is an attempted impeachment of a former of a President for acts that he did while he was President but is no longer the President and he is left office in the impeachment proceeding and the pain doesn't follow him, but taint is an important warrior because then I heard this said what this is really actually aimed at doing is an act by the Democrats to label this President with a bill of attainder so as to prevent him and and from participating in public life and holding public office in the future so obviously a bill of attainder, which is what was horrific to the framers of the Constitution and the founding fathers who said we the only thing we want to be absolutely sure about is that there is no bill of attainder ever attaching to anybody in the persistence of the Democrats in pursuing this matter in this illegitimate and unconstitutional method is really to attach upon this President and his lineage because that's what it is a bill of attainder J you any signal obtained from Constitution by specifying the Constitution are unconstitutional. Now it's interesting to me ever fascinating to me was home this whole situation Jordan is that the end result of this I don't understand the political I still don't understand local Caucasian. I think with it or try to do is play all the video from leisure from the January 6 event ultimately cc the parade of horrible's right will ultimately seal the spring. Horrible's events present. Trump vindicated for having anything to do with and he's acquitted for having anything to do with that and I think what you you there's two strategies apply here.

One is they overplayed their hand in the house. They rested thinking that emotions would overcome the Senate and they can get it that way. Second second without I think is is they there is some belief in the Democrat party just to be clear because we like to explain both sides that they would like to keep Donald Trump front center is a beat of the last election right. So whether or not you think that that that that could happen in a non-covert election and based on how the economy is going because right now it's his holder showing 80% of American psycho for the bride first 188% of Americans are displeased with the cut that way demonstration started at each other.

Executive orders the Keystone pipeline is the climate crap is all that stuff people can't stand it hurts jobs in the stock market response accordingly. So what I think is that there's a there's a thought process.

We keep Donald Trump at front and center that somehow helps us that's a bad idea and I think continuing to vindicated and drag people through these processes and then rise him up from the dead.

If you will you give write back and say oh you should be impeached and barred for life but no here acquitted. Even though Democrats are in charge and we had the prey to horrible's because there's no jurisdiction here again I think that that backfires of the regrets.

This actually this impeachment has a potential even hurt them more because the midterm elections coming up the do-nothing Democrats again is what you might hear one 864, 31 to we want to because of this belief really encourage you, you got an action is first action item of the year. NACLJ.org we want to get to for 500,000 people over 54,000 people party cited since this morning will be launched. The petition to stop this unconstitutional trial cited today ACLJ.org only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.

We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of weighing 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans are substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades. ACLJ 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, you're already a member. Thank you for your thoughts. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ is going to because it is our first action item of January of the new year. Five 2021, and that is our brand-new petition. We have lots to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial. The Senate over 55,000 people. That was 54,000 people in the last break that over 55,000 people have joined you can send a line to the cost you think it takes about a minute or less. NACLJ.org know we do something substantive with these petitions in the covert agent actually could have even more impact because of the way we digitally break this data for senators is very easy spice state so we can get to a number like 400 500,000. Even when we break it down by state. It's a significant amount of their constituents that were hearing from something that's what we want to do it before this trial starts February 9 hit that number. Break it down. Let them all know company their constituents are opposed to what this trial is even about, and even starting this trial and by the way Jordan, I think is important that people sign this, regardless of who their senator is even if they don't think their Senate is a senator is convinced of all, because look one of the things that were the most passionate about here at the ACLJ is making sure that all three branches stay within the bounds of their constitutional authority. There is no Republican or Democrat or independent who should want that to be otherwise. Because they will not always be in power.

But you're right what what were going to do with this petition.

In addition to using the overall number to demonstrate to the United States Senate that the American voters don't think this is constitutional. Working to break it down by state in order to make sure that every single Senate office Republican, Democrat or independent has to look at the constitutional arguments here and realize that they don't have jurisdiction here in Jordan. Just one other thing I would. I would point out the resolution that the Senate passed asking for briefing Jordan. It mandates that they consider this question so they might not want to have to look at mandate that they consider it says at the opening of the trial at the commencement of the trial on February 9. The first subject to be addressed by both parties.

So the house Democrat managers at present from steam is the jurisdiction of the court. Impeachment jurisdiction is the first issue they wanted rest okay so jurisdiction should always be the first issue that is addressed because whether a proceeding weather's administrative proceeding or court proceeding at that center proceeding.

You have site you know to be like that be like the committee on foreign affairs hearing a domestic issue but will that would be within their jurisdiction, but I kind hearing so three things to be are very relevant here one. Obviously the boat 45 Republicans out of 50 said it were not when the figures near the case. That means not getting it at a a conviction on this impeachment somewhere. Waste of taxpayer time Congress this time Joe Biden's time. Number one, number two, Chief Justice doesn't sit number three. Another attempt an argument and during the trial on this issue of jurisdiction jurisdiction. As I said is critical in this case it is like the magistrate court of Fulton County, Georgia doing a capital felony death penalty case and can be done.

You don't have the right to do it. You don't have the authority to do it. You don't have the constitutional provision that permits you to do it where you going with this, and that's why the first order of business. As I read was arguments from both sides as to does the Senate have the jurisdiction to try former President of the United States for acts committed while he was in office and after his last office. The unquestionable answer in my mind is resoundingly no you don't I will pass this to us. If you Joe Biden you saw that boat yesterday when you think of yourself as you try to get your first hundred days going in the store and point out the opening statistics are not so good. I'm because I'm not sure that Joe Biden is in his mind all the time the source is priorities got he I hear so many people around him that putting think in front of him, that he just signs but he is politically astute. He has to realize that that this is not going to succeed and therefore what he's looking at is misplaced priorities on the part of his own party.

In light of coated in light of the economy, national security issues and the priorities of his new administration. He has to be thinking you know this is really a waste of time and here's the other thing Jake that the Democrat senators. They know that they cannot convict on death. This plainly obvious now, and if they know they can't convict. They also know that they can't disqualify Donald Trump in holding future office because that has to come after the conviction. So it really is truly a waste of time. It's a waste of money for the American taxpayer it it's it's really a farce and I think people like Tim Kane are really realizing that hey maybe we need to rethink that. I so we got yet three lawyers here that have been on for the United States Senate on impeachment doing studio one remote in our facilities out of my and here we are. We been down this week we got this rodeo before and ours is much more very different case, a complicated case she had separation of powers issues all kind of evidentiary employees. Is this a months worth of witnesses the 17 witnesses will be familiar with all of the house. Then they in the Senate. They wanted to call additional witnesses to what we've been through this we been through this. This is a snap.

Impeachment Jordan, this is what they did quickest with you and Andy. I want to get on this. I think this whole process is that I was talking with Sen. yesterday.

The process upon which is before is very damaging to the office of the presidency. Yes, it is because now we if if this was okay and and if they were going.

If they were able to move forward and convict present Trump and you can go back and convict Pres. George W. Bush you go back and convict Pres. Obama you go back and convict people like Hillary Clinton because they were cabinet members and and you can go and enough Republicans to going to convict Joe Biden after his present and I feel like that would become the norm because you want to strip them of of basically their ability to to to attentiveness that you selling them up as much as possible take away their Secret Service protection. Take away the benefits of being a former President United States which they burned and that whether you like their's party are not, and an end and that that's it that's it. A terrible road to go down, but John cornet was again in that an extreme member of the US and he's a very levelheaded guy, the Republican senator from Texas, said they do this, come after Obama right will be getting the majority ended not far away from being the majority.

The one vote short of being the majority.

So any list of the whole thing. We went through yesterday easily you could convict him in a snap way like this you to say as fast and furious because of Benghazi because IRS targeting is because of this this analysis yet this why that's why the stated is retroactive looking at Presidents is so dangerous and to George W. Bush and bigamy go after you know every living President basically go back to Jimmy Carter disabled the Iran hostage situation he totally mishandled that I mean it just the President said here is terrible. I don't understand why the Democrats don't see that you are not. I think they do actually not not to forget Bill Clinton is a four for me to another things like that but this is not the remedy for every wrong.

There is a remedy if there is an alleged wrong here that was committed by Pres. somebody was in office that can be dealt with by the processes of the civil or criminal law post leaving office, but you cannot retroactively go back years later or now, in this case days later and say we're going to impeach a President for acts that he committed while he was in office after he's been removed from office voluntarily left office on his term expired.

That is not the remedy here. You have to have jurisdiction to have a remedy and to impose it. There is no jurisdiction in the Senate the house impeachment was a joke two hours of debate. No witnesses. It didn't go through a committee. No one was effectively heard. It was obviously political then they marched over the articles of impeachment like they did before. Like the going from one house of parliament from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, you know it's all show. It's just all show folks ACLJ.org for now over 50,000 recent 53 today. The show started Ricker nails during the second half hour. Don't miss that ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights importance in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and secular secular radios that would encourage you as well to sign our petition@aclj.org were close to 60,000 people. We just launched this morning by the way folks exit 58,935 signatures to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial. The Senate you be joining with 45 US senators who agree with you, and that's enough to stop President Trump from ever even been close to being convicted and then barred from running for office. Having a Secret Service trip to the benefits of of every four Presidents trip so I will go back to the falls 164 3110 Ricker Delta be joining us in the next segment the broadcast.

We talked about some of the State Department issues of the foreign policy issue. The bite administration, but I want to get you to it to Mary and Marilyn online to hey Mary, welcome secular radio my call to many everything that though the thought that it was done, my question is do they have to even their snotty it's very its merits a really good question. So there's all kind of theories that I've run through CAD and that is the distance studio is there's all kind of theories that have gone through our head of a dear just send the letter and of the Senate and say this is interesting, but were not participating to the President counsel do you as the senator say I'm not what they need to be able to vote fan right they got a boat so they gotta be there. Yeah, I think the only question would be for the Presidents legal tenet of the United States senators have to be there J and Mary. I'll just read from you directly from article 1, section 3, clause 6, which gives the soul of the Senate, the sole power to impeach. It says that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members. And here's the key word present. So if they don't show up elaborate level for conviction lowers his shop they have to show up at the rather illegal to because after resident doesn't have to be updated worse but you made an interesting comment during the break. They know they can lose this now they're keeping Donald Trump in the spotlight. If Donald Trump was dead.

Politically, the Democrats are bringing him back to life Donald Trump and Lazarus are going have a lot in common because they are resurrecting his political life so odd to me in all of it. If you get to help them but I mean destroyed them the first time he ran over the second time so they were really workups of the mail ballot stuff was. Even if it was found to be legal by courts. I think that's either one, and then I think what's most important. What is most important front for all of you to understand is that he's a huge political machine at the more votes and the Republicans ever gone before is brought in the party bigger and answer whether he runs for President again, whether uses the force does bring him back as a major, major force, and I think what we saw yesterday that the 45 Republican sinners as adults, from the still force clearly forcing O'Connell, who was earlier say yeah maybe I'll vote in people for doing the 45 studies, believes all things unconstitutional. So the fact that you have 45 living unconstitutional, which means it is over misfires and including the later the post including the leader of the minority leader of the nonstate Senate which really split 50-50 does say though any of them think about this really quickly here will get less than a minute, it does tell you though the desperation of trying to destroy the former President and that's what this is. There's diaspora to destroy him politically. It's it's a fear factor J because there's so terrified of, and may not be the President anymore, but he got 75 million votes is a force in politics, the force is with us. Donald Trump is still the force and you're trying to destroy the force and this is not an act of desperation and outright fear and this is how they play their hands consolidation by the Democrats of their power, no matter what they can do against Donald Trump. They hated and they want to destroy just isn't the way to do it now to talk about during this case talk about this censure. I don't know if I was Republican. I don't know if I do that now. I'm not sure that that the vote treated their first century because that would take. I guess you get 50 Democrats plus plus I guess that you have nice present hairs come in 251, three weeks since you and get it. When the officer's urgency to go to trial because you needed before you started. That's how weak your case was over 60,000 you sign the petition cited now ACLJ.org challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now okay on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.

Thank you for your thoughts. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable in voice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally in public action includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy mission life today online ACLJ/secular radio, this is Jordan secular. So talk to keep you updated to impeach we get that brain of petitioner but ACLJ that are packing those 45 Republican senators who took the right stand that this is wrong. We don't have jurisdiction here over 60,000 view of sign that since we launch this morning will to get to for 500,000 by the impeachment sets the trial if that trolley begins to get Sen. Tim Kaine said maybe should have a transfer eludes look look like morons again because it brought impeachment that we had no chance of waiting for the second time against this mostly the guy that they can't stand the most of her gimmicky beds.

As Wes said Britt raising him back from the dead, if you will like Lazarus so cited ACLJ.R Ricker now our Senior advisor for national security for policy is joining us now and Rick.

I wanted to talk to you a bit because we got some of these cabinet officials now confirmed one of those is the new Secretary of State Tony Blake and Bill of the Washington seat a long time we was talking to is the yacht that some of the limited staff at the State Farm yesterday said you know we really have to rebuild the State Department because the world is is basically into some of his work. Interesting to see what we propose because they been dealing with America first like it was so bad that America first was the strategy of the US State Department.

You know what's really interesting garden is that in public comments public comments like on social media, the new Secretary of State has been saying things like, we got put America first and America as priorities are important. They recognize that the America first message is a no-brainer is exactly what the American people expect and by the way, it's exactly what the Germans in the French and the Turks all expect from America is that you're gonna put America first. So this idea that they're going to dance around this now we get to watch them very closely to see if their rhetoric matches their actions is the master Rick because I think the key test here is you could say anything, you could say anything, is trying to confirm you got confirmed. You make all the same as a course, we think America first, but then you watch the policies and ends up is leading from behind to quote Barack Obama's approach to what you look. You know the new secretary of state was talking about how he was at the State Department for the first time as a young State Department employee in 1993 and so he he's been around, and he knows that if you know that that's true. When and if he really does care about the State Department and wants to have foreign service officers respond appropriately to the world issues. I think that there is a big reform effort that needs to happen at the State Department because of foreign service officers in the colonies that they call them that they are assigned to.

We have assigned many people to the wrong priorities we have to have our embassies belittled many US you know branding at pushes and to help US businesses. That's what our embassies should be and I'd like to see the new Secretary of State match his words by buying changing the State Department changing the staffers at the State Farm in the foreign service officers to match the rhetoric that we put America first overseas.

How quickly do you think though.

I mean if we start rushing back into the UN human rights Council. We start rushing back into which we are the Paris climate Corbin that we know of no significant changes. How quickly do we seek will be able to judge Rick that its words and not actions that this is going to be just like we've had the past.

The Obama team, which is who we served we worked on there and they were to see that same foreign policy, which led to a lot of unfortunately a lot of violence and a lot of turmoil in the world.

I think where are anything that as of today looks as though Marco said that she's not can take aside tween China and the United States, and that the user should not take aside between China and United States. He said, is that Davo does not look that is something that I heard this rhetoric constantly in Germany and Germany first economic model that the largest economy in Europe. They leave the EU in many ways and for the chancellor of Germany to say luck the Western alliance doesn't mean anything to me because I'm not to pick sides between China and the United States. That is a slippery slope and exits to the buy demonstration that consensus with the Europeans means that were to take a pass at somehow drawing a distinction between China and the United States, Germany first has been not just in their recent policies and in their the way they conduct themselves.

My concern of course on this some little Wes on this is you served during these complexes, military conflicts and what Rick's talking about the kind of time on it together when you start having the leader of a G-7 country which Rick served as an investment from US to Germany.

Sam not to pick sides between the Chinese and the raw and the United States. Yeah. Really.

I mean, yeah, the Chinese did so much to defend Germany from Soviet expansion and communism got there still kind is doing so much to defend Germany and the EU from Russia. What a crazy thing to say no in concerning the new Secretary of State heat.

He made the statement. US leadership is back and I'm with Rick. He was the Deputy Secretary of State for Barack Obama that mean that leading from behind his back. Apparently that I think that's what you know Rick no matter what they say II think that's their view is leading from behind a are you use the phrase the other day and the broadcasts they are so concerned about building consensus.

They want consensus that they will subjugate if you will US interest to this false narrative of consensus today at international Holocaust. Remember last.

Let's take a step back and see that the chancellor of Germany just said that she is not going to and that the EU should not take a position between communist China and leader of the Western alliance. This is a frightening slippery slope. This is what Donald Trump was trying to confront in the idea that now we're going to enter the Ron deal again with the Europeans who push for consensus and engagement on this issue with the Iranians I think is a shot to the bite administration that you, your rhetoric of putting America first just crashed in Europe, the Iranian situation is particularly in my mind I'm staying thinking and human feelings that we had to do negotiating hostage releases DB Iranian encourage the states reentering the Iranian deal is just a step backwards and multi step backwards into the disastrous J it shows that we are not putting America first and shows first of all, a complete lack of knowledge of history, you cannot deal with certain people in certain governments in the way that the Biden administration and Obama before him, and Carver even before that, was dealing with the Iranians.

It's not a way that you that historically puts the process in an event advantageous situation with respect to these people because they don't understand consensus and negotiation in their part of the Middle East as other nations as Israel does, for example, we negotiated many many deals and most multifaceted deals but you can't deal that way with the Iranians, UK. You never could deal that way with the Iranians you couldn't feel that way with the ancient versions.

You have the Greeks and the Persians constantly at the head and arms with each other because of the lack of knowledge that has been transmitted today in dealing with these people were finding ourselves in a disastrous monster retired about you where this is going, and as were talking to you right now.

I got in the news on here in our studio.

John carries at the White House podium former Secretary of State climates are. I think that it speaks volumes to those world leaders about the capitulation of the United States.

I think it's absurd that that we would not hold Germany's feet to the fire more on China and let them get away with the statements but look who's right at the White House podium. Just within days of this new administration. You got John Kerry back at the White House advising by let's be clear about the Paris climate accord.

The United States is the been lowering CO2 emissions without part of the climate, the Paris climate accord Germany has not and so the political will to actually lower CO2 is more important than signing a piece of paper in Paris. We have been doing that others have not been, and yet John Kerry wants to reward them by somehow paying big money American tax dollars to other countries who have not made the choice that don't have the political will to actually lower CO2's consent was no follow that up when you start putting the click the climate policy at central and then you add to it the situation in my view, with with Iran, generally, and I'm looking at John Kerry and I'm thinking, here we go again.

It's the same old failed policy being put forward again. Jordan said about the capitulation and that's exactly what it is. It's wrapped in this idea consensus. I hate to bring this up again, but I think it's really worth repeating. Look at what's happening in Dallas dollars announce that Donald Trump is not welcome the. The idea that the leader of the free world, the former leader of the free world is not welcome but then Chancellor Merkel sits there and decides to take a pass on whether or not she should choose the path communist China more the United States under Joe Biden. She says no unity to Trump she say no to his just like him to say no to the United States under Joe Biden. John carried over Fritz. I think that that it says a lot. Rick, thanks for joining us. As always, special visor force the ACLJake photo petition. It's over 62,000 right now notes this constitutional impeachment first action item of the year signing@aclj.org right now will be right back.

When a society can agree that the most vulnerable. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying with the American Center for Law and Justice defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications. 40 years later, when Obama care means many ways your membership is powering the right question for you copy mission in life today online/challenges facing Americans as time went on freedom and sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work supports, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ's company but hold on about the impeachment so to take these calls and questions kidded New Hampshire live five kid welcome to secular radio Euro the air all thank you so family member will agree to the impeachment and that competition of the President was impeached by the house while he was still in office so me understand you say if they moved quicker soon. Officer Senate rules did prohibit Senate rules slowed it down, but they could change the rules right while he was sitting in office time to have between January 6 and the 20th to impeach and remove and then vote on more than I should be barred.

They didn't they didn't change the rules the Constitution doesn't say if take these weeks and months breaks in between that's that's their rule so they knew when they impeached in the house that by the time in the impeachment like the indictment. By the time the trial began. They no longer have jurisdiction, the issue be moved because he would be a former President so they could remove him anymore, right in the way we read it is that you hat you are removed and then you could be barred but you have to be removed so that you can't just say what we can still impede because we can do one of those things still, we think it does have to work together because of the way it is written in the Constitution, and if you look at precedent one time the Senate thought about doing this with the Secretary of War and they had the final vote after the trial. He resigned and had the vote of the trial so and 23 senators who thought he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors voted to acquit him, which he ultimately was acquitted as a fight they had. they had no jurisdiction, so pressing actually shows Rosewood Law Review articles you want to read precedent shows US senators, who are the people the matter have not thought that they've had that they've never been able to do this is the one time they didn't even voting against their own conscious thinking that this person had committed high crimes and misdemeanors. They no longer had jurisdiction over him and remember at the Constitution said all of these individuals are still subject to the laws United States and prosecution in federal or state court for any crimes he committed right so it's not like it's a get out of jail free card because you didn't get impeached. It's just they don't have the power anymore dead yet they don't have the power to more and you brought up the belt map case which Andy is reviewed thoroughly and as you mentioned Jordan most interesting aspect about Belknap is that when it came to voting that it was 23 and he of the senator said we think he did it but we don't think there's jurisdiction here.

That's right. That was in 1976 Secretary of War William Belknap and of the senators even thinking that he was guilty still said he may be guilty but we don't have jurisdiction, then that is the primary and the threshold issue that any court in the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has to absolutely decide and that is whether you have jurisdiction to try the accused in this case and I don't and I've read many law review articles and read the views of many Senators, but most of all I've read little document called the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the United States is absolutely quiet and silent on the question of impeachment post leaving office and you when you read this into it or adding something to the Constitution by trying the President after his left office. That is not there. I must strict textualism structuralist reading and originalist reading the Constitution as it says in the Constitution does not provide for what we call light impeachment J late impeachment but you know, but it's also very divisive here and now they know they don't have the votes. Why would you put the country get this knowing you don't have the boat and Andy's right, a plain reading of the Constitution says removal and disqualification, not removal or this this thing is moot.

It needs to go away, but I think they will persist there going to spend the money. The time and and and do this to the country for political revenge and probably in their crazy way of thinking. They think that this will be a political advantage to then somehow with the GOP senators you are running for reelection.

I think it will backfire and I just I don't sleep I don't see how this becomes positive. Yeah, I mean my theory is there trying to sort of have their cake and eat it too politically, and I think George is correct that they are afraid of the political machine in 2024 and want to keep that on the sideline, but I think they like to keep the division as they see it inside the Republican base alive through 2022. I agree with Wes on that point. I think they would like a little bit more cushion in the United States Senate. But you know it when you watch these kind of political scuffles day.

There's a lot of division until the other side pushes a little too far in. Then what what is that because it causes reunification of that opposition base, so I have they gone too far think is a very good chance they have yeah been this is this is I would encourage you all right now and encourage one more time then the broadcast would go to ACLJ.org right now were in the bathroom close to 65,000 either sign the petition. Since this morning we just launched this morning. It's our first action item of the year to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate and fan for people who are new to our broadcaster may be new to the petition process as well because we were covering that doing that is much we are in the middle of the election.

The controversies there etc. etc. explained to them what we do because this is not just a way to get their name so we can email them about this is something we actively do on Capitol Hill. The time a covert when face-to-face is much more difficult digitally delivering is very easy to do and to show them the strength, the ACLJ and the strength of their constituents in support of these positions what you'd like to think Jordan at the first primary consideration of an elected official is the authority granted to them of the Constitution and were making that argument.

Look, we were intellectually honest. We said that article 1, section 2 gave the house the authority to pursue impeachment. Article 1, section 3 does not give the Senate the authority to now convict after his left office. But here's the straight truth.

Jordan those academic arguments are only part of the equation. The political considerations of where their voters where their constituents are at play a very big role in how these elected officials vote in Washington DC. So what we try to do is add to our academic and legal arguments by showing them where their constituents dancer when you sign this petition we will take that information. We will use the large number to communicate to the Senate leadership on where the American people are but there were to break it down and working go to the senator of, say, Alabama, and say this many people in your state, some of who voted for you and some of who will go to the ballot box. The next time to decide on whether or not to send you back to Washington DC. They think it's unconstitutional for you to proceed and Jordan.

Those two strategies together the academic and legal arguments and what their constituents thank together they make a very powerful statement. Sen. Graham was on the floor of the Senate, and he said this statement about where that boat what the vote means 145 Republican said no you should hear this.

This is a for not assembling all of those to drop this case they'll be a motion to dismiss on day one of the trial and they will get more than 45 votes.

Once we hear arguments about why it should be dismissed. And if we don't get 51 will go to trial. Again, you might not get 51, but the key is that they're nowhere near getting 17 Republicans to even think that this is something they can move forward and consider they have five is always outflow to my those 45 Republicans. If you believe this is unconstitutional. Your vote has Artie been reported that it doesn't matter what you hear from the house to rent.

This is the unconstitutional extraconstitutional proceeding by the U.S. Senate. Don't go down this path, regardless of what you hear. Don't you can't switch kids. It's a constitutionally divisive well but I like what I heard someone to beat that would be pretty ridiculous. I think you be run at a town run Empire constituents by the way support to work with but also first petition of the year, sign it. This is unconstitutional impeachment. We will let the sitters know how many you have signed ACLJ.org side that today ACLJ is been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ


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