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

Today on Secular Radio is impeachment dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate after the vote on its constitutionality yesterday on the U.S. Senate floor. We'll talk about that and more today on Secular Radio.

Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Secular Live. We had 45 people, 45 Republican senators say that the whole charade is unconstitutional. So what does that mean? It means that impeachment, the trial, is dead on arrival. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. To do a trial knowing you'll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time right now. And now your host, Jordan Secular. So impeachment DOA?

I think probably so, and here's why. 45 Republicans voted to not even have a trial. They believe it's unconstitutional to try a former President, the chief justice isn't there, unconstitutional, procedurally wrong, can't proceed. Now that vote of course didn't succeed, so there still is a trial scheduled. But what does it mean? Only five Republicans voted along with Democrats to say that this trial could proceed.

So what does that mean? They are way short of the 17 Republicans you would need to vote to convict President Trump and impeach him and then have the vote to bar him from office. So again, let's look at these numbers.

Why is that significant? Well 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. But the five who voted that it's okay to have the trial, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey. Out of that group I only feel like it's really Mitt Romney who I would say is in 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 so that's why I think Rand Paul said with certainty that, listen, you can't even guarantee those five are going to vote for impeachment. So 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 Senator Tim Kaine are putting out there that, you know, maybe we shouldn't have this trial at all.

Take a listen. To do a trial knowing you'll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time right now. Dan, I want to go to you because we knew this the last impeachment. We could count the votes before. We had these test votes.

That's what these are. And we put the numbers together and you realized, yes, there can be weird things that can happen at trial, but it tells you early on you're going in with a huge advantage and they are going in with a basically insurmountable disadvantage. Because on this vote, these senators said it's unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what you tell us he did, what we hear. We don't have the authority to vote on this. This is basically the court, the Senate saying, and 45 members saying there's no jurisdiction upon which to hear it.

This is what Andy and I talked about in the very beginning of this proceeding. You don't have 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 of? Well, it's really not an impeachment. It's more like a political harassment trial. And then you've got 45 members of the Congress saying, you know, we don't think we even 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 senators, Andy, very quickly, we only got a minute left, that are saying no jurisdiction, period.

That's right. I mean, the senators are saying that there's no jurisdiction to try. It's similar to what you and I have been saying all along. In order to try 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 and these senators, 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 and the power to say over a proceeding. That's not in existence in the Senate in this case. We'll take your calls, 1-800-684-3110.

Be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

And we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line, we could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

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

Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you were 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. All right, welcome back to Secular Radio. So in case you just missed our first five minutes, let me tell you what happened yesterday in the U.S. Senate. They started off with a resolution before by Senator Rand Paul. That was a resolution to say, you know what, we don't have authority here.

This is unconstitutional. It did not pass, but it got 45 Republican votes. So only five Republicans joined 50 Democrats in saying that you could 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 to say this is unconstitutional, and I think they need to be held to this, by the way, and I'll go to Thand Bennett on this in Washington D.C., Thand, but by voting to say that this is unconstitutional, Thand, it should not matter what they hear if there is a trial, which is now in doubt because of what Senator Kaine said, but if there is a trial, assuming that all goes forward, and they hear this parade of horribles about the President, shouldn't change any of their votes because they say they don't even have jurisdiction to hear this case. Well, it can't change their votes, Jordan, and I thought Senator 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? And so going back to what you said, I mean, even hypothetically, if there's a senator like Senator McConnell or Senator Portman who has said, I'm very concerned about what happened on January 6th, but now they have voted to say the Senate doesn't have any jurisdiction in this matter. Jordan, I would say it would be a violation of their oath to defend the Constitution if they say the proceeding itself is unconstitutional and yet I'm going to cast a vote to convict. So I think Senator Paul got it correct. The maximum votes you have for conviction in the United States Senate at this point is 55 and you need 67.

Jordan, I think this thing is over. And by the way, I'm not so sure you get that it's going to be 55 because I think there are going to be a number of Republicans that did not like a pre-hearing decision, but that would revisit it upon argument at the actual trial. But it does beg this question and I think it's an important question and that is what is the political end game of the Democrats here other than to sully up the President, President Trump? Because Wes, I'm thinking about the unity speech and then I'm thinking about, I mean, they were very deflated yesterday. I think in their head, they thought they were going to be able to, this was going to be like a 25, 25 vote in the Republicans. That they somehow thought that would happen.

Right. And that illusion pretty well has been decimated. What this is, it's a needless divisive political drill and it's a drill. It's partisan politics.

It's 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 Jay, they know, they know what's going to happen. They know the end result and they know this hurts the nation. It's 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 really bothers me, Jay. You have an, the constitution of the United States says when a President is impeached, the trial shall be presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States. Now I know 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, illegitimizes this entire proceeding because unless the Chief Justice is presiding, I don't believe you have complied with the requirements of the constitution. You 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, but you're talking about the President of the United States and you're saying, you're getting a signal from the Chief Justice, I don't want to have anything to do with that.

I'm not coming over. I think that's a big message. You know, we've got a brand new petition. A lot of you have been asking, even on social media, I saw after being on some of the broadcasts I do, other than for Newsmax and David Brody's show for just the news and people were saying, how can we take action and join through a petition? We launched a brand new petition, stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate.

It's very simple. I can read through it for you. Over 50,000 of you have joined since we launched this this morning, but we want a significant number.

We're hoping to get to four or 500,000 people. So you sign this now at ACLJ.org and get it to your friends and family as well. What does it say? The radical left is conducting an unconstitutional impeachment of a former President. There's nothing in the constitution that allows the Senate to do this, yet they are trying to conduct a trial of President Trump as a private citizen. This is clearly unconstitutional and we are going to put.

It says the leaders of the ACLJ's legal team have more experience with impeachment than anyone else. We're mobilizing on Capitol Hill to defend the Constitution. We'll break this up so that your senators know that you signed this. So state by state as well. So join today with us and sign the petition to end the unconstitutional Senate impeachment trial of a former President right on the top of the homepage.

If you go to ACLJ.org right now, if you look right to the right of your screen, you'll see where you can sign it right there on the homepage. So let me say this also about this. Under the Constitution, we have the right to petition our government for redress of grievance. The grievance here is not even what took place in the Capitol, which was horrific. The grievance here is that a process is underway, which is fundamentally flawed.

It's really flawed from the beginning. It was created in a flawed manner when they had a hearing, a proceeding in the House with no witnesses, no hearing. They just passed articles of impeachment, a snap impeachment it's called and sending a terrible precedent. Then it goes over to the Senate and I guess they thought they were going to get more votes than they got the Democrats, but the end result was 45 Republicans said, we shouldn't 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 know, all of them, that we think the process is wrong and we will be publishing next week a brief that we have, a legal brief on this issue of the unconstitutionality of this proceeding. But as Andy said, and so we want you to sign it at ACLJ.org. I'm sure we're sending out some emails on it as well.

We'll put it out on our social media platforms, but I find it ironic that, and I think the chief justice did absolutely the right thing by refusing to participate, but that's kind of your opening line at the, if you were going to argue the case. I mean, I'm sure the lawyers that are going to argue it are going to say this is, you know, with due respect to Senator Patrick Leahy, he's not the presiding officer under the constitution of the impeachment of a President, of the President. Maybe that's because Andy, this isn't the impeachment of a President. It's an attempted impeach of a President, but not the President, which is what the constitution says.

That's right. It is an attempted, at best, it is an attempted impeachment of a former, of a President for acts that he did while he was President, but he's no longer the President and he has left office and the impeachment proceeding and the taint doesn't follow him. But taint is an important word here because, and 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 from participating in public life and holding public office in the future. It's so obviously a bill of attainder, which is, was, 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. And 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, Jay. You know, and as Andy said, bill of attainders are unconstitutional. It's best to find in the constitution.

They are unconstitutional. Now what's interesting to me, fascinating to me in this whole, this whole situation, Jordan, is that the end result of this, I don't understand the political, I still don't understand the political calculation. I think what they're going to try to do is play all the video from the, from the January 6th event to try to ultimately, so you see the parade of horribles, but ultimately you see all those parade of horribles and then President Trump's vindicated for having anything to do with them and he's acquitted for having anything to do with that.

And I think what you, there's two strategies at play here. One is they overplayed their hand in the house, they rushed it thinking that emotions would overcome the Senate and they could get it that way. Second, second though I think 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 and center because they beat him in the last election. So whether or not you think that that could happen in a non-COVID election and based off how the economy is going, because right now it says polls are showing 88% of Americans, not good for the Biden first 100 days, 88% of Americans are displeased with the way the administration has started. I think it's all the executive orders, it's the Keystone pipeline, it's the climate crap, it's all that stuff. People can't stand it, it hurts jobs and the stock market responds accordingly. So what I think is that there's a, there's a thought process that we keep Donald Trump at front and center and that somehow helps us. I think that's a bad idea and I think continuing to vindicate him and drag people through these processes and then rise him up from the dead if you will, bring him right back and say, oh, you should be impeached and barred from life, but nope, you're acquitted even though Democrats are in charge and we had the parade of horribles because there's no jurisdiction here. Again, I think that that backfires on Democrats and this actually, this impeachment has a potential even hurt them more because of the midterm elections coming up.

The do nothing Democrats again is what you might hear. 1-800-684-31. Tim, we want to take your calls on this, but we really encourage you.

You've got an action item. I think this is the first action item of the year at ACLJ.org. We want to get to four or 500,000 people. Over 54,000 people have already signed it since this morning when we launched the petition to stop this unconstitutional trial. Sign it 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 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. All right, welcome back to Secular Radio. So I do want to point you to, because it is our first action item of January of the new year of 2021, and that is our brand new petition we have launched to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate.

Over 55,000 people now, it was 54,000 people in the last break, now over 55,000 people have joined. You can sign it online. It doesn't cost you a thing. It takes about a minute or less at ACLJ.org. Now we do something substantive with these petitions. And in the COVID age, it actually can have even more of an impact because of the way we digitally break this down. And for senators, it's very easy. It's by state. So if we can get to a number like 400 or 500,000, even when we break it down by state, it's a significant amount of their constituents that we're hearing it from. So that's what we want to do before this trial starts, February 9th, hit that number, break it down and let them all know how many of their constituents are opposed to what this trial is even about.

And they're even starting this trial. And by the way, Jordan, I think it's important that people sign this regardless of who their senator is, even if they don't think their senator is convinceable, because look, one of the things that we're 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 we're 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, we're going to break it down by state and we're going 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. And Jordan, just one other thing 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, they have to look at this question. It doesn't just mandate that they consider it. It says at the opening of the trial, at the commencement of the trial on February 9th, the first subject to be addressed by both parties, so the House Democrat managers and President Trump's team, is the jurisdiction of the Court of Impeachment. So jurisdiction is the first issue they want addressed. Okay, so jurisdiction should always be the first issue that is addressed because whether a proceeding, whether it's an administrative proceeding, a court proceeding, a Senate proceeding, you have to say, you know, it would be like the Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing a domestic issue. Well, that wouldn't be within their jurisdiction for that kind of hearing.

So the three things to be, are very relevant here. One, obviously the vote. 45 Republicans out of 50 said, yeah, we're not, we don't even think you should hear the case. That means you're not going to get a conviction on this impeachment.

So what a waste of taxpayer time, Congress's time, Joe Biden's time, number one. Number two, Chief Justice doesn't sit. Number three, another attempt at argument, Andy, during the trial on this issue of jurisdiction. Well, jurisdiction, as I said, is critical in this case.

It is like the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia, hearing a capital felony death penalty case. It can't 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 are 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 a former President of the United States for acts committed while he was in office and after he is left office. The unquestionable answer in my mind is resoundingly, no, you don't.

All right. I wanted to ask this to Wes. If you're Joe Biden and you saw that vote yesterday, what are you thinking to yourself as you're trying to get your first hundred days going in?

As Jordan pointed out, the opening statistics are not so good. Because I'm not sure that Joe Biden is in his mind all the time as far as his priorities go. He has so many people around him that are putting things in front of him that he just signs, but he is politically astute. He has to realize 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 COVID, 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, Jay, the Democrat senators, they know that they cannot convict.

I mean, that's plainly obvious now. And if they know they can't convict, they also know that they can't disqualify Donald Trump from 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's really a farce. And I think people like Tim Kaine are really realizing that, hey, you know, maybe we need to rethink this. So we got, you got three lawyers here that have been on the floor of the United States Senate on an impeachment.

Two in the studio, one remote in our facilities out of Atlanta. And here we are. We've been down this, we've gotten this rodeo before and ours was a much more, very different case, much more complicated case. You had separation of powers issues, all kinds of evidentiary points, a month's worth of witnesses, 17 witnesses. We had to be familiar with all of that. Then in the Senate, they wanted to call additional witnesses. So we've been through this.

We've been through this. This is a snap impeachment, Jordan. This was one they did quickly. So when we go to you and Andy, I want to get on this. I think this whole process is, I was talking to a Senator yesterday, the process upon which this move forward is very damaging to the office of the presidency.

Yes, it is. Because now we, if this was okay, and if they were going to go, if they were able to move forward and convict President Trump, then you could go back and convict President George W. Bush. You go back and convict President Obama. You go back and convict people like Hillary Clinton, cause they were cabinet members. And, and you could go, and you know, if Republicans take over, you can convict Joe Biden after he's President. And I feel like that would become the norm because you'd want to strip them of, of basically their ability to, to kind of set, you know, sully them up as much as possible, take away their secret service protection, take away their benefits of being a former President of the United States, which they've earned and whether you like their party or not.

And, and, and then that, that's a, that's a terrible road to go down. But John Cornet, who is again, not an extreme member of the U S Senate, he's a very level-headed guy, the Republican Senator from Texas said, they do this, we're coming after Obama, right when we get in the majority. And they're not far away from being in the majority.

They're one vote short of being in the majority. So, and he listed the whole thing. We went him through yesterday. Easily, you could convict him in a snap way like this. You just say it's cause of Fast and Furious, cause of Benghazi, cause of IRS targeting. It's because of this, this and that. So yeah, this is why, that's why this Andy, this retroactive looking at Presidents is so dangerous. They're going to go up to George W. Bush and they're going to go after, you know, every living President basically. And they can go back to Jimmy Carter and say, look, the Iran hostage situation. He totally mishandled that. I mean, it's just, the precedent set here is terrible. I don't understand why the Democrats don't see that. Yeah.

Not to forget Bill Clinton, Jay, for, for me too, and other things like that. Look, this is not the remedy for every wrong. There is a remedy. If there is an alleged wrong here that was committed by a President Trump while he 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 or 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 they're 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. All right, folks, aclj.org. We're now over 58,000.

We started at 53,000 when the show started. Rick Renell's joining a second half hour. Don't miss that. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at aclj.org where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today, aclj.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow Radio. So I want to encourage you as well to sign our petition at aclj.org. We're close to 60,000 people. We just launched it this morning, by the way, it's at 58,935 signatures to stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate.

You'll be joining with 45 U.S. senators who agree with you, and that's enough to stop President Trump from ever even being close to being convicted and then barred from running from office and having his Secret Service stripped and the benefits of every foreign President stripped. So I want to go back to the phones, 1-800-684-3110. Rick Renell is going to be joining us in the next segment of the broadcast where we're talking about some of the State Department issues, some of the foreign policy issues with the Biden administration. But I want to get you to Mary in Maryland online, too. Hey, Mary, welcome to Sekulow Radio. Thank you.

I appreciate you taking my call. When I heard that the senators, how many ever there were that voted against this, thought that it was unconstitutional, my question is, do they have to even be there? Can they just not even attend?

You know, it's a very, Mary, that's a really good question. So, I mean, there's all kind of theories that I've run through, and I can see Andy in the distance studio, is there's all kind of theories that have gone through our head of, A, do you just send a letter into the Senate and say, this is interesting, but we're not participating if you're the President's counsel? Do you, as the senators say, I'm not, but they need to be able to vote, fan, right? They got to vote, so they've got to be there. Yeah, I think the only question would be for the President's legal team. The United States senators have to be there, Jay, and Mary, I'll just read from you directly from Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6, which gives 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, the level for conviction lowers as well. They have to show up, that does not mean— The President's legal team doesn't have to.

The President doesn't have to, that's going to be up to the lawyers, but you've made an interesting comment during the break. They know they're going to 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 to have a lot in common because they are resurrecting his political life.

That's what's so odd to me in all of this. Yeah, and they think that's going to help him, but he destroyed them the first time he ran. COVID the second time, so they worked out some of the mail-in-ballot stuff, which even if it was found to be legal by courts, I think that's why they won. And then I think what's most important, what is most important for all of you to understand is that he's a huge political machine. More votes than any Republican's ever gotten before, so he's brought in the party bigger. And so whether he runs for President again or whether he's just a force, it does bring him back as a major, major force. And I think what we saw yesterday, dad, with the 45 Republican senators is that Donald Trump is still a force.

Oh, clearly a force. Because Mitch McConnell, who was earlier saying, yeah, maybe I'll vote to impeach him. Who joined the 45. Just said he believes the whole thing's unconstitutional. So the fact that you got 45 believing unconstitutional, which means it is over? I mean, as far as any culpability. Including the leader of the Republican party. Including the leader of the minority leader of the United States Senate, which really split 50 50. It does say though, Andy, I'm thinking about this really quickly here.

We only got less than a minute. Um, it does tell you though, the desperation of trying to destroy the former President. I mean, that's what this is. They're so desperate to destroy him politically. It's a fear factor, Jay, because they're so terrified of him.

He may not be the President anymore, but he got 75 million votes. He's 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 an act of desperation and outright fear. And this is how they play their hand. Consolidation by the Democrats of their power, no matter what they can do against Donald Trump, they hate him.

They want to destroy him. This isn't the way to do it. And now they're talking about Jordan, this, um, Tim, Tim Cain's talking about this censure. I don't know if I was a Republican.

I don't know if I do that. No, I'm not sure that the votes are even there for a censure because that would take, I guess you'd get 50 Democrats plus, plus, uh, uh, I guess that you could have vice President Harris come in and do 51 pretty weak censure. Yeah. And, uh, again, it, what it also showed you is that you couldn't even go to trial because you were, you were defeated before you even started. That's how weak your case was. Over 60,000 of you have signed the petition. Sign it now, 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, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of mission life today online at aclj.org slash gift. Welcome back to Secular Radio.

This is Jordan Sekulow. So we talked to, we'll keep you updated too on the impeach. We've got that brand new petition up at aclj.org backing those 45 Republican senators who took the right stand that this is wrong. We don't have jurisdiction here.

Over 60,000 of you have signed that since we launched this morning. We want to get to four or 500,000 by the impeachment. So that's the trial. If that trial even begins, because we've got Senator Tim Kaine saying maybe we shouldn't have a trial since we're going to lose. Look like morons again, because we brought an impeachment that we had no chance of winning for the second time against the supposedly the guy that they can't stand the most and we're going to keep, as Wes said, raising him back from the dead, if you will, like Lazarus.

So sign in at aclj.org. Rick Rinnell, our Senior Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy is joining us now. And Rick, I wanted to talk to you a minute because we've got some of these cabinet officials now confirmed. One of those is the new Secretary of State, Tony Blinken.

He's been on the Washington scene a long time. When he was talking to some of the limited staff at the State Department yesterday, he said, we really have to rebuild the State Department because the world is basically, to sum up his word, interesting to see what we propose because they've been dealing with America first. Like it was so bad that America first was the strategy of the US State Department. What's really interesting, Jordan, is that in public comments, public comments like on social media, the new Secretary of State has been saying things like we got to put America first and America's 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 and the French and the Turks all expect from America is that you're going to put America first. So this idea that they're going to dance around this now, we got to watch them very closely to see if their rhetoric matches their actions. Exactly what I was going to ask you, Rick, because I think the key test here is you could say anything. I mean, they could say anything. He's trying to get confirmed.

He got confirmed. You make all these statements. Of course, we think America first, but then you watch the policies and you end up leading from behind, to quote Barack Obama's approach to it. Yeah. Look, 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's been around and he knows it.

That's true. 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's a big reform effort that needs to happen at the State Department because the foreign service officers in the cones, that's what they call them, that they are assigned to, we have assigned many people to the wrong priorities. We have to have our embassies be little mini U.S. branding pushes and to help U.S. businesses.

That's what our embassies should be. And I'd like to see the new Secretary of State match his words by changing the State Department, changing the staffers at the State Department, 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 U.N. Human Rights Council, if we start rushing back into, which we are, the Paris climate accord with no significant changes, how quickly do you think we'll be able to judge, Rick, that it's words and not actions, that this is going to be just like we've had in the past with the Obama team, which is who we served, who we worked under, and that we're going 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 we're already seeing it as of today. Look, Chancellor Merkel said that she's not going to take a side between China and the United States and that the EU should not take a side between China and the United States. She said this at Davos. Now, look, that is something that I heard this rhetoric constantly in Germany. It's a Germany first economic model. They're the largest economy in Europe. They lead the EU in many ways. And for the chancellor of Germany to say, look, the Western alliance doesn't mean anything to me because I'm not going to pick sides between China and the United States, that is a slippery slope and it's a message to the Biden administration that consensus with the Europeans means that we're going to take a pass at somehow drawing a distinction between China and the United States. You know, Germany first has been not just in their recent policies and in the way they conduct themselves. My concern, of course, on this, I'm going to Wes on this, is you served during these conflicts, these military conflicts, and what Rick's talking about and kind of tying all that together. When you start having the leader of a G7 country, which Rick served as an ambassador for the US to Germany, saying I'm not going to pick sides between the Chinese and the United States. Yeah, really? I mean, yeah, you know, the Chinese did so much to defend Germany from Soviet expansion and communism.

Yeah, they're still, China's doing so much to defend Germany and the EU from Russia. What a crazy thing to say. You know, concerning the new secretary of state, he made the statement, US leadership is back and I'm with Rick.

He was the deputy secretary of state for Barack Obama. Does that mean that leading from behind is back? Apparently that's, I think that's, you know, Rick, no matter what they say, I think that's their view is leading from behind.

They are, you used the phrase the other day on the broadcast. They are so concerned about building consensus. They want consensus that they will subjugate, if you will, US interests to this false narrative of consensus.

Look, today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day. 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. And the idea that now we're going to enter the Iran deal again with the Europeans who push for consensus and engagement on this issue with the Iranians, I think is a shot to the Biden administration that your rhetoric of putting America first just crashed in Europe. The Iranian situation is particularly, in my mind, I'm thinking, Andy, on the dealings that we had to do negotiating for hostage releases. The Iranian encouraged the United States reentering the Iranian deal is just a step backwards and multi-step backwards.

It's a disastrous step, Jay. It shows that we are not putting America first. It shows, first of all, a complete lack of knowledge of history. You cannot deal with certain people and certain governments in the way that the Biden administration and Obama before him and Carter even before that was dealing with the Iranians. It's not a way that historically puts us in an 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, where we negotiated many, many deals and multifaceted deals. But you can't deal that way with the Iranians. You never could deal that way with the Iranians. You couldn't deal that way with the ancient Persians.

You had the Greeks and the Persians constantly at arms with each other because of the lack of knowledge that has been transmitted today in dealing with these people. We're finding ourselves in a disastrous posture. We're talking about where this is going.

And as we're talking to you right now, we've got some of the news on in here in our studio. John Kerry is at the White House podium, former secretary of state. Now the climate czar. I think that it speaks volumes to those world leaders about the capitulation of the United States. I think it's absurd that we would not hold Germany's feet to the fire more on China and let them get away with these statements. But look who's right at the White House podium.

I mean, just within days of this new administration, you've got John Kerry back at the White House advising Joe Biden. Let's be clear about the Paris Climate Accord. The United States has been lowering CO2 emissions without being a part of 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 it. 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.

I was just going to say, I was going to follow that up. Rick, when you start putting the climate policy central and then you add to it the situation in my view 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 it best. It's capitulation. And that's exactly what it is. It's wrapped into this idea of consensus.

I hate to bring this up again, but I think it's really worth repeating. Look at what's happening in Davos. Davos announced that Donald Trump is not welcome. 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 of communist China or the United States. And the United States under Joe Biden. And she says no.

Yeah. And remember, there's not the United States under Donald Trump she's saying no to because she doesn't like him. She's saying no to the United States under Joe Biden and John Kerry and all her good friends.

And I think that it says a lot. Rick, thanks for joining us as always. Special advisor for the ACLJ. Folks, our petition, it's over 62,000 right now. No to this constitutional impeachment.

First action item of the year. Sign it at ACLJ.org right now. We'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you were saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

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

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

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

ACLJ.org. Alright, I want to get to some phone calls. I know a couple people have been holding on about the impeachment, so I want to take these calls.

I have questions. Ken in New Hampshire on Line 5. Ken, welcome to Secular Radio. You're on the air. Hi, thanks for taking my call.

I love what you guys do. Thank you. So I have a family member who agrees with the impeachment, and she suggested that this is constitutional since the President was impeached by the House while he was still in office. Can you help me understand how that would work?

Here's what I would say. If they moved quicker while he was still in office, sure. They could have. Senate rules didn't prohibit. Senate rules slowed it down, but they could have changed the rules, right? In other words, while he was sitting in office.

They had time. Technically, they had between January 6th and the 20th to impeach and remove him and then vote on whether or not he should be barred, but they didn't. They didn't change their rules. The Constitution doesn't say you have to take these weeks and months breaks in between.

That's their rule. So they knew when they impeached in the House that by the time, and the impeachment's like the indictment, that by the time the trial began, they no longer have jurisdiction. The issue would be moot because he would be a former President, so they couldn't remove him anymore. And the way we read it is that you are removed and then you could be barred, but you have to be removed so that you can't just say, well, we can still impeach because we can do one of those things still.

We think that those have to work together because of the way it is written in the Constitution. And if you look at precedent, the 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 they had the vote on the trial, and 23 senators who thought he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors voted to acquit him, which he ultimately was acquitted because they felt like they had no jurisdiction. So precedent actually shows, regardless of what law review articles you want to read, precedent shows that US senators, who are the people that matter, have not thought that they've had, they've never been able to do this. The one time they did it, even voting against their own conscience, thinking that this person had committed high crimes and misdemeanors, that they no longer had jurisdiction over him.

And remember, as the Constitution said, all of these individuals are still subject to the laws of the United States and prosecution in federal or state court for any crimes they've committed. 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, dad.

But yeah, they don't have the power anymore. And you brought up the Belknap case, which Andy has reviewed thoroughly. And as you mentioned, Jordan, the most interesting aspect of Belknap is that when it came to voting, I think it was 23 Andy, of the senators said, we think he did it, but we don't think there's jurisdiction here.

That's right. That was in 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap. And the senators even thinking that he was guilty still said he may be guilty, but we don't have jurisdiction. And that is the primary and the threshold issue that any court and 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've read many law review articles and have read the views of many senators.

But most of all, I've read a 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 when you read this into it, you're adding something to the Constitution by trying the President after his left office that is not there. I'm a strict textualist and structuralist reading an originalist reading the Constitution as it says, and the Constitution does not provide for what we call late impeachment, Jay. Yeah, late impeachment. But it's also very divisive here. And now they know they don't have the votes. Why would you put the country through this knowing you don't have the votes?

And Andy's right. A plain reading of the Constitution says removal and disqualification, not removal or. This thing is moot. It needs to go away. But I think they will persist. They're going to spend the money, the time 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 them somehow with the GOP senators who are running for reelection. I think it'll backfire.

I don't see how this becomes positive. Yeah, I mean, my theory is they're trying to sort of have their cake and eat it to politically. I mean, I think Jordan's correct that they're afraid of the political machine in 2024 and want to keep that on the sideline. But I think they'd 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, when you watch these kind of political scuffles, Jay, there's a lot of division until the other side pushes a little too far.

And then what what does that cause? It causes reunification of that opposition base. So have they gone too far?

I think there's a very good chance they have. Yeah, I mean, this is this is I want to encourage you all right now, and I'll encourage you one more time in the broadcast, but go to ACLJ.org right now because we're on the path we're close to sixty five thousand of you that have signed the petition since this morning. We just launched this morning and 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 broadcast and maybe new to the petition process as well, because we weren't covering that doing that as much. We're in the middle of the election. The controversy is there, et cetera, et cetera. Explain to them what we do, because this is not just a way to get their name so we can email them a bunch. This is something we actively do on Capitol Hill at a time with covid when face to face is much more difficult.

Digitally delivering is very easy to do and to show them the strength of the ACLJ and the strength of their constituents in support of these positions. Well, you'd like to think, Jordan, that the first primary consideration of an elected official is the authority granted to them of the Constitution. And we're making that argument. Look, we were intellectually honest. We said that Article One, Section two gave the House the authority to pursue impeachment.

Article One, Section three does not give the Senate the authority to now convict after he's 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, D.C. So what we try to do is add to our academic and legal arguments by showing them where their constituents stand.

So 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 then we're going to break it down and we're going to 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, D.C., they think it's unconstitutional for you to proceed.

And Jordan, those two strategies together, the academic and legal arguments and what their constituents think together, they make a very powerful statement. Senator Graham was on the floor of the Senate and he said this statement about where that vote and what the vote means when 45 Republicans said, no, you shouldn't hear this. This is a floor, not a ceiling on the votes to drop this case. There'll be a motion to dismiss on day one of the trial. I think we'll get more than 45 votes once we hear arguments about why it should be dismissed. And if we don't get 51, we'll go to trial. Yeah, I mean, so 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 got five and they may lose a couple of those. So all you have to do is remind those 45 Republicans, if you believe this is unconstitutional and your vote has already been recorded to that, it does not matter what you hear from the House Democrats. This is an unconstitutional, extra constitutional proceeding by the U.S. Senate. Don't go down this path regardless of what you hear.

You can't switch. You can't say it's unconstitutional to go back and say, well, but I don't like what I heard. So that would be pretty ridiculous. And I think you'd be run out of town, run out by your own constituents, by the way, support the work of us. But also first petition of the year, sign it. This is an unconstitutional impeachment. We want to let those senators know how many you have signed aclj.org.

Sign that today. 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