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

Impeachment Update: Democrats Attempt PR Stunt

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 5, 2021 12:00 pm

Impeachment Update: Democrats Attempt PR Stunt

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 755 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


Jay Sekulow prehearing publicity stunt by the house managers in the impeachment proceedings live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow phone lines are open for your questions right now called one 800-6843 1-101-800-6841 10 and the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow broadcast. This is good to be a very interesting week coming up. Got the political trial. That's what I'm calling Robin going impeachment trial of the present United States not be present in a present which raises very serious constitutional issues were to get into that were also talk about a pro-life case we have is going on that's going to go to trial in April or May so we got that going on I told you yesterday. We've got to new cases, one involving a remove information and rep act request regarding Eric swallowing this Chinese spy scandals that's going on so we got a lot of that going on a course in the middle of all this, when we end up with what we end up with a letter from Jamie Raskin the Congressman who is the lead impeachment manager addressed to the President and it says as you're aware, the United States House of Representatives have approved an article of impeachment against you for incitement of insurrection two days ago you filed an answer which you deny many factual allegations basically been what it says. As I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial concerning your conduct on January 6. We propose that you provide your testimony. Of course, including cross-examination as early as Monday, February 8 not later than Thursday, February 11 we would be pleased to arrange this tech testimony at a meet mutually convenient time and place and then they talk about if you decline the invitation. We reserve all rights and responses now the President's counsel David shown and Bruce Castor responded were in receipt of your letter about the latest publicity relation stunt.

That's what they call it, as you certainly know there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding missing if you don't come up. It's good to be.

It's like a negative inference like admitting it. You letter your letter confirms what is known to everyone. You cannot prove your allegations against a party to present United States who is now a private citizen, which I think is the pivotal decision all this use of our Constitution to bring up reported impeachment proceeding is much too serious to try to play these games. Sincerely, Bruce Castor Junior reaction. I think the reaction is exactly right. I first Castor by the presence attorneys for this impeachment is that what the house managers of predators pull yet another stock 04 present truck come in and out.

Eight. We don't know about agreement on witnesses that we know how key that is to begin discussion in the broadcast that they agreed to do that using it take about on whether or not they're going to allow witnesses that course include this this case if this they don't have subpoena power.

At this point because they have no power to call witnesses so this is a complete stop trying pull some negative inference and try to use civil law, which is when you take the Fifth Amendment in a civil case where you can do that here. This is a unconstitutional impeachment where the present has to haven't had to assert anything yet. So I just ignoring loggers for a lawyer's request doesn't infer anything and your reaction to this. We talked yesterday was strong because the nature of trying to pull the President into this from a perspective of this case, a witness when having agreed to witnesses yet is pretty troubling but very troubling. Jamming your guiding essentially an impeachment a President ex-President in this case for high crimes and misdemeanors which are criminal offenses and then you're telling him to come and testify, which he has a right absolutely not to do if I were the President I wouldn't show up and I would even have my counsel Joe out because it's an unconstitutional proceeding and then you make the threat that if you don't show up with. Don't take a negative inference from the fact that you didn't appear. I thought Raskin was a professor of law and knew better. Apparently doesn't say what I think. I think that this is the beginning of what is good to be a charade next week usually works great in a legal brief, but in the radio broadcast.

This is this is a political trial pokes understand what were dealing with its politics. They make the law up as they go along. Now where did you know what we're doing on the legal issues we got a position paper to release on Monday on this issue of constitutionality talk more about that we come back from break your calls well at 800-684-3110 challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ 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. 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 then 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. 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, become a member today ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice 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 publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/684-3110 joined by Andy, senior counsel, Jordan secular, Executive Director base, ALJ Prof. Dershowitz talked about the brief that was filed by Jamie Raskin. He is the congressman that is the Lee impeachment manager take a listen and a brief that Jamie Raskin wrote said the First Amendment is not all will underline relevant in an impeachment proceeding. In other words you can use one part of the Constitution impeachment without being bound by the other part of the Constitution it says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech have to tell you it's a C- brief with inflation C- brief with great inflation and the first of all their starting this proceeding off the whole procedure because was a two hour hearing. If you want to call it that, in the House of Representatives was what we call a snap impeachment and the time at appeasing the President now. We got about a 40 page document working release Monday the chose while why the impeachment of a former President as unconstitutional beliefs that on Monday were reviewing the final edits of it.

Now that'll that we can distribute that widely probably sent all the members of the Senate to what is your what your sense of what Alan Dershowitz is saying and what is the point of them calling the President other than trying to embarrass or harass them well or what size absolutely correct. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you're going to enforce and use the First Amendment gives us and ensure that the right of free speech. The President exercise that right in this.

This is what the defense says okay then you turn around and you you look at the rest of the Constitution which says that you should not be compelled to be a witness against yourself and what Raskin is doing and as I said, I'm astounded because he said he was a former law professor if you're taking the Constitution you're ripping it apart into shreds and picking and choosing the pieces that you want to use your telling them that you want them to appear and testify okay well first of all, in a case that is quasi criminal, which is what this is high crimes and misdemeanors.

You can call the defendant as a witness that's on impermissible and if somebody said you can lose your license. Gabby said that you don't do that and certainly in a criminal case, the fact that a defendant does not testify at an impeachment case and I use that. By analogy, J the fact that he does not testify. You cannot draw any negative inference from the fact that remains silent.

He has the absolute right to remain silent, putting all that together all I come up with is this is I joke this is an embarrassment and it shows someone who is just Raskin and his colleagues who are ignorant of the Constitution and certainly of the basics and fundamentals of law Jordan Klein.

This imitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the rights established the trial, but your refusal to testify supports a strong verse inference regarding your action. Geordie said that would be inappropriate here which you clearly would be great civil trials are integrated criminal trial. You can't. You can't be forced to testify. Taking the fit is not an inference of guilt because our U.S. Constitution, but in the civil trial taking the fifth is only an inference, then in a civil matter, and that's if you're allowed to even call witnesses, which in this trial has not been made clear. In fact they say they want this to be done quickly. They want this to be done in a week that I can be calling witnesses so there to be an opportunity to assert that I the truth is, high crimes and misdemeanors crimes that that sounds to me like a criminal matter, not a civil matter. We pay a financial penalty is the penalty where you lose a fundamental liberty right you don't go to prison can lose the right to seek future federal office and the benefits that came with a senior federal office is a United States only courage we allow people that are watching and listening by ratably a lot better cartooning and also on our social media platforms. If you're on Facebook. We encourage you to share this with your friend if you're on YouTube. Same thing parlor share this with your friends and subscribe to these pages, so we now need to look at what is going to happen. So the trial starts on Tuesday and you and I Jordan have been reviewing a document that our team is put together want to get into too much detail, but it focuses in on one issue, particularly that is the lack of constitutional precedent and the lack of constitutionality of this idea of what we are calling a late impeachment in impeachment when the President cannot be removed because he's no longer in office is not the President as the Constitution speaks so clearly, but a President, a former President. There is no light impeachment under American law, the founders of the Constitution were fully aware at the time that they drafted the Constitution of the concept of late impeachment because of Warren Hastings, the Gov. Gen. of India was impeached after he left office. They rejected that in drafting the Constitution because they didn't put that in. They could have if they wanted to, but the founders if that means anything, and it means something to me, and I mean something doubt that ACL day. The founders and drafters of the Constitution new that late impeachment was an option and rejected it.

Once you have left office.

You cannot be convicted on that article of impeachment sent over by the house. My contention is that house cannot even impeach much less the Senate try and convict. It's not permissible and will flesh that out in greater detail in the document that we're going to be issuing next week if you say that on the day before the trial so that you will have access to it on her social media pages in our course on the website and we may well send it to life member of United States Senate Republican and Democratic just the constitutional position on on why that that late process is unconstitutional. I thought that was actually Jordan a very weak, but they may say that for the end of their brief, the house managers probably for good reason I think was the weakest part of their case is the most important is the most important factor when we can proceed when in fact they save it for last.

The Senators and what we now know, at least about the trial which we don't know a lot we don't know trial schedules not been announced publicly about you know who will likely be the house managers going first is prosecutors. But how long will they have to go. I have many days that take out one of the defense had to go out on the question answered. We do know what needs to be addressed first in the Senate has actually asked the attorneys in the house managers from both sides to address the constitutional question first because the Democrats know that's a hurdle the major to getting the 67 they got convict at a 45 of the Senators everything. I commenced 12 more to get to the number they need to actually, potentially, if that's all I got. The trial was constitutional agreed that you got bit that with impeachment which is not a silly case she got to get convince all of these Republicans who think they don't even have the jurisdiction here basically close their ears to both sides, because it doesn't matter. That mentality voted and that's the first thing that has to be addressed. Yet these house managers they left in the very back because they want the parade of portables to go first and they're hoping that enough crater portables and even those 45 sinners who set jurisdiction here will somehow say even though I don't jurisdiction under someone that would be that would be certainly agree just for them to take that to take the position that they be held accountable to take up to about like that.

What we've actually asserted in the document that were prepared and this was Amy's original idea that this kind of targeted approached in late impeachment when the person the civil officer. The President is no longer subject to removal because he's no longer in office and then try to prosecute.

In this way to impeachment proceeding is basically unconstitutional because it also constitutes a bill of attainder, bill of attainder is specifically prohibited in the U.S. Constitution are founders were very concerned that targeted legislation at an individual which was happening in the UK would not be something that they wanted to transport from England to the United States and he so there's a specific prohibition on a bill of attainder like one of the great theaters that the founders of the Constitution, the drafters had was a bill of attainder what that means is a black mark directed against you, your lineage and your heritage and making you a marked person putting the Scarlet letter on and the founders of the Constitution were absolutely abhorred at the idea of a bill of attainder, and marking a person as I said with a Nathaniel Hawthorne Scarlet letter for the rest of his life. When a person leaves office as President. He is a private citizen and are pursuing impeachment and a trial in the Senate is nothing more than marking a man with a bill of attainder, which is exactly what the founders of the Constitution dreaded and said specifically, thou shalt not do this attack on Pres. Trump and you call it a political trial. I think it's a political charade and a political embarrassment is nothing less than an attempt and I said this early on and thank you for mentioning that I said this was nothing but an is nothing but an attempt to taint him and his lineage with a bill of attainder that is not permitted under our Constitution. There is no doubt that that is what the raft is also no doubt in my mind that some of between 45 and 48 Senators ready to move to acquit. I think that's coming to. I think that in the Democrats know that so they build a climate here is not limited in obtaining conviction. They know that what they can try to do is damage the President politically talk more about that were also to give you an update on our pro-life case that we got going on will give an update on that in the next segment but also keep talking about this issue of the impeachment will take your calls at 800-684-3110 were producing this document and it is a lengthy document for Monday and that's your support of the ACLJ lets us do that for me encouraging that ACLJ.org and support the work of the American Center for Law and only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.

We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition like it will show you how you are personally support the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life case were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to the pro-life of the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to start 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 then 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.org where you can learn more about our life changing work, become a member today ACLJ because of the 684-3110, 229,771 of the sign on to our petition calling for this impeachment from the unconstitutional that we follow this over not really following that we send it to the members of the Senate and let them know that what our legal position is at the American Center for Law and Justice on the constitutional issue of this late impeachment that we are going to have. I hope the plan would be to have 250,000 million signatures of you haven't signed on it yet.

I'd encourage you to do so@aclj.org.

We will be sending out some emails and newsletters about it this weekend so that's another way for you to do but sure like to be able to let them know by Monday we followed that word at 250,000 if possible, let's take Larry's call the unit up and something else very glad thank you very much for everything you do. I do have a couple of quick questions with regard to rampant dissociation of our Constitution and the double standards that were dealing with what you say to your viewers what can we do to eliminate or to work towards getting rid of the SIC streaming comments on Facebook and all the respect everyone stating the obvious, the obvious is being stated, we know that that I think Americans need some direction but can we really do. It's two years from the next election. We peacefully want peaceful so you don't don't let that happen over six ever happening and it was terrific and terrible day for the country. What you do is what were doing, which is as public interest law firm. We are going to file our position with the public with the news media with the Senate with the legal community to let them know that our position is that the impeachment itself is actually unconstitutional. That's and we're also having a petition now that petition is covered by the First Amendment is a right to petition the government for the redress of a grievance, this is Jordan, a redress of agreements and the grievances that a petition is taking place of a person who is a private citizen absolutely no I feel like a lot of Americans of the self 75 million Americans who voted for Pres. Trump. This is an impeachment of us its attempt to cancel all of us and to tarnish all of us like to build attainder but more than him just as a trumpet for Eva supporters and Kurt all of those Republicans in the House and the Senate who supported Pres. Trump in his reelection is to tarnish them as well.

And so it's totally political but it's not constitutional to make that position. No, in a very thorough way to be doing it in the media. I got two interviews after the show today on Monday.

RDF five scheduled for the morning to evening safety goes on Tuesday maybe taking a very active role in defending the President in the media in the court of public opinion. Most people get their information from. During this trial, which will be which will short. That is, we know takes hours at a time to go through information, it gets very, very tedious and repetitive, especially on the house side because all of those house managers with their 15 minutes of fame. So it's their 15 minutes of fame is like the same thing over and over. It's nasty, it's partisan what we can do is break out the truth for people. The truth is, this is getting close to kangaroo court status as that letter pointed out by Rabbi David showed Chief Justice Roberts is even there is an impeachment trial of the present said that a lot the back of the Jeep to say that in our document that the Chief Justice, not presiding says everything. So what is this a trial of the Chief Justice presides. When is the President. Oh, so they say that sentences what he refused to do that so it's it's not a trial of the Presidents of the trial of a present for present you look in the text of the Constitution just doesn't say you can do that no matter fact the Constitution very clearly says that in the impeachment of the President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides. Chief Justice Roberts correctly said I don't want any part of what you're doing.

Leave me out of it you going to do your own thing this is. He didn't say it in these words, but the inference that he may is very clear by not appearing in saying I'm not presiding is this is a political charade. It said it's an affront to kangaroo courts everywhere in my opinion because the Chief Justice is saying I don't any part of it. So what they do. They drag Patrick lady, the President pro tem of the Senate and they anoint him as the de facto Chief Justice and they put him up there and they put them as presiding officer who has no neutrality in this thing whatsoever. He is one of the most partisan of all the Democratic senators. Not that any of them could preside over trial.

In my view, judges have to be neutral and impartial. He is not but it shows very clearly that this is, it may be a lot of things but one thing in a in a native impeachment trial. In my opinion will change topic from over here and talk about what is good to be a traumatic trauma in the pro-life cause and I want to keep you posted on that other ACLJ Worchester teases senior counsel for the ACLJ Jeff you're working on a trial let's talk about what the schism what's at stake five years ago with the city of Englewood, New Jersey challenging buffer zone law that effectively suppresses the right of sidewalk counseling to speak with women accessing the largest abortion clinic in the city because of the wording of that law and the manner in which it applies that the specific abortion clinic wired client attempts to counsel women contemplating abortion.

The city is basically shut down the entire entirety of the public sidewalk right outside that clinic for follow-up counsel such as art are our client Gerald Turco to speak with women going into the clinic they have to navigate these various buffers around avoid traffic on the adjoining street get past the clinic escort do everything they can to drown out our clients pro-life message to client that she testified during her deposition is going through an obstacle course in this hindrances burden on her free-speech right that continues to this very day that we actually worn this case at the district court on summary judgment, and then city appealed because of how shall we say, ideologically unfriendly panel that, like the circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court to resolve issues of fact and those issues of fact are what's going to be resolved at a trial not working on our preparing for trial take place sometime this spring we imagine we have a conference with the court in two weeks with the deadlines and dates are going to be firmly established. Basically what you meant establishes again abortion is if it speeds that's different than any other form of speech and create speech results which leave one at the Supreme Court multiple times but yet it keeps coming back to court is turned down three interpretations involving buffer sound that suppressed the free-speech rights of pro-life advocates. This court has done this, even though it just as Clarence Thomas recently observed in one of the cake. These quantities are petitioned glaring problems with the Supreme Court's free-speech jurisprudence in this area.

So while we fully expect expect to prevail at trial in this case, and if need be at the Court of Appeals prepared to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court necessary.

There is no abort exception to the First Amendment in the Supreme Court once and for all. It needs to say so absolutely right yet. Thanks for the update on that. So whether it's a legal position on something as significant as a Senate impeachment of the former President, which I still couldn't believe a member to say those words.

Whether it's defending the right to speak out against abortion on the public area. The American Center for Law and Justice is there front and center your support of the ACLJ makes at all possible. Some encouraging. Go to ACLJ.org it's ACLJ.org and have your voice heard.

It's critical that we hear from you is critical that you support the work of the ACLJ. We encourage you to do that also stay engaged with us on social media that includes Facebook that includes force you to worry just once in the channel. Also, run rumble and other social media platforms including periscope and others encourage you to do that again support the work of the ACLJ bring up another half-hour people that allow the program platforms are ACLJ.org talking ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena.

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

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 chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow is everyone on the percept. I will bring that little pretrial fireworks of sorts a minute really fireworks with a pretrial show if you will, on this impeachment now arguing unit see it fully vetted Monday will issue a document is probably 35 or 40 pages by the time were done with it points out that this impeachment of the former President is completely unconstitutional and unprecedented and dangerous with the limiting principle of all this, by the way, is go back and impeach Pres. impeach Pres. that with all the movements that are going on right now in the cancellation culture may yet be very careful about this legal precedents are important in the idea that here you can impeach a former President, a President, not the President. The idea with impeachment is to remove the person now. Not only are they doing that, but Andy may have also called for in a very late move. Obviously, this just happened yesterday, live testimony from former President of the United States who is subject to this the Senate sitting as a trial of impeachment which is interesting because, again, our concert position is that should not even be moving forward, looked in hearing the Constitution and Jamie Raskin to do that every once in a while I said all the house managers. This was a rushed impeachment. First of all, it had no due process whatsoever. But if you read the Constitution it says the Pres. shall be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Neither no positive right, the present the President. The President as a former prosecutor. I look at that and I said that's criminal language is got to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors. That's not simple language, then you issue a letter and you say come and testify to drop an adverse inference from that that makes no sense. Not even in the most minute obscure court in the land and some magistrate court in some obscure corner of America people, judges, litigants, clients would know that you cannot draw an adverse inference in a criminal or quasi criminal case from the failure or the refusal of the accused to testify and you can call them as a witness.

You can even suggest that he didn't testify.

You get a mistrial, you get an admonition from the court.

You want to get this bar yet they're doing that in this case, why because this is a real trial. This is a political show trial of the Stalinist type. That's all it is J play do we come back and say betray God, I want to hear your thoughts on what they're really trying to accomplish. You know they're knocking to get a conviction noticed because Russell on Facebook road and I just can't fathom the stupidity of this impeachment with the pandemic going on and being on the taxpayers dime that I reminded where we were last year we knew the stomach when we were on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

We knew about coated we did know the extent of how dangerous it would be. We didn't know that this time next year I would still be wearing a mask that we be getting vaccines out the goodness present truck was correct about that project works the other that would still be living in a place for covert is raging so this is once this when they knew they had no chance. And a lot of people came out at trial, sit with infections. Some did know was covert. Others did like Sen. Rand Paul and now they're doing it once again in the middle, pandemic and economic crisis there to focus their time on impeaching a private citizen and even threatening him to come and testify. It is a joke as Andy said it makes kangaroo courts look good, say what we want to hear from you next half hour we will hear from you. What are your thoughts about this upcoming impeachment trial. What you think this is harmful to American you think it's wrong for the country to think it's the right thing to do.

Whatever your opinion is. Let's discuss at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 800-684-3110 also we want to encourage you to again call us at 800-684-3110 but also support the work of the ACLJ. Your support allows us is broadcast on each and every day on radio, TV, multiple social media platforms heard around the country and around the world, which is also where lawyers are around the country and around the world. ACLJ.org grab your calls at 800-684-3110 just a moment, the challenges facing Americans or substantial time and are now free to our constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines projecting 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 without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you.

Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the Obama care means to the prone life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is powering the right question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/684 30 within the tree service with your Francisco D was calling from Washington state. Again if you want to talk to us 800-6843 110D, a click.

My process every crazy thing like improving a legitimate yes you did a direct answer in the habit there's an argument that they should have a trial but that is really not what's before them. The jurisdictional issue they could decide on a motion to dismiss, but you have to have 51 votes and those votes are not there. You will not get a a Democrat to support it. I don't believe that.

Maybe maybe get some Democrats person cinema. Maybe Joe mentioned when the proceedings began in the be motion to dismiss upfront, but any holiday acquittal, because that's what will be yeah I will be an equivalent automated acquittal, because there is no jurisdiction, just to let you know. Jurisdiction is the power to say that the Latin generation to carry the power to say no court can do anything before it examines whether it has the power to adjudicate and to give ear to what is going and intended to happen. In other words, the court has got to determine its jurisdiction. First and only five Republican senators defected from the overwhelming majority would set even out of business being here. You don't have jurisdiction to say anything, but this doesn't mean that the political trial will not go on because the Republicans are in the minority. Now because of the fact that it's a 50-50 split with, lyrist as the presiding officer will exercise that authority. The other day.

By the way, and in connection with the $1.9 trillion rescue America package for the very first time so that shows that the power isn't in the Democrats to go forward, and regardless of the fact that I don't believe there's any jurisdiction to try this case politically trying to get out of it. Democrats damaged the President.

They hope to again divide the Republican Party they are nervous. Not only that he could run again in the next Presidential election that he will have a significant role to play in the midterm election so to do anything possible to damaged him in the eyes of the American people who maybe a minute probably like at this point saying please God's nothingness.

I legislate do your job will disagree all agreeable debate that while I still present truck.

Here we are. Juliet February 9 ninth begin a trial putting former President Donald Trump back in the spotlight as the number one news item instead of the American people, covert plans, vaccine plans, covert relief planned how to get that money distributed instead of that getting the rest of the cabinet confirmed another legislation instead of that were putting present Trump front and center yet again and I think the Democrats think that this constantly didn't want thing to do it again.

They're trying to tarnish him as much as possible and that and hope in their big hope is that somehow with their parade of portables that they will show all his video he has nothing to do it with the show this video people doing bad things. The capital that 45 sinners enough of those sinners who said we should even be here will have some change of heart and said you know this unconstitutional trial is constitutional now because I don't like what I saw, that would be a very bizarre reasoning and wrong but that they possibly could get to the point where they could bar from future offset like a piece of this bill of attainder idea and the constant harassment of this present since before he took the oath of office and since he left the White House. You know what I find interesting in the I'm reading this right now. The letter from Jamie Raskin that the lead impeachment manager and he says makes his reference that Pres. Ford and Clinton both provided testimony while in office in the swing port held just last year that you are not immune from legal process. While serving as President by way that Casey still has not been returned. There's not been any documents delivered to the DA for that request. Is it still pending another board of the State Department cases. Nobody forgets to the Supreme Court to disallow correction there. So there's no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings. Indeed, whereas a sitting President might raise concerns about refraction from official duties. That concern is obviously applicable here. It's inapplicable here because he is a former President right President is not deeper I go back to that is not the President. Thus, in the letter they're acknowledging basically the unconstitutionality of what they're doing while that's exactly right that no one read muster proofread that letter, the Oregon one of his law students to look at it because the lofted would know better than he.

You cannot try to remove a President who has been removed from office on January 20. Donald Trump seems to be present United States and became a private citizen.

Okay that ended impeachment.

There is no light impeachment in the United States. You cannot remove someone who is already remove all your time to do is mark him your time-to-market you're trying as Jordan said obtained him politically because he is a force in the demo in the Republican Party and a fear of the Democratic Party and the midterm elections will be here in less than 24 months and are apprehensive that this President now ex-President United States is going to have an effect on the midterm election and may be removed from them from from Bauer.

That's all this is is not a constitutional proceeding. It is a very unconstitutional proceeding and Raskin knows this and his reasoning is seriously flawed shows call you.

California showed good headroom near the hearing there anything that you need to be a Washington Post headline that says that the first time Trump acquitted the site, Trump acquitted again and then I hope the American people recite these are a waste of time proceedings a cost a lot of money are not constitutionally sound and damage the constitutional process that's harmful to our Republic. That's what I hope is the message on this look the incidence of January, six horrific they were terrible and what took place in the capital is a mark on our country really embarrassing to the country but embarrassment to our democracy and our constitutional republic.

But having said that you don't respond to that with unconstitutional process, but Jordan, that's precisely with the house managers did here again close interaction with blessing with the blessing of the Democratic part of the blessing of Joe Biden is the highest rating, Democrat, is never stepped in to say this should happen. In fact, said it must happen for unity that his idea of unity met Margie on YouTube and she said, and I think this is right representing present for so long and so many different issues and so many different investigations. She said that they hate one man so much that they don't care what they're doing to the American people and I think that's actually the truth is that markets are to get those tax against that they were coming in from a lot of friends and family who are gearing up yet again to see someone that they liked a lot politically and agreed with on the issues be torn apart once again in the in front of the American people in primetime TV by Democrats who just happen to hate them and feel like when they're doing it to him because of its because of policies that they supported that there are also tearing them apart and that they're attacking them and I think by putting Ted Lou and Eric swallow on the team to partisan Democrats in the house. That is what they are doing their telling all of us. You're just as bad as him. We hate you just as much as we hate him. That's forever willing to put the country through this again. You talk about the witnesses you let me play this is from a reporter to Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi transcends that Democrats call prepared fully prepared to fall in the F EI that people who planned this attack happened security capital response to that time wasted time to just call the present as a witness or asked him to appear voluntarily think they would report to become doing yeah like to feel important for private citizen to come to an impeachment trial of a former President that there is no forcing. You can issue all the subpoenas that you want. If I was the President's counsel. I would ignore them and say they were useless pieces of paper love.

I'm not appear and testify, having been charged with high crimes and misdemeanors and the reality is you can't make me do it and you shouldn't even try. I wonder if the Jordan I wonder if the backfire here is not just politically but it is is within their own caucuses that these become giant distractions in the mists of real ongoing problems in the doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to vote the right way so you know we we push a lot of Joe matching of the meeting had about two to declare that this was unconstitutional vote to impeach, but it did last time around. That was pretty absurd so I would imagine this time around.

Following the party line and some others. But the truth is worse now than they did even in last impeachment because this is just rehashing the past and no one likes doing that with their taxpayer money in their elected officials cause an 800-684-3110 last night at only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice 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 hour for 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 activists. The ramifications of 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans are substantial time and are now free to start constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms then 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.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ developments here for the lesson broadcast so as as we mentioned lately pass the covert relief by a tie-breaking vote. The vice President broke the ties of the Senate version that has the money going to the legal immigrants has $1.9 trillion in the passing was 50 to 50 as a passenger mention did not change his vote, he voted for that is my understanding, but was interesting. Minutes were offered and one of the minutes had passed 97 to 3 was to keep the embassy US Embassy in Israel in Jerusalem. Now that is significant. The three boats that were against him looking those that will setting those to me. There are three boats against that and that was Bernie Sanders, Bernie Elizabeth Warren and Tom call 97 other Republicans and Democrats voted to keep the embassy in Jerusalem, a lasting legacy any of the present as a lasting legacy of the only President will have the courage to do something that other Presidents said that they were going to do and have the authority to do and did not do. We were there we saw the opening of the embassy was a historic event that is the true capital of Israel. That is the true capital of Christianity is the heart and center of the universe evolving city of Jerusalem yet upon the sea have a sunbeam in Greek.

And that's where the capital of Israel should be. That's where the capital of the holy land is and that was what one of the great achievements of President from use rises 97, 300 surprises 9073 I'm surprised more Democrats. I didn't flex seven at least knowing that it probably would pass things. I think it was universally enjoyed and they like to think this is finally done it, and that they didn't have to do it down prompted you a lot of this with present truck was.

He did a lot of things both Republicans and Democrats were about to do didn't have the guts to do what it came to a fork when it came to actually following through on moving the embassy and so to me that's heartening when it shows the support for Israel when it comes to Jerusalem as its capital medicine. It's been litigated to be on passports that mean it's just no longer will that be the case now so I think that is something very going up to the phones out Linda in Pennsylvania online one Linda welcome to secular your on-air thank you again Jordan and not so much about the impeachment trial. But my question is about venture. I've heard things on the news about Congress in the future, trying to capture our President are former President and I'm wondering if would stop at Donald Trump from being able to hold public office in the future is not just because Susan Collins says she's not doing both. So there's one vote) I number the other one said were not doing boats. I think they get that through. Let's go and take another call Jordan Rosemarie in New Hampshire, remembering welcome to Jay Sekulow, thank you for taking my call. I get happy watching all of the behavior and actions on the part of the consumer in the following is just like watching a bunch of willful children whenever required to do what is right never learned to think about anybody but them down and make scale cry like crybabies to get them only that, but it's like watching a never ending and then they got this call. For witnesses listener Trey Gotti said about that house prosecutors have asked all called to testify, and he has refuse their invitation despite threats of a subpoena.

Those same prosecutors they asked the Senate to draw a negative inference. If he refuses to show up. You know what happens in real court this exactly the opposite, prosecutors cannot comment on the silence of the defendant in real court, and if you do not only will you lose your case, you might lose your license and very happy is exactly what you said. Yeah, I've said it J for 46 years as a prosecutor you can't call the defendant as a witness and if you do, you're going to be in trouble with the bargain to be in trouble with the judge you're going to get a mistrial you're not going to get a conviction that's for sure. You can do it and that is fundamental criminal law. I mean Raskin who is the author of this ridiculous letter to the President's counsel should have known a lot better maybe his law students can teach them something right to distort us as we could get pretty close. Broadcast out here in just a few minutes. I think this is important for people to start on Tuesday will give analysis to say it starts at 30 1 o'clock right same as before, we have a schedule, it will we do not know you have a full schedule because last night.

It was 1 o'clock so the Chief Justice could hear arguments in the morning at the Supreme Court, which of course now they're not doing, because the Chief Justice is in setting so maybe it starts early shall be able to at least give you the day of her day. After analysis, and if it warrants if it warrants we would break it.

Of course, through our media opportunities that we have with our plan of social media platforms what you expect to happen here so I expect either they're going to have a full day for the house managers that may bleed into the second day for their going to say let's address the constitutional issue first house managers your first presents lawyers from second and get the other issue so that they could take a day on its own, but the way it was done with art is the house managers work for 12+ hours that took two days maybe two and 24 hours, 24, 24 hours it took so took 3 1/2 to 4 days. You have to use all those hours. The house managers did the only time didn't go for a full day was on a Saturday with for three hours which was our first day weekend is basic overview. We were close to three weeks.

Yes, and we were hearing is the Senate Democrats have no intention of going on for longer than a week. That means the witnesses that opportunity to try and call to subpoena present truck. They will have an opportunity if they vote for no witnesses, which is where most of the press with the start of the week week. If you have witnesses, your expectation is good to be an ugly couple of days is a horrific video blame the President Ford but at the end of it imports. In the beginning of the B motion stood on jurisdiction, but at the end of it you think that jurisdiction will issue will persuade the 45 maybe even more that they got a quick yes I do. I think the jurisdictional issue is mandatory. Grass. I think that it's important and I think that that there will be an acquittal. I think there will be a substantive acquittal, but there certainly will be a vote to find that there was no jurisdiction. Some might find that you know as they did in the case of Sec. Belknap. Well I think he's guilty, but we don't have jurisdiction. That's always a possibility. My feeling is this is a political show trial and the President of the express of the United States is going to be acquainted again, the former President being brought up on impeachment trials when impeachment is done and brought to bear to remove and then and then disqualified if they vote is there to do that.

Remove and store for movement. You can't remove somebody that's not there. That is exactly what they were writing not break that working at have available for you Monday. The public and hopefully like the Senate will let lay that out again is not on behalf of the party to this proceeding is the ACLJason official constitutional legal position reviewed by our senior counsel right now. It's a very, very good document. It will be fantastic by Monday I think it would be worth reading Ozzie understand the history what's on here again support the work of the ACLJ could do that by going ACLJ.org and make sure you sign up for all of our social media platforms he stay engaged State Farm especially next week as news may break ACLJ's been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena.

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

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


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