Impeachment Update: Democrats Attempt PR Stunt

This is Jay Sekulow, a pre-hearing publicity stunt by the house managers in the impeachment proceedings.

Hi everybody, welcome to the broadcast. This is going to be a very interesting week coming up. Of course, we've got the political trial, that's what I'm calling it rather than calling it an impeachment trial of the former President of the United States, not the President, a President, which raises very serious constitutional issues. We're going to get into that. We're also going to talk about a pro-life case that we have that's going on that's going to go into trial in April or May. So we've got that going on. I told you yesterday we've got two new cases, one involving a Freedom of Information Act request regarding Eric Swalwell and this Chinese spy scandal. So that's going on. So we've got a lot of that going on.

And of course, in the middle of all of this, what do we end up with? Well, 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 in which you denied many factual allegations. Basically, then what it says is, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath either before or during the Senate impeachment trial concerning your conduct on January 6th. We propose that you provide your testimony, of course, including cross-examination as early as Monday, February 8th, and not later than Thursday, February 11th. We would be pleased to arrange this testimony at a mutually convenient time and place. And then they talk about if you decline this invitation, we reserve all rights and responses.

Now, the President's counsel, David Schoen and Bruce Castor responded, we're in receipt of your letter. Now, 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.

They're saying if you don't come up, it's gonna be a... It's like a negative inference like you're admitting it. Your letter confirms what is known to everyone. You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen, which I think is gonna be the pivotal decision in all of this. The use of our constitution to bring a purported impeachment proceeding is much too serious to try to play these games.

Sincerely, Bruce Castor. Jordan, your reaction? Yeah, I think the reaction is exactly right by Bruce Castor and by the President's attorneys for this impeachment is that what the house managers have tried to do here is pull yet another stunt.

Oh, former President Trump, come in. Now, we don't even know about agreement on witnesses, dad. We know how key that is and we can get into that discussion in the broadcast, but they haven't even agreed to do that and usually they have to take a vote on whether or not they're going to allow witnesses. That would of course include this case of this. They don't have subpoena power at this point because they have no power to call witnesses.

So this is a complete stunt. And then to try and 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. But here, this is a unconstitutional impeachment where the President hasn't had to assert anything yet. So him just ignoring a lawyer's request doesn't infer a bit of anything. Andy, your reaction to this when we talked yesterday was strong because the nature of trying to pull the President into this from a perspective of, in this case, a witness when they haven't even agreed to witnesses yet is pretty troubling.

It's very troubling, Jay. I mean, you're indicting 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 wouldn't even have my counsel show up because it's an unconstitutional proceeding. And then you make the threat that if you don't show up, we're going to take a negative inference from the fact that you didn't appear. I thought Raskin was a professor of law and knew better.

Apparently he doesn't. Well, I'll tell you what I think. I think that this is the beginning of what is going to be a charade next week. I don't like using the word charade in a legal brief, but in a radio broadcast, this is a political trial, folks. Understand what we're dealing with.

It's politics. They make the law up as they go along. Now we're going to let you know what we're doing on the legal issues. We've got a position paper we're going to release on Monday on this issue of constitutionality. We'll talk more about that when we come back from the break.

Take your calls as well at 800-684-3110. 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 the broadcast, everyone. We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110, joined by Andy O'Connell, Senior Counsel, and Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ. Professor Dershowitz talked about the brief that was filed by Jamie Raskin. He is the Congressman that is the lead impeachment manager.

Take a listen. And the brief that Jamie Raskin wrote said the First Amendment is not at all, at all underlined 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 that says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. I have to tell you, it's a C-minus brief with great inflation. A C-minus brief with great inflation. Andy, first of all, they're starting this proceeding off... First of all, the whole proceeding is ridiculous. It was a two-hour hearing, if you want to call it that, in the House of Representatives. It was what we call a snap impeachment. And they're talking about impeaching a President. Now, we've got about a 40-page document we're gonna release Monday that shows why the impeachment of a former President is unconstitutional.

We'll release that on Monday. We're reviewing the final edits of it now that we're gonna distribute that widely and probably send it to all the members of the Senate, too. What's 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 him? Well, Dershowitz is 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 ensures us the right of free speech. The President exercised that right, at least this is what the defense says, okay? Then you turn around and you look at the rest of the Constitution, which says that you shall not be compelled to be a witness against yourself. And what Raskin is doing, and as I said, I'm astounded because he says he was a former law professor, is you're taking the Constitution and you're ripping it apart into shreds and picking and choosing the pieces that you want to use. You're telling him that you want him 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't call the defendant as a witness. That's impermissible and as somebody said, you can lose your law license. Trey Gowdy 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, Jay, the fact that he does not testify, you cannot draw any negative inference from the fact that he remains silent. He has the absolute right to remain silent.

Putting all that together, all I come up with is, this is a joke. This is an embarrassment and it shows someone who is Raskin and his colleagues who are ignorant of the Constitution and certainly of the basics and fundamentals of law. Uh, Jordan, they put in there, if you decline this invitation, we reserve ending all rights, including the rights established a trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong and inverse inference regarding your actions. You already said that would be inappropriate here, which it clearly would be, but they haven't even been able to call witnesses yet. It's even inappropriate in a civil trial. So anyway, in a criminal trial, you can't, you can't be forced to, to testify and taking the fifth is not an inference of guilt, uh, because of 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. And in fact, they say they want this to be done quickly.

They want this to be done in a week. They're not going to be calling witnesses. So there's going to be no opportunity to assert a fifth.

But I agree with Andy. The truth is high crimes and misdemeanors crimes that that sounds to me more like a criminal matter, not a civil matter where you pay a financial penalty. This is a penalty where you lose a fundamental liberty, right?

You don't go to prison, but you can lose the right to seek future federal office, uh, and the benefits that came with holding a senior federal office as President of the United States. Let me encourage, we got a lot of people that are watching, I know listening by radio, but we got a lot better are tuning in also on our social media platforms. If you're on Facebook, we encourage you to share those 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, Andy, you and I and Jordan have been reviewing, uh, a document that our team has put together. I don't want to get into too much detail, but it focuses in on one issue particularly, and that is the lack of constitutional precedent and the lack of constitutionality of this idea of what we are calling a late impeachment and an impeachment when the President cannot be removed because he's no longer in office. He's not the President as the constitution speaks so clearly, but a President, a former President. There is no late 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 governor general of India who 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 it means something to us at ACLJ, the founders and drafters of the constitution knew that late impeachment was an option and rejected it.

Once you have left office, you cannot be convicted on an article of impeachment sent over by the house. My contention is the house cannot even impeach, much less the Senate try and convict. It's not permissible and we'll flesh that out greater detail in the document that we're going to be issuing next week as you say, Jay. We're going to try to issue that the day before the trial so that you'll have access to it on our social media pages and of course on our website and we may well send it to each member of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat. It's just the constitutional position on why the lay process is unconstitutional and I thought that was actually during a very weak part. They saved that for the end of their brief, the house managers and probably for good reason.

I think it was the weakest part of their, their case and it's the most, but it's the most important factor whether you can even proceed. Well, and in fact they saved it for the last, but the, uh, the senators and what we now know at least about the trial, which we don't know a lot yet, we don't know. The trial schedule has not been announced publicly about, you know, who, who will go. It'll likely be the house managers going first as prosecutors, but how long will they have to go? How many days could that take? How long will the defense have to go?

How long will question answer go? But we do know what needs to be addressed first. And the Senate has actually asked the attorneys and the house managers from both sides to address the constitutional question first because the Democrats know that's a hurdle, the major hurdle to getting to 67 they've got to convince at a 45 of these senators, I mean they've got to convince 12 more, uh, to get to the number they need, uh, to, to actually potentially if that's if all five who thought the trial was constitutional agreed that you could with impeachment, which is not necessarily the case. So you've got to convince all of these Republicans who think they don't even have the jurisdiction here.

They can basically close their ears to both sides because it doesn't matter. That's how they voted. And that's the first thing that has to be addressed. And yet these, uh, the house managers, they left it in the very back because they want the parade of horribles to go first. And they're hoping that enough parade of horribles and even those 45 senators who said, I don't have jurisdiction here will somehow say, even though I don't have jurisdiction, I'm going to punish someone. That would be, that would be certainly egregious for them to take that, to take that position.

I think they'd be held accountable to take a vote like that. Well, we've actually asserted in the document that we're preparing and this was Andy's original idea that this kind of targeted approached in late impeachment where 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 him this way through an impeachment proceeding is basically unconstitutional because it also constitutes a bill of attainder and a bill of attainder is specifically prohibited in the U S constitution. Our 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.

Andy. So there's a specific prohibition on a bill of attainder. Look, one of the great fears that the founders of the constitution, the drafters had was a bill of attainder.

And what that means is a black mark directed against you, your lineage, your heritage, and making you a marked person, putting the Scarlet letter on you 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 to pursue an 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 President 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 it. This was nothing but, and 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 they're up to. There's also no doubt in my mind that somewhere between 45 and 48 senators are going to move to acquit.

So I think that's coming too. I think the Democrats know that. So the hill they're climbing here is not one where they're going to obtain a conviction.

They know that what they're going to try to do is damage the President politically. We're talking more about that. We're also going to give you an update on a pro life case that we've got going on. We're going to be an update on that in the next segment, but also keep talking about this issue of the impeachment.

We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. We're producing this document and it is a lengthy document for Monday and that's your support of the ACLJ lets us do that. So let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org and support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice.

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.

Hey, welcome back to the broadcast, everyone. Taking your calls at 800-684-3110. 229,771 hope the plan will be to have 250,000, one of a million signatures. So if you haven't signed on it yet, I'd encourage you to do so at ACLJ.org. We will be sending out some emails and newsletters about it this weekend.

So that's another way for you to do it, but I'd sure like to be able to let them know by Monday when we file with that word at 250,000 if possible. Let's take Larry's call, then we're going to give an update on something else. Larry, go ahead. Hello, Jay.

Thank you very much for everything you do. I just have a couple of quick questions with regard to this rampant dissociation of our Constitution and the double standards that we're dealing with. What can you say to your viewers?

What can we do to eliminate or to work towards getting rid of this? I see streaming comments on Facebook and all the respect, everyone's stating the obvious. The obvious is being stated.

We know that. I think American needs some direction. What can we really do? It's two years from the next election. How can we peacefully do this? Yeah, well, it's got to be, number one, peaceful so you don't let what happened over a January 6th ever happen again.

That was horrific and a terrible day for the country. What you do is what we're doing, which is as a 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. And we're also having a petition. Now that petition is covered by the First Amendment. You have the right to petition a government for the redress of a grievance. This is, Jordan, a redress of a grievance. And the grievance is that a petition is taking place of a person who is a private citizen.

Absolutely. And you know, I feel like a lot of Americans, I think feel, of those 75 million Americans who voted for President Trump, that this is an impeachment of us. It's an attempt to cancel all of us and to tarnish all of us like a bill of attainder, but more than just President Trump, but for any of his supporters and for all of those Republicans in the House and the Senate who supported President Trump in his reelection, it's to tarnish them as well.

And so it's totally political, but it's not constitutional. And we're going to make that position known in a very thorough way. We're going to be doing it in the media. I've got two interviews after this show today. On Monday, I already have five scheduled from the morning till evening. Same thing goes on Tuesday. We're going to be taking a very active role in defending the President in the media, in the court of public opinion, where most people will get their information from during this trial, which will be, which will, even if it's short, that as we know, takes hours at a time to go through information and it gets very, very tedious and repetitive, especially on the House side, because all of those House managers want their 15 minutes of fame.

So it's their 15 minutes of fame. It's like the same thing over and over. It's nasty, it's partisan.

But what we can do is break down the truth for people. And the truth is this is getting close to kangaroo court status. As that letter pointed out by David Schoen, Chief Justice Roberts isn't even there. This isn't an impeachment trial of a President.

You know, Andy, we've said that a lot. The fact that the chief, and we say that in our document, that the chief justice is not presiding says everything. So what is this a trial of? I mean, the chief justice presides when it's the President. Oh, so they say, the Senate says, well, he refused to do that. So it's, it's not a trial of the President. It's the trial of a President, a former President. You look in the text of the constitution and it just doesn't say you can do that.

No, as a matter of fact, the constitution very clearly says that in the impeachment of a 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 go and do your own thing. This is, he didn't say it in these words, but the inference that he made is very clear by not appearing and saying, I'm not presiding is this is a political charade. It's a, it's an affront to kangaroo courts everywhere in my opinion, because the chief justice is saying, I don't want any part of it. So what they do, they drag Patrick Leahy, 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 him as presiding officer who has no neutrality in this thing whatsoever.

He is one of the most partisan of all the Democrat senators. Not that any of them could preside over a 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 it ain't, and it ain't an impeachment trial in my opinion. Well, let's me, I want to change topic for a moment here and talk about what is going to be a trial and that's a trial on the pro life cause.

And I want to keep you posted on that. The other ACLJ where Jeff Surtees is senior counsel for the ACLJ. Jeff, you're working on a trial. Let's talk about what this is and what's at stake.

That's right, Jay. Yeah, just about over five years ago we sued the city of Englewood, New Jersey, challenging its buffer zone law that effectively suppresses the right of sidewalk counselors to speak with women accessing the largest abortion clinic in the city. And because of the wording of that law and the manner in which it applies at this specific abortion clinic, where our client attempts to counsel women contemplating abortion, the city has basically shut down the entirety of the public sidewalk right outside that clinic. So in order for sidewalk counselors such as our client, Gerald Turco, to speak with women going into the clinic, they have to navigate these various buffer zones, avoid traffic on the adjoining street, get past the clinic's escorts who do everything they can to drown out our client's pro-life message. And yet our client actually testified during her deposition in this case.

It's like going through an obstacle course. And this hindrances burden on her free speech rights. This continues to this very day. We actually won this case at the district court on summary judgment. And then the city appealed. And because of, how shall we say, an ideologically unfriendly panel, to put it that way, the Third 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. And that's what we're working on now. We're preparing for a trial that's going to take place sometime this spring, we imagine. We have a conference with the court in two weeks where these deadlines and dates are going to be firmly established. So Jeff, basically what you've got established is, again, they treat abortion as if it's speech that's different than any other form of speech and create speech-free zones, which we've won at the Supreme Court multiple times, but yet it keeps coming.

It keeps coming. In fact, Jay, just this last year, the Supreme Court has turned down three surpetitions involving buffer zones that suppress the free speech rights of pro-life advocates. You know, this court has done this, even though Justice Clarence Thomas recently observed in one of these surpetitions that there are layering problems with the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence in this area. So while we fully expect to prevail a trial in this case, and if need be, at the court of appeals, we're fully prepared to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. There is no abortion exception to the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court, once and for all, needs to say so. Absolutely right.

Jeff, thanks for the update on that. So whether it's giving a legal position on something as significant as a Senate impeachment of a former President, which I still can't even believe I'm having to say those words, or whether it's defending the right to speak out against abortion on a public area, the American Center for Law and Justice is there front and center. And your support of the ACLJ makes that all possible. So let me encourage you to go to ACLJ.org, that's ACLJ.org, and have your voice heard.

It's critical that we hear from you, and it's 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, of course, YouTube, where we just launched a new channel.

Also, we're on Rumble and other social media platforms, including Periscope and others. We encourage you to do that. Again, support the work of the ACLJ. We're here for another half hour. If you don't get the whole hour of the program, just go over to one of those platforms or ACLJ.org.

We're talking there. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

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

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

And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. All right, welcome to the broadcast, everyone. We've been talking about it the first half hour of the program. We've got a little pre-trial fireworks of sorts. I mean, not really fireworks, but a pre-trial show, if you will, on this impeachment. Now, our view, and you're going to see it fully vetted Monday, where we're going to issue a document that's probably 35 or 40 pages by the time we're done with it, points out that this impeachment of a former President is completely unconstitutional and unprecedented and dangerous.

What's the limiting principle of all this, by the way? You just go back and impeach the President. With all the movements that are going on right now and the cancellation culture, I mean, you've got to be very careful about this. And legal precedents are important. And 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, they have also called for, in a very late move, obviously, this just happened yesterday, live testimony from the 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 constitutional position is this should not even be moving forward. Look, Jay, if you read the Constitution, and Jamie Raskin ought to do that every once in a while, I should, 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 President shall be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, as an old former prosecutor, right, the President, the President, the President, as a former prosecutor, I look at that and I say that's criminal language. He's got to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

That's not civil language. Then you issue a letter and you say come and testify or else we're going to draw an adverse inference from that. That makes no sense, not even in the most minute, obscure court in the land, in 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't call him as a witness. You can't even suggest that he didn't testify. You'd get a mistrial. You'd get an admonition from the court. You ought to get disbarred. And yet they're doing that in this case.

Why? Because this isn't a real trial. This is a political show trial of the Stalinist type. That's all it is, Jay. I want to play, uh, I'll do when we come back, let's save the Trey Gowdy comment, but Jordan, I want to hear your, your thoughts on what they're really trying to accomplish here.

They know they're not going to get a conviction. You know, it's interesting because Russell on Facebook wrote in, I just can't fathom the stupidity of this impeachment with a pandemic going on and it being on the taxpayer's dime. And dad, I reminded where we were last year. We knew the pandemic was coming. When we were on the floor of the U S Senate, we knew about COVID. We didn't know the extent of how dangerous it would be. We didn't know that this time next year, uh, we'd still be wearing masks that, uh, we'd be getting vaccines out.

Thank goodness. President Trump was correct about that and project warp speed, but that we'd still be living in a place where COVID is raging. So the Senate did it once then when they knew they had no chance. And a lot of people came out of that trial, sick with infections. Some didn't know it was COVID. Others did like Senator Rand Paul. And now they're doing it once again in the middle of a pandemic and an economic crisis, they're going to focus their time on impeaching a private citizen and even threatening him to come and testify.

It is a joke. And as Andy said, it makes kangaroo courts look good. I'll tell you what we want to hear from you next half hour.

We want to hear from you. What are your thoughts about this upcoming impeachment trial? What do you, do you think this is harmful to America? Do you think it's wrong for the country or do you think it's the right thing to do?

Whatever your opinion is, let's discuss it. 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 to put this 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 our lawyers are, around the country and around the world. ACLJ.org.

Back with your calls at 800-684-3110 in just a moment. 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. For the broadcast everyone, we're going right to your phone calls, 800-684-3110.

Make sure you share this with your friends. Let's go to Dee who's calling from Washington State. Again, if you want to talk to us, 800-684-3110. Dee?

Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just want to know, why do we keep saying acquitted? It seems to legitimize this process. Are we going to have to go through this crazy thing once it's been proven illegitimate?

Yes, to give you the direct answer. There's an argument that they shouldn't 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'd have to have 51 votes and those votes are not there.

You would not get a Democrat to support it, I don't believe. Now, maybe you get some Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema, maybe Joe Manchin, when the proceedings begin and there'll be a motion to dismiss upfront, but Andy, you call it a acquittal because that's what it will be. Yeah, it will be an acquittal and it ought to be an acquittal because there is no jurisdiction. Look, just so that you know, jurisdiction is the power to say, that's the Latin juris decorae, 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 intended to happen. In other words, a court has got to determine its jurisdiction first and only five Republican senators defected from the overwhelming majority, which said, we don't even have a 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 Kamala Harris as the presiding officer, who exercised that authority the other day, by the way, in connection with the $1.9 trillion Rescue America package for the very first time. So that shows that the power is in the Democrats to go forward and regardless of the fact that I don't believe there's any jurisdiction to try this case, they're going to do it. Jordan, politically, what are they trying to get out of it, the Democrats here? Damage 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, but that he will have a significant role to play in the midterm election.

So to do anything possible to damage him in the eyes of the American people who may be, I mean, they're probably like at this point saying, please God, just enough of this. Legislate, do your job. I'll disagree. I'll agree.

We'll debate that. But why still President Trump? Here we are.

We're not even to it yet. February 9th, 9th, we're going to begin a trial putting former President Donald Trump back in the spotlight as the number one news item instead of the American people, COVID plans, vaccine plans, COVID relief plans, how to get that money distributed instead of that and getting the rest of the cabinet confirmed and other legislation. Instead of that, we're putting President Trump front and center yet again. And I think the Democrats think that this constant, they did it once. They're going to do it again. They're trying to tarnish him as much as possible. And, uh, and hope and their big hope is that somehow with their parade of horribles that they will show all this video that he has nothing to do with, but they'll show all this video of people doing bad things in the Capitol that 45 senators, enough of those senators who said we shouldn't even be here, we'll have some change of heart and said, you know, this unconstitutional trial, it is constitutional now because I don't like what I saw that that would be a very bizarre reasoning and wrong, but that they possibly could get to the point where they could bar him from future office.

Like Andy said, this bill of attainder idea and the constant harassment of this President since before he took the oath of office and since he left the White House. You know what I find interesting, Andy, I'm reading this right now, the, um, the letter from Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, and he says, he makes this reference that President Ford and Clinton both provided testimony while in office and the Supreme Court held just last year that you were not immune from legal process while serving as President. Now, by the way, in that case, there still has not been a return. There's not been any documents delivered to the DA per that request because it's still pending. Another one of those cases, the part of that case is still pending before, guess who? The Supreme Court.

So just a little correction there. So there's no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings. Indeed, whereas a sitting President might raise concerns about distraction from official duties, that concern is obviously an applicable here. It's inapplicable here because he is a former President, right? A former President is not the, I go back to that, is not the President. Thus in their own letter, they're acknowledging basically the unconstitutionality of what they're doing.

Well, that's exactly right, Jay. No one read, must have proof read that letter. He ought to have gotten one of his law students to look at it because the law student would know better than he. You cannot try to remove a President who has been removed from office. Look, on January 20th, Donald Trump ceased to be President of the United States and became a private citizen, okay? That ended impeachment.

There is no late impeachment in the United States. You cannot remove someone who's already removed. All you're trying to do is mark him. You're trying to mark him.

You're trying, as Jordan said, to attain him politically because he's a force in the Republican Party and a fear of the Democratic Party and the midterm elections will be here in less than 24 months and they're apprehensive that this President, now ex-President of the United States, is going to have an effect on the midterm election and may be removed from power. That's all this is. It is not a constitutional proceeding.

It is a very unconstitutional proceeding and Raskin knows this and his reasoning is seriously flawed. All right, so let's go to Michelle's calling in California. Michelle, go ahead. You're on the air. Hi, Jay.

Thanks for taking my call. My question is about the weaponization of this process. Is there any way that we can hold the House accountable for not having had a full hearing or due process? Is there anything that can be done to hold them accountable so that they don't weaponize this process down the road? Yeah, and that is going to be a Washington Post headline that says, as it did the first time, Trump acquitted, is going to say Trump acquitted again. I hope the American people are going to say, these are a waste of time proceedings. It costs a lot of money, are not constitutionally sound and damage the constitutional process and it's harmful to our republic. That's what I hope is the message on this. Look, the incidents of January 6th are horrific.

They were terrible and what took place in the Capitol is a mark on our country, not only embarrassing to the country, but an embarrassment to our democracy and our constitutional republic. But having said that, you don't respond to that with an unconstitutional process. But Jordan, that's precisely what the House managers did here, again. Again with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's blessing, with the blessing of the Democrat party, with the blessing of Joe Biden, who is the highest ranking Democrat and has never stepped in to say this shouldn't happen. In fact, has said it must happen for unity.

So that's his idea of unity. But then I go to Margie on YouTube and she said, and I think this is right because we've been representing the President for so long on 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 I'm already starting to get those texts again that weren't 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 front of the American people in primetime TV by Democrats who just happened to hate him and feel like when they're doing it to him because it's because of policies that they supported, that they're also tearing them apart and that they're attacking them. And I think by putting Ted Lieu and Eric Swalwell on the team, two of the most partisan Democrats in the house, that is what they are doing. They're telling all of us, you're just as bad as him.

We hate you just as much as we hate him. That's why we're willing to put the country through this again. You know, we talk about the witnesses issue.

Let me play. This is from a reporter to Nancy Pelosi. Senator Graham said that if the Democrats call any witness, that they'll be prepared.

The Republicans will be prepared to call in the FBI and quote, tell us about people who preplanned this attack and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol. What's your response to that? And your question is a waste of time.

It's not a waste of time. They just called the President as a witness or asked him to appear voluntary. But it's saying we can force you to come to Andy. Yeah, I'd like to see them force a private citizen to come to an impeachment trial of a former President.

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. Look, I'm not going to 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 within their own caucuses that these become giant distractions in the midst of real ongoing problems. And then it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to vote the right way.

So, you know, we, we push a lot on Joe Manchin. It doesn't mean he's going to vote. He didn't vote to, uh, to declare that this was unconstitutional. That doesn't mean he'll vote to impeach, but he did last time around and that was pretty absurd.

So I would imagine this time around, he'll follow in with party line, but, but I don't want to predict and, uh, and in some others, but the truth is I think the Democrats look worse now than they did even in the last impeachment, because this is just rehashing the past. And no one likes doing that with their taxpayer money and their elected officials. 100% right.

We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Last segment right ahead. 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, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

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

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American center for law and justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today, ACLJ.org. So let me give you an interesting couple developments here for the last time in the broadcast. So as we mentioned, they passed the COVID relief by a tie-breaking vote. The vice President broke the tie. So the Senate version that has the money going to illegal immigrants that has the $1.9 trillion end up passing.

It was 50 to 50 and is a passing. Joe Manchin did not change his vote. He voted for that is my understanding, but it was interesting. Amendments were offered. And one of the amendments that passed 97 to three was to keep the embassy of the U S embassy in Israel, in Jerusalem. Now that is significant. The three votes that were against I'm looking those up.

Will was sending those to me. There are three votes against that. And that was Bernie Sanders.

Come on, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, and Tom Cole. 97 other Republicans and Democrats voted to keep the embassy in Jerusalem, a lasting legacy, Andy, of the President. It is a lasting legacy is the only President who had the courage to do something that other Presidents said that they were going to do and had the authority to do and did not do. We were there, Jay, when we saw the opening of the embassy, it was a historic event. That is the true capital of Israel. That is the true capital of Christianity. It is the heart and center of the universe, the holy city of Jerusalem.

Yeah. Paul, he's here to Salim 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 one of the great achievements of President Trump. Jordan, you surprised it was 97 to three.

I'm a little bit surprised it was 97 to three. I'm surprised more Democrats, uh, didn't, uh, flex, uh, some, at least knowing that it probably would pass because I think it was universally, uh, enjoy. They liked the fact this was finally done and that they didn't have to do it. The Donald Trump did it. You know, a lot of this, uh, with President Trump was he did a lot of things, both Republicans and Democrats would have loved to do, but didn't have the guts to do when it came to reform, 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, uh, when it comes to, uh, Jerusalem as its capital, that is something that's been litigated. Can it be on passports?

I mean, it's just, and no longer will that be the case now. So I think that is something, uh, very good. I want to go to the phones, uh, though, Linda in Pennsylvania online one, uh, Linda, welcome to secular. You're on the air. Uh, thank you.

Uh, hi Jay and Jordan. Uh, I have a question and not so much about the impeachment and the trial, but my question is about censure. I've heard, uh, things on the news about, uh, Congress, uh, in the future, trying to fetch your, our President, our former President. And, um, I'm wondering if that would stop, uh, uh, Donald Trump from being able to hold public office in the future. A censure does not. I don't think they could get a censure through though. Um, because Susan Collins says she's not doing both. So there's one vote right there. And a number of the other ones said, we're not doing both.

So I don't think they get that through. Let's go ahead and take another call. Jordan. All right, let's go back to the phones. Marie in New Hampshire online three, Marie, welcome to JCQO live.

Thank you so much for taking my call. I just have to say that watching all of this foolishness, the behavior and the actions on the part of Pelosi and Schumer and their followers is just like watching a bunch of willful children who were never required to do what is right. And they never learned to think about anybody but themselves and they still cry like cry babies to get their own way. That's what it's like watching them. Well, I mean, look, you're right about that.

That's the kind of never ending. And then they got this call for him for witnesses. Listen to what Trey Gowdy said about that. House prosecutors have asked Donald Trump to testify and he has refused their invitation despite threats of a subpoena. Those same prosecutors may ask the Senate to draw a negative inference if he refuses to show up. You know what happens in real court?

It's exactly the opposite. Prosecutors cannot comment on the silence of a defendant in real court. And if you do, not only will you lose your case, you might lose your law license. Andy, there you have it.

That is exactly what you said. Yeah, I've said it, Jay, 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 a bar. You're going to be in trouble with a judge. You're going to get a mistrial. You're not going to get a conviction. That's for sure.

You can't 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 him something. All right. Let me ask you this, Jordan, as we get ready to close the broadcast out here in just a few minutes.

I think this is important for people. This is going to start on Tuesday. We'll give analysis. The Tuesday it starts, it's starting at one o'clock, right?

Same as before. Do we have a schedule yet, Will? We do not know yet because last time it was one 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 isn't sitting. So maybe it starts earlier. So we'll be able to at least give you the day of or day after analysis. And if it warrants, if it warrants, we would break in, of course, through our media opportunities that we have with our social media platforms. What do 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 or they're going to say, let's address that constitutional issue first.

House managers go first, President's lawyers go second and then get to the other issue. So that could, that could take a day on its own. But the way it was done with ours is the house managers went for, I think it was 12 plus hours. That took two days, maybe two and a half days, 24 hours, 24 hours. So it took, so it took three and a half to four days. You didn't have to use all those hours. The house managers did. The only time we didn't go for a full day was on a Saturday with for three hours, which was our first day. We kind of just did a basic overview of what they would be hearing. We were close to three weeks.

Yes. And what we're hearing is that the Senate Democrats have no intention of this going on for longer than a week. That means no witnesses. That means they're going to have an opportunity to try and call to subpoena President Trump. They won't even have that opportunity if they vote for no witnesses, which is where most Democrats want this done in a week. Can't get it done in a week if you have witnesses.

Andy, your, your expectation is going to be, it'll be an ugly couple of days cause they're going to show that horrific video. They're going to blame the President for it, but at the end of it, in the beginning of it, there'll be motions on jurisdiction. But at the end of it, you think that jurisdictional issue will persuade the 45 and maybe even more that they got to acquit?

Yes, I do. I think the jurisdictional issue is mandatory to address. I think that it's important and I think that the, there will be an acquittal. Uh, I think there will be a substantive acquittal, but there certainly will be a vote, uh, to find that there was no jurisdiction. Some may find that, you know, as they did in the case of secretary 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, the ex President of the United States is going to be acquitted again. The former President being brought up on impeachment trials when impeachment is done and brought to bear to remove and then end, then disqualify if their vote is there to do that. Remove and, not or, to remove and.

You can't remove somebody that's not there. The founders knew exactly what they were writing. And our brief that we're going to have available for you Monday for the public and to hopefully enlighten the Senate, uh, we'll lay that out. Again, it's not on behalf of a party to this proceeding. It's the ACLJ's official constitutional legal position being reviewed by our senior councils right now. It's a very, very good document.

Uh, it'll be fantastic by Monday and I think it'll be worth reading. Uh, so you understand the history of what's on here. Again, support the work of the ACLJ. You could do that by going to ACLJ.org and make sure you sign up for all of our social media platforms so you stay engaged and stay informed, especially next week as news may break. 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.