This broadcaster has 755 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
February 8, 2021 12:00 pm
Secular radio unfortunately it's impeachment.
We in the political theater begins to talk about that line from Washington DC Jay Sekulow line versus the brotherhood is impeached, the Chief Justice shall shoppers on and to me this is shocking. We show we found out yes Chuck Schumer had called Justice Roberts is more lively, but he did just as far as it had not come across the street are not impeaching the President phone lines are open for your questions right now: 1-800-684-3110. This was a strong signal to all of us. This was going to be a partisan hearing the Democrat in the chair who's already voted for impeachment. So it is a farce is unconstitutional. More than anything is unwise to divide the country and now your host Jordan secular secular radio. We are to give 2064 30 did so this is the date the impeachment trial second impeachment trial of Pres. Trump begins in the U.S. Senate were starting to get some more details about what that may look like. So let me explain. It looks like on Tuesday at 1 PM. The Senate will go to session for the Trial Ct., Chief Justice John Roberts won't be there because this is not a actual President that's been tried, but a private citizen and there will be four hours of debate. Now it's four hours for each side or just four hours total site two hours on each side four hours a debate about whether or not this is constitutional at all, and that another vote, like Rand Paul asked for earlier last month. I later last last month were 45 Republicans voted that this is not constitutional, sending a signal that there would not be the votes there to impeach Pres. Trump that he would be acquitted, but you would go through that voting did and then each side would get 16 hours to 16 hours a piece that takes at least two days to get through a piece to make their case, then after that which I think will probably bleed over to the center to work on Sunday and on Presidents' Day on Monday and so she will see Sunday and Monday but maybe on Tuesday you get to the vote on witnesses. The house managers will likely ask for a vote on witnesses and they'll be a debate about whether there should be witnesses, and that a vote that is critical to how long the trial will actually last if odd, let's say Monday or Tuesday. They win that vote and witnesses are allowed. This could go on for weeks. If they lose that vote. It basically goes right to did the vote on the the election.
The acquittal or conviction that somewhere in their fan. They get a question and answer time. I don't know where that's built-in.
I guess that somewhere after each side goes 16 hours before the request for witnesses. Yeah, I think it likely be after the presentations, we don't know that for certain. All the news on the hill. Jordan is the leader. Schumer and Lena McConnell are very close to an agreement and they would put out those specifics about look elated out well and if it's as reported and as you describe the Jordan argue and I'm not saying this is what can happen, but argues that this shouldn't proceed past tomorrow because as that debate on the constitutionality takes place we are providing every office in the United States Senate without analysis.
You talked about and Jordan.
I know you're gonna get into this in greater detail, but let me sum it down procedurally at some point after that debate, there will be a motion to dismiss of some variety on constitutional grounds. Jordan argue this trial should not clear that hurdle it would take 51 senators to say we do not have jurisdiction of a Jordan, I think a plain reading of the Constitution, as well as case law and precedent. I don't think this trial should go past that vote got me obligated to this. Is it right here. It's supposed to live right email@example.com. The ACLJ submits critical legal analysis to the U.S. Senate on unconstitutional impeachment trial. Our petition we have 245,817 if you want to get to 250,000 today signed the petition to stop to agree that this is unconstitutional trial of a private citizen sign that to date ACLJ.org I think we can get 250,000 for the broadcast is finished today ACLJ.org in our memo are brief is available for all of you just like it is for all of those US editors about why this is unconstitutional. We get into that when they become who we get back on secular challenges facing Americans is a time when our value freedom constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms and the event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you. Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.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 and voiceless. Is there any hope for that culture to survive.
And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.
The ramifications of 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/were starting to get a sense of what the trial will look like.
Four hours tomorrow debate on the constitutionality that a vote that ever will likely not pass.
Unfortunately, that we agree with that position but will be key is think they will be very key is due to the same 45 senators remain at those 45 Republicans take the same vote that they did a couple weeks ago and say note that we still believe after all the talking. After all the briefs had been filed.
This is unconstitutional. This is outside of our role of the Constitution. We can't do this yet think two things are to be key on that question Jordan, first of all, the 45 who voted previously. The Senate does not have jurisdiction, will they stay true to that vote. My guess is that they would which would mean those 45 would vote for a motion to dismiss and then I think the second question is after a couple more weeks to review analysis including the analysis that we put forward.
Will there be additional votes to add to those 45 and remember Jordan and these can be senators who actually think I have had big problems with the way that the President acted or what he said or what happened on January 6 but still would recognize the restraint inside the U.S. Constitution. There were five Republicans a couple of them have said that they do have serious concerns about the jurisdiction involved so that could lump that 45 number up a little bit and Jordan, I think there you than people like Tim Kane and Joe mansion on the Democrat side of the aisle that if they were intellectually honest with this. I think they know the Senate doesn't has jerk just doesn't have jurisdiction.
Here's a look. I want to give false hope about what an elected politician is actually going to do, but they do have an obligation under the Constitution to do that analysis, and cast a vote first on jurisdiction, regardless of how they feel about the underlying case. So I think you're right. The question is how far above 45, in my view. Will that vote go you know I want to write to any kind of movement working on the hike is called a memo called a brief it's what we titled it and what it's up at the ACLJ is is a legal analysis that we've delivered to all the U.S. Senate offices and those US senators that goes deeper into the idea that this is unconstitutional. The way that you can't just do it at our on radio or a five-minute interview on television do a lot of those today but goes deeper, and one of the points that we make right off of page 4.
Actually Andy is that proponents of Senate jurisdiction here that would be the house managers and the Democrats and five Republicans. It's interesting because they quote do not begin their constitutional jurisdiction analysis with the text of the Constitution. Instead, they begin with history and nonbinding statements made during the debates of the constitutional convention before they finally address the actual text. This approach is telling because a true textual analysis always begins with the words of the text and only resort to legislative history if the meaning of the text is not plain so they already are trying to ignore the meaning of the text at five Jordan where we are at the ACLJ and I am in you. Are those of us who have taken positions with respect to the constitutionality or not know that the of this proceeding, know that the first thing that you look at is the text of the Constitution of the United States and the text of the Constitution of the United States.
If you're going to be an originalist as I am.
That is what the founders wanted is that it is only a sitting President.
The President who is subject to impeachment and not someone who has left office and who is no longer an incumbent in that position. That is very clear. You don't have to go outside the text of the Constitution bring in legislative history where the Constitution is very clear on the point and in this case the Constitution is abundantly clear that unless you are the sitting President of the United States.
You cannot be tried on impeachment charges that originated in the House of Representatives and Chief Justice Roberts is my consent that signal very clearly to the Senate when he was asked if he would preside what was intending to preside over the trial. If you want to call it a trial. I called it a show parade really and Chief Justice Roberts very clearly said to be any part of that. This is not an impeachment trial that is what I would preside over if it was a sitting President, but under the circumstances where Pres. Trump is no longer in office.
I want no part of it, think about this. Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy got all of the media saying you know were knots this is clear. The Constitution even though it's not that you could do that, you could try a former President Sen. Chris Murphy. He agreed. He thinks you can, but he doesn't think it's settled think this is like some settled issue. Take a listen.
He was on TV this weekend talking about a Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy take a listen I will emit that this is of course a matter of first impression, and so I don't think the case that Sen. Paul is making here is a ridiculous one I come to a different judgment so that I be there you go, and it's the idea is that even Democrat senators who agree with this realize they are doing something for the first time and it this is kinda iffy. And when you do something for the first time and it's not clear it's not settled.
You better make sure you're okay with what you're doing because you're opening up a Pandora's box potentially will yes you are, because what they're saying is that you can go back now and you can try any form up or if if the Democrats prevail, and they may very well prevail on the jurisdictional issue and find there is jurisdiction you can go back and try any former President of the United States and impeaching the house can impeach in the Senate can try for things that were committed during his tenure in office as a ridiculous proposition, and Sen. Murphy is correct when he says that Sen. Paul position is not ridiculous. In fact, it's very sound. We are treading on dangerous ground will we decide to go back after a President has left office, assume Senate jurisdiction and try that person and try to convict that person who is now a private citizen of high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe it is absolutely unconstitutional is not provided for in the Constitution, and perhaps a lot of Democrats a lot of Democrats who may feel that there was guiltier will nonetheless is in Secretary of War Belknap's trial in 1876, say forget whether he's guilty or innocent.
We don't even get to that point. If we don't have jurisdiction. They did so even that only time they can cite a former official being impeached enough senators agreed that it was outside their jurisdiction to follow through, even though they believed he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
They wanted to vote to convict. They said we can't because it's outside her jurisdiction want to go to Nancy and Florida online why Nancy welcome secular you're on the air. A guy that was great about. I understand the prosecutors are going to be playing that is January now like you possibly can bring in all the band that night that prosecutors might say what you can, because Maxine Waters is not fine frown. Why not aspire.
It's telling that they're going to go to somebody's video evidence is allowed, and I believe it gets it sounds, it's going to be in this. It was our last impeachment trial a year ago I said that that it's it's out there now that the present Trump's team rightfully so. Been talking this beginning is to show the videos of Chuck Schumer talking about the whirlwind and the Gore. Sachin Cavanaugh won't know what hit of the Maxine Waters telling people to harass Trump administration officials wherever they can find them, and the list goes on. I think that that that they will have the they will have their own parade of horrible's to show and I think the comeback and saying you know what this is not that prosecutable speech that's me to prosecute is not nice but it's not illegal speech in American. It's certainly not speech you impeach people over you first about her and I think the main reason the video evidence will be allowed is because it fits the house managers case right now without being able to show that video. I'm not sure where they would start so I think I think that's why the decision has been made. But look, if it was good for the goose is good for the gander.
And II think the defense team likely will show video to show the double standard in I think a secondary point that would be made with all those videos. Jordan is not only you know it is the sort of hypocrisy on display, but the point of past officials being able to be impeached. I mean all of the senators. One day Jordan there to be passed officials. One day when they retire.
Do they want all of their public service service to be under the scrutiny of the impeachment microscope for the rest of their life.
It might give them pause, grabbing Kemal here said the rights are going to continue your like the riots are to continue in the streets and and and they should continue in the streets it and a lot of those those protests were turning extremely violent over the summer.
She seemed courage those and then you have Maxine Waters was display for everybody by 36 about about harassing members of the Trunk cabinet not welcome anymore create a crowd such as you go up to heaven and say something nasty, but create a crowd surrounded great insight some kind of incident is what she's talking about potentially and yet do I think that speaks it's okay. Probably that nice but probably okay and certainly then you compare to that's going to be the American people get to see that to the Democrats could have defaced as well is well structured, only when 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 and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and or value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms and 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 164, 31 to say our petition right at 247,000 over that actually inside the we get to 250,000 which is been our goal that will get those those US senators and immediately broken down by state as well. If you go to ACLJ.org right now and send the petitioner homepage. This is an unconstitutional could see right here stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate again.
That's not even the update number them geographically pulled from right before we were on air. Gerard shipped over 247,000 let's get to over 250,000 before were done with the broadcast. Now takes a minute doesn't cost anything. You got ACLJ that organ you sign the petition.
I do also highlight an anti-we've posted our teams are working on this to tirelessly. I've got one had an annotated version here already in my in my hands.
45 page what we were calling is the reasons proceedings. With this trial by the United States it sitting as a court impeachment violate the United States Constitution were delivering it a state is said to all the US student offices I've read from some of it but this is a key document that people could go through. It's cleared up for them to read cleared up for the disabled share with their friends and family. I think it's shows example what the ACLJ is doing what we believe Andy is the most key part of this, a key to that vote. Of course that will happen will get another chance to see that vote as we talked about after there's that for our initial debate tomorrow on the constitutionality of this proceeding. I think that's the most important one of the two most important votes. The proceeding is that vote if it holds the 45 either the second vote is the witness vote. Maybe I think after bid to the impeachment process before with me once before and being on the floor. The Senate, you would agree with those. If that vote to see what you could actually get a key key here on happy people think this is wrong, that they're sitting there in the do the math and number two is the catalog it's getting continue I would succumb later on, probably next week which will be the witness vote Jordan. You are absolutely correct. If God could have jurisdiction first and in our comprehensive memorandum which is posted and available for everybody to read in plain simple English. It's not written in legalese. It's not written in complicated language. It doesn't cite case after case after case, like a legal brief, so it's easy to read and it makes you understand that to keep things here jurisdiction being the first 145 senators as you have correctly pointed out in the dam on the Republican side said we don't even have a reason to be here.
We don't have jurisdiction and what we are trying to do is to convince the rest of the moderate and sensible Democrats and there are. I think Joe mansion is one of the senator cinema from Arizona could be another one whom I'd say regardless of what we think of the guilt or innocence of the accused. We don't have the right to prime not on impeachment charges and that is set out in our paper. We go into very great detail 45 pages of it.
I have worked on it a whole staff of lawyers in our offices in Washington have worked on it. You have worked on that you look at the final product and approved it by your father, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel is also look at it. So it's been looked at by many eyes of constitutional scholars who have been through impeachment trials. As you I and J have and we know that jurisdiction is paramount and it does not exist in this case, if you want to find the argument as to why it doesn't exist and why we shouldn't be trying the President read our paper ACLJ.org have tweeted out as well at Jordan secular get that posted toward social medias to after the broadcast today. Let me take some of the phone calls of 164 3110 an endless array to the phones that will start off which I'm assuming going to order today's lot of people caught in April in New York online to hey April, welcome to secular urine air to do every day. Thanks very much breaks to stop the snowball about what I'm doing now, not legal for the defendant to about like okay so here here's the idea is the house to impeach whatever they believe is in high crimes and misdemeanors committed by federal officeholders that includes the President that includes cabinet members that include people basically who are confirmed for the most parts of God Jewish judges as well.
Even the justices of the Supreme Court and they can they can hold them. They can then vote to impeach.
That's kind like the indictment and then the trial is held in the Senate. That's where you're either convicted or acquitted. No President has ever been convicted during I actually think this might be the strongest point to make that the Senate does not have jurisdiction. We clearly lay out in this memo that house, the House of Representatives clearly does have the constitutional authority to proceed with impeachment and in normal circumstances, the Senate clearly does have jurisdiction. In fact, must try impeachment, but there was a very key thing that happened between the house impeachment and the Senate taking up this trial. That very key thing was Donald Trump left his office, so when the US House of Representatives. Whether you agreed with them or not, led by the by Speaker Pelosi impeach Donald Trump. You might've thought that they did not have cause to do that, but he was in office.
It was their purview to take it up and proceeded, but then she held on speech EB and Speaker Pelosi held onto the papers is what we call in Washington DC. She did not send it to the United States Senate and in the intervening space of time. Pres. Trump left office and we have President Joe Biden. As such, that is where the United States Senate lost jurisdiction under the Constitution to hold this trial.
So again Jordan that's without even getting to the merits and I think April is exactly correct and it's why the Senate does not have jurisdiction even though the house did when it passed impeachment.
You know it's interesting to me to is that Andy, the Senate can can hold the trial and simply holding the trial can be a motion to dismiss. I mean, they have date they even in the situation where if you believe that they got to somehow deal with this in a sense I think they could've ignored this almost yeah but but it but they don't have to go for the trial.
You can have a motion to dismiss right away as Rand Paul put forward you could do it again after they put for the argument that there's no jurisdiction here at there's a there's a constitutional jurisdiction so they lacked subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the President so they don't have the subject matter because he's no longer present, there are the personal jurisdiction he's no longer present but a private citizen, so they lack that case dismissed. I didn't have to go past that if if they don't want to. I mean that. That's the student's role, though, it appears that there will be unfortunately enough votes to keep this trial going, which I think just hurts Joe Biden and his idea of trying to get unity together on his nominees. This covert relief packets as to go through all that, very careful reconciliation and not lose a single vote to try to do that that this could this could drag on. I could easily.
It's deftly go to the next. We can be beat. So the question is whether you get to witnesses to go for another two weeks going to the other way. We know that it's going to going to Presidents' Day. But as you said you correctly point out once you you can move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction at any time. Jordan at any time. Definitely a second-half outcome not retake your phone calls this the day to get the questions it because tomorrow to be in the travel start at 1 PM Eastern time were starting at the framework of the trial.
Now, clearly, and again, what you sent a petition were close to 250,000 right now, cited in ACLJ.org stopping unconstitutional trial of Pres. Trump vote no sign the petition down will get it to those US senators to write an article to her 50,000 ACLJ's been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena.
The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and secular folks.
We have now made public. I would talk that you really are memo our analysis is almost like a brief but it's easier to read about 45 pages it's footnoted but you can read through it without having to go through a brief, and a lot of legalese clearly why the proceeding with the trial of a private citizen impeachment for the U.S. Senate violates the United States Constitution were not talking hypothetical law review articles anymore large tribe were not talking about you know, this idea of some guy from the Secretary of War, who by the way, they love to leave out Andy what ultimately happened when the only time they tried to do this to someone who was who was no longer in office love leaving out the Democrats in the house managers.
What ultimately occurred in the Senate vote and what ultimately occurred is enough senators said you know what he did commit high crimes and misdemeanors. We don't have jurisdiction here, and it was he was acquitted you to talk about the Belknap case in 18 7626 senators of all after the trial was over 22 said we believe is guilty but were not going to vote to find them together because we don't have jurisdiction to try the case but the first thing the court have to decide is whether it has the power to say that's what jurisdiction means the power to say the power to judge the power to try the power to make a determination of guilt or innocence that would jurisdiction means and those senators and the Democrats of course have avoided this scrupulously that I want to talk about jurisdiction they want to get right to the merits of the case will guess what you can do that.
I've been a prosecutor for 46 years and the first thing I've got to have in a court's jurisdiction, a court has got to have the ability to try a case before it can try a case sound from sitter grandpa get a reaction.
Because I wonder if this sets up a dangerous precedent for not impeachment for removal of senators and members of the house because of their rhetoric is elicited by two from sitter grandpa who had to deal with the violent mob what's going after him and his wife. This inflammatory wording is violent rhetoric traction was so bad that she Justice who rarely says anything probably immediately say this kind of language is dangerous as a model trying to invade the Supreme Court so people on call all Presidents accountable for language. There has to be a consistent standard into my mind is a partisan forest is not anything to Chuck Schumer not donating to representative of our meeting to Maxine Waters is just not fair is just partisan politics under a different name. Let's play Schumer again just for everybody understand that if you can play this game, you got it yet. To be honest and play the other side. As you know you will and sitter. Paul said that they were rebuked.
This suit sooner Schumer that Majority Leader was rebuked and which is not occur much by Chief Justice Roberts because those remarks sure doesn't look Sen. Paul is absolutely correct on this event.
If this standard is can apply to one side and politics. It has to apply to the other and look Jordan, I actually think there's a reason that both of those types of speeches are probably protected is because were supposed to have an atmosphere where you can engage in vigorous debate. It's a vigorous debate that actually rubs the rough edges off of an idea. I mean that's what sort of the whole idea and of course we've advocated many times on this part program for the outcome to actually be merit-based and for the best ideas to rise and sometime there should be a bipartisan consensus. But the way you get there. Jordan is not suppressing speech the way you get. There is engaging in rigorous debate but look, if you can attack it on one side and the other side is gonna have to abide by that standard as well, and Sen. Schumer Jordan he felt or that standard folks were only 1800 foot people away from signing our petition to get to her 50,000 or two or 48,202.
Sign the petition ACLJ.org right now this is unconstitutional. Trial really get it to all those sitters were to break it down by state as well stay no people in their state to agree this is unconstitutional trial of a private US citizen is not within the jurisdiction of the United States Senate.
They are not a federal court or a state court, sign the petition now and ACLJ.org.
Let's get to her 50,004 shows it 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 for decades. ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event 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 thinking 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 activists.
The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/phone calls, associative client by Lissa Riffle covers the impeachment of a bill out of broadcast to have that couple is you is if you want. If you're watching the show with her Facebook periscope. YouTube never places so if you watch a rumble later. The day of Artie been on a couple broadcast this morning will be a more this afternoon as we are now getting a sense of the rules that are coming together for what the rules, the game will be which are important so we will explain all that to going forward, starting tomorrow.
What we know tomorrow we will get is a on the floor a debate between the house managers and the President's legal team for the impeachment on the constitutionality of the impeachment itself of a former President and that a vote and then we'll see if they move into right away. The 16 hours that each side is going to get to present their case or if they conclude for the day and the move that to Wednesday. We also don't know using these don't start to 1 PM update is that it indicates they may start in the morning, they may start it, you know, 9 AM to something different, but I don't believe so Jordan.
I mean, they certainly could.
But I've not seen any indication of that. Everything everything that I hear starts tomorrow at one. I do think an earlier start on subsequent days might be possible, but I think tomorrow at 1 o'clock. Yeah, I did it look like to go to work on Sunday have an odd Presidents' Day. So what will be key I think is around the table here to get the key vote, probably tomorrow standard that is it likely is only for our debate. The key vote is happening those 45 Republican senators to all 45. At the same way again. This is unconstitutional. After hearing the debate. That's key set kids the second-biggest vote is probably next week it's gotta be on witnesses because could be whether or not this trial continues past next week. It's it's gotta go to next week now. I'd love to get a reaction from RRT but prodded her Hutchinson as well as West with Eric those to be selected to we had our chemo but in the impeachment trial was the witness question. We did get the first question because he was in office. So certainly could be impeached. We believed it was wrong we wad he was acquitted, but we did have that first kind of hurdle over whether was even constitutional to hear it through to get that test vote. They're getting there, getting a test vote right away. They got what they're getting a second would tomorrow then there's that third vote that will occur on witnesses. That's eight majority vote.
So 5150 would say we won't witnesses that beads the trial goes out way past war that we could have absolutely so I think your analysis is spot on. So I think the constitutionality question will likely be quickly settled. I think more than 40 Republicans will vote against the unconstitutionality of the trial proceedings. That's number one and number two I think the question of witnesses is absolutely crucial.
I think many Democrats would like witnesses because there case is so weak, but on the other hand, to the extent that they asked for witnesses.
This then drags out the proceedings and this reduces the time window that the Senate has to spend on the so-called Biden agenda you take your call and go US Edward of Florida on my three hey Edward Logan Sekulow on the air. I don't take my call, and curtail the work that you're doing so really there is no question that this is unconstitutional. Now with Donna Col. being a private citizen. Now if they do go forward with this unconstitutional impeachment will he have some kind of repercussion either. No stealing somebody defamation of character.
I don't know what would apply long-lived by going out since it unconstitutional with his rights being violated. What recourse legally and he had once this receipt.
I don't see a lot of recourse what he's going to be acquitted so the only way I would see recourse potentially this potential is that if he was acquitted, but convicted answers they can't remove him.
The only penalty would be that he be barred from for a future seeking future office federal office, which is a right that we all have. If you meet certain criteria because two things have fundamental liberty rights taken away from him. He might be able then to take that into court to argue that this process wasn't constitutional from the beginning. They have the right to take this way for me but but ultimately it's it's acquitted by the Senate is the best way for for Donald Trump to win again yeah and and is more than likely that that is exactly what's going to happen back to the question of witnesses. Here's the thing I find interesting to that is because the house held no hearings and called no witnesses and it's up to the Senate to try and and execute discovery as we say, so it's likely they're going to allow witnesses in that regard.
But back to the Constitution. Jordan is pretty obvious that the Democrats and are really not interested in following the Constitution is attempting to impeach a private citizen in this case, a former President violates that the text and I think the intent of what the Constitution is all about the role of the Senate is to decide whether or not to convict. And by that trigger, article 2, section 4, which is the President, VP and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office Donald Trump is not the President is not the vice President, he is not a civil officer and so it seems to me that that the Constitution of for their own political purposes has been laid completely aside yet. It's interesting to get this posted to our brief. It's in the Constitution leaks.
The impeachment remedy of disqualification for future office with the remedy for of the removal from that person from the current office they occupy to and or and all the words the concerts like shout and words.
If it's not doesn't say or Andy that has real specific meaning. The founders knew that attorneys know that lawyers know that a lot of these US centers whether they whether they choose to ignore it or not is up to them. They know it is well yes Gordon you are absolutely correct. The constitutional convention to draw throughout the Constitution were done by people were very brilliant man who had training in the law who had training in history under the English system anew at the American system that they wanted to be was going to be when I said shall thy men shout when they said, may they said in May that means could be, as you point out, and when they said they President they meant a sitting President and not an ex-President is no longer in office. I think one needs to be done is every Sen. needs to sit down and read the constitutional language with respect to impeachment and you will see very clearly as we have pointed out in our brief and legal memorandum that you can not try a person for high crimes and misdemeanors in the United States Senate. You cannot convict him of any of those good crimes unless he is thus sitting President. The Chief Justice has sent that message. The Constitution is very clear, but I'm afraid that the votes are going to be there for the Democrats to prevail even though the jurisdiction of the Senate is not. There is no due process of this in the house. It was two hours of debate, then you look at that that the house Democrats.
They love to point to the British. The British, the British area, but you know that that the interesting thing is explicit explicitly rejected the British model. The basically allowed the parliament to impeach anyone but the king, including private citizens and to put 40s build attain his blood libels basically which are Constitution expressly prohibits so if the founders truly looked at that British model and said we don't want to do that, we only want to supply the current government officials, not people in it out there after their already gone from office and their families and we we will reject the British model Willie clearly. I think they they would be they would object to what's going on here absolutely, and I think what the Senate should do, particularly Democratic senators, they ought to sit down tonight and actually first read the Constitution and then number two look at the legislative history behind the Constitution, but Andy is absolutely correct. If you actually look at the text of the Constitution.
This whole impeachment trial is simply a waste of time.
It is become a theater of the absurd.
But nonetheless, because Democratic senators are so deranged with respect to President 12. They are likely to persist in this particular trial, even though I think at the end of the day. It is simply a four gone conclusion and I also think the Democrats because their case is so weak on the facts, they are going to go down the road of a Soviet show trial note we have two it breaks it up in about a minute, 1100 white really need 1002 people to sign a petition right now to get us a 250,000 on our petition to say that we oppose this unconstitutional trial of a private citizen by the U.S. Senate effectively would have to have this petition shocking, scary, but it's happening. The trial starts tomorrow 1 PM. We want you to let your voice be heard. It's absolutely free to do so to get this to all the Senate offices but we want to hit that 250,000 mark before we start getting it there again really 1002 away.
Either we can get there before the end of the show we have one more segment left 1002 of you go to ACLJ.org it takes 30 seconds of your time it's signed that petition right now.
Do it ACLJ that are. And remember we put forward our (of them holding my hand. 45 page about why we got this to the US it as well.
Only when 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 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 pro-life and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.
The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways, your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans are substantial time and or value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades.
ACLJ on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights" in 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 and 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 God where you can learn more about our life changing become a member today ACLJ secularists go to Mike in Pennsylvania line 4 hey Mike: my question. Is there any way that the Supreme Court could get that now he and little on it and if they ruled on it as being unconstitutional.
Would that not put a stop to the Holland around the table. I can say I go to Harry and Andy, I hear the less I go to standby thing we can answer quickly. The Supreme Court second step in initially and do that. As I explained, I think the only way this report even think about stepping as if he was convicted and had a fundamental liberty right taken away which is right to run for office, which were all guaranteed. If we meet certain criteria in the U.S. Constitution to the age where born in a you know that that cause if you meet that you can run that the court has been very clear it and I think on the rules. It's a really go see the courts and clear on these issues if they defer to the U.S. Senate. They defer to the U.S. House. I mean I don't. The Chief Justice set a clear signal that this is not the trial of an actual present so I'm not to waste my time sitting there sitting at Pat Lahey.
Instead, who's the get a somehow make decisions which are not to be good for a Republicans ever consider.
He's been called the nest by this review. Even in his older age, the nastiest member of the Democratic Party and the U.S. Senate. Even with a smile on his face but but that they've got the make up the rules and and that's how the Constitution was written as well.
During times, a couple of things I agree with you. The Supreme Court is not going to take the case, but I think the Chief Justice's decision not to come over said really more than the Supreme Court as a whole could anyway, he's already said that this is not a true impeachment. That's why he's not presiding sojourn. I think the Supreme Court is probably set all that they need to do in the other thing I would say is look even though they're not the Supreme Court, United States Senate, every one of those senator still took an oath to defend the Constitution, said they must do this analysis on their own before they take that case, so that's why were presenting them with this memo and were also asking them to or just simply read article 1 section 3. Clauses six and seven. It's only a few lines and if they do that and read our memo and it's hard to come to a different conclusion other than the one that we've Artie come to a good match for this post we have 77 of you right now to go to ACLJ.org and get us a tour of 50,000. That's all we need 77 people there millions.
This is broadcast right now for hundreds of thousands of you watching the broadcast. Right now, and millions were listening on radio 77 go to ACLJ data right now so that I know by the end is broadcast. We've hit and I can announce over 250,000 that petitioner this is an unconstitutional trial 77 of you that's all I need. Takes about 30 seconds of your time. Don't do it if you're driving but but again, if you can do it in these next we are on the air for five minutes and 57, 56 more seconds and we will keep you updated but I need 77 of you do that right now it ACLJ.or how I would take. I'll take Pam's call just a minute, but I do want to go around and answered by this is confidence. As I think most of us are present will be acquitted and will get a second chance at that vote again tomorrow. Let me explain that because they're not have to do four hours of debate on whether to constitutional in the have a vote on after each side to has their debate. The house managers and present trumps impeachment attorneys. They will then they will then take a vote on whether or not after hearing that the remarks debate whether or not it's constitutional or not. If that number holds. I think that's it. They indicate you can call it was almost gave the first time but but it's kind of a gay because very difficult to set even what you hear is horrible to say it's unconstitutional but but but you know what I heard some bad things and now I feel Jurisdiction, but I'd never Harry what to say it's over it's totally over because this is a trial witnesses could be called Democrats control the Senate now and this could go. This could get really had a hand very quickly.
I think that is correct.
I think first and foremost we should keep in mind that we are dealing with politicians. Politicians are notorious for one thing, not having a real spine so it's possible that politicians could vote that this particular trial is indeed unconstitutional, but then at the end of the trial say what lien will vote to perhaps a convict. I think an acquittal is the most likely outcome, and certainly if you look at the text of the Constitution. The Constitution demands that particular outcome and secondarily if you actually look at the house of representatives, factual case, their theory of the case is that the President incited essentially a riot that was already taking place right and it was now we have evidence that the there was preplanned, maybe even weeks in advance and that that the security officials who have but by the been fired. I didn't do anything about it and they they resigned the Sgt. at arms both House and the Senate may take Pam's questioning to keep going around the table Pam in Virginia final call the day you're on the air not call any type of recourse like thunder for 19 to uphold the Constitution. So if they vote for impeachment and they're not upholding the competition. What recourse do we have to elect them that's tested that ultimate recourse is the voters that you may see while to be tough to defeat them in a race because you know it's a blue leading state. Now Virginia but that is the recourse ultimately now I are. If you do things that are really wrong and I think again these kind of votes are not enough to trigger that there are ways that cinders can be removed by the Senate.
The Senate has to take that up on its own. The house does the same thing but the ultimate recall of I federal official is your vote, your vote and putting for good candidates to challenge that official politically, but rather of his. I still think as much as we might get that vote tomorrow. Wes and Andy and Ann and and wanting everybody in on this Wes. And if that and still get those 45 senators and it feels like it's over.
But we have to remember the Democrats are in control.
Witnesses could get out of control and this could go into the weeks. I don't think the Democrats want that to happen, but if it does, then everything kinda goes out the window. Now this has the potential to become very very ugly and very very protracted hope and pray that that will not happen. Here's the thing.
No former official in the United States history, no former official has ever been convicted by the nicest Senate and this is the very first time that the Senate has been asked to apply that the Constitution's textual identification of quote the President to anyone other than the sitting President.
I think acquittal is likely but not before it gets very, very ugly and protracted. Andy, I agree with Leslie. This is not going to be a pretty saying it's going to be a very ugly same. The presently United States.
Mr. Biden has said and impeachment trial must take place.
I still think he could to stop this thing by talking to Pelosi and Schumer and said knock it off.
I have one on the President. My agenda needs to prevail, but he wants this to go on as well in the Senate is going to do his bidding. They have no jurisdiction to try President Rob. They have no jurisdiction to find them innocent or guilty they need to drop this thing. It's going to be a filthy dirty impeachment trial it's going to be a political show trial of the Stalinist kind, and I abhor Santa quickly to arming those Democrat Senators again been a lot of pressure by those house managers to Crossett to call witnesses even though they want to speak over with best, they sure will Jordan but you know it would reflect extremely poorly on a Sen. who says I don't have jurisdiction here, but I'm about to convict anyway your new take 12 Republicans to do that to convict.
I don't see it happening.
By the way folks think you very much Rick 251,000 to over 1000 that goal get that get a petition out 251,000 side and a few thousand. During the broadcast NACLJ check out our memo ACLJ.org for decades 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.
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