Impeachment Week: Political Theater Begins

Today on Sekulow Radio, unfortunately it's impeachment week and the political theater, it begins. We'll talk about that and more today on Sekulow.

Live from Washington DC, Jay Sekulow live. The thing is when you look at impeaching the President, the Constitution has some very specific requirements. It says when the President is impeached, the Chief Justice shall preside.

And to me, this is one of the shocking things. When we showed up, we found out that yes, Chuck Schumer had called Justice Roberts and this hasn't been reported widely, but he did. And Justice Roberts said, heck no, I'm not coming across the street because you're not impeaching the President. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. This was a strong signal to all of us that this was going to be a partisan hearing with a Democrat in the chair who's already voted for impeachment.

So it is a farce, it is unconstitutional, but more than anything it's unwise and going to divide the country. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow Radio.

We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. So this is the day before the impeachment trial. Second impeachment trial of President Trump begins in the US Senate. We're starting to get some more details about what that may look like.

So let me explain. It looks like on Tuesday at 1 p.m., the Senate will go into session for the trial. Of course, Chief Justice John Roberts won't be there because this is not an actual President that's being tried, but a private citizen. And there will be four hours of debate. Now, it's not clear if it's four hours for each side or just four hours total. It's like two hours on each side. Four hours of debate about whether or not this is constitutional at all. And then another vote, like Rand Paul asked for earlier, later last month, where 45 Republicans voted that this is not constitutional, sending a signal that there were not going to be the votes there to impeach President Trump and that he would be acquitted. But you would go through that vote again, and then each side would get 16 hours.

So 16 hours apiece. That takes at least two days to get through a piece to make their case. Then after that, which I think we'll probably bleed over into, they say they're going to work on Sunday and on President's Day on Monday.

And so you'll see Sunday and Monday. Then maybe on Tuesday you get to the vote on witnesses. The House managers will likely ask for a vote on witnesses, and there'll be a debate about whether there should be witnesses, and then a vote. That is critical to how long the trial will actually last. If on, 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, again, the vote on the election, the acquittal or conviction. Now somewhere in their fan they get a question and answer time.

I don't know where that's built in. I guess that's somewhere after each side goes 16 hours and before the request for witnesses. Yeah, I think it'll likely be after the presentations.

We don't know that for certain. All the news on the Hill, Jordan, is that Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell are very close to an agreement, and they would put out those specifics. But look, you laid it out well, and if it's as reported and as you described, Jordan, our view, and I'm not saying this is what's going to happen, but our view is 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 with that analysis you talked about.

And Jordan, I know you're going to 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, in our view, this trial should not clear that hurdle.

It would take 51 senators to say we do not have jurisdiction. But 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. Yeah, I mean, I'm going to get into this is it right here, and it's now posted live right up at ACLJ.org.

The ACLJ submits critical legal analysis to the U.S. Senate on unconstitutional impeachment trial. Our petition, we have 245,817 of you. We want to get to 250,000 today. Sign the petition to stop, to agree that this is an unconstitutional trial of a private citizen. Sign that today at ACLJ.org.

I think we can get to 250,000 before the broadcast is finished today. That's ACLJ.org. And our memo, our brief, is available for all of you, just like it is for all of those U.S. senators about why this is unconstitutional.

We'll get into that with Andy Acosta when we get back on Sekulow. 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, a 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. So as I told you, we're starting to get a sense of what the trial will look like. So we'll start with four hours tomorrow, debate on the constitutionality, and then a vote. Now that vote will likely not pass, unfortunately, even though we agree with that position. But what will be key is, I think then what will be very key, is do the same 45 senators remain, those 45 Republicans, take the same vote that they did a couple weeks ago and say, no, we still believe after all the talking, after all the briefs that have been filed, this is unconstitutional, this is outside of our role in the constitution, we can't do this.

Yeah, I think two things are going 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've put forward, will there be additional votes to add to those 45? And remember, Jordan, I mean, these can be senators who actually think have 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 are five Republicans, a couple of them have said that they do have serious concerns about the jurisdiction involved.

So that could bump that 45 number up a little bit. And Jordan, I think there are even people like Tim Kaine and Joe Manchin on the Democrat side of the aisle that if they were intellectually honest with this, I think they know the Senate doesn't have jurisdiction here. So look, I don't 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 go right to Andy O'Connell, who's been working on the, I call it a memo, call it a brief. It's what we titled it and what it's up at the ACLJ is a legal analysis that we've delivered to all of the U.S. Senate offices and those U.S. senators that goes deeper into the idea that this is unconstitutional in a way that you can't just do in an hour on radio or in a five-minute interview on television.

I'm doing a lot of those today, but goes deeper. And one of the points that we make right off of page four, 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 resorts to legislative history if the meaning of the text is not plain. So they already are trying to ignore the meaning of the text.

That's right, Jordan. We are at the ACLJ and I am and you are and 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 to bring in legislative history where the Constitution is very clear on a 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, as much as sent that signal very clearly to the Senate when he was asked if he would preside or 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, I'm not going 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 President Trump is no longer in office, I want no part of it.

I mean, think about this. Democrat Senator Chris Murphy got all of the media saying, you know, we're not, this is clear in the Constitution, even though it's not, that you could try a former President. Senator Chris Murphy, he agrees, he thinks that you can, but he doesn't think it's settled. He doesn't think this is like some settled issue. Take a listen.

He was on TV this weekend talking about it. Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, take a listen. I will admit that this is, of course, a matter of first impression. And so I don't think the case that Senator Paul is making here is a ridiculous one. I come to a different judgment. So, I mean, there you go, Andy. The idea is that even Democrat senators who agree with this realize they are doing something for the first time and that this is kind of iffy.

And when you do something for the first time and it's not clear and it's not settled, you better make sure you're OK with what you're doing because you're opening up a Pandora's box potentially. Well, yes, you are because what you're saying is that you can go back now and you can try any former, 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 impeach him. The House can impeach and the Senate can try for things that were committed during his tenure in office. That's a ridiculous proposition and Senator Murphy is correct when he says that Senator Paul's position is not ridiculous.

In fact, it's very sound. We're treading on dangerous ground when 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 guilt here will nonetheless, as 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. And that's what they did. I mean, 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.

And they wanted to vote to convict. They said, we can't because it's outside our jurisdiction. I want to go to Nancy in Florida online one. Nancy, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Hello.

I'm so glad to hear you guys. It's great. I just have a question about the video. I understand the prosecutors are going to be playing that video on January 6th.

Yeah. What I would like to know is I don't know how you possibly could bring in all those other videos, but just even they might say the prosecutors might say, well, you can because Maxine Waters is not she's not up on trial. But to me, it would be like, why not bring in the video as far as showing the incitement of it? They're going to. They're going to. So long as video evidence is allowed, and I believe it sounds like it's going to be in this. It wasn't our last impeachment trial a year ago. Than, it's out there now that President Trump's team, rightfully so, we've been talking this from the beginning, is going to show the videos of Chuck Schumer talking about the whirlwind and that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh won't know what hit them. Maxine Waters telling people to harass Trump administration officials wherever they can find them, and the list goes on. I think that they will have their own parade of horribles to show.

And I think they'll come back and say, you know what? This is not prosecutable speech. It's not speech you prosecute.

It's not nice, but it's not illegal speech in America, and it's certainly not speech that you impeach people over. Yeah, first of all, Jordan, I think the main reason that 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 what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I think the defense team likely will show video to show the double standard. And I think a secondary point that would be made with all those videos, Jordan, is not only is the sort of hypocrisy on display, but the point of past officials being able to be impeached. I mean, all of these senators one day, Jordan, they're going to be past officials one day when they retire. Do they want all of their public service to be under the scrutiny of the impeachment microscope for the rest of their life?

It might give them pause. Remember, Kamala Harris said the riots are going to continue. You know, like the riots are going to continue in the streets, and they should continue in the streets, and a lot of those protests were turning extremely violent over the summer, and she encouraged those. And then you have Maxine Waters, let's just play it for everybody, by 36, about harassing members of the Trump cabinet.

Let's stay the course. Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

Not welcome anymore. Create a crowd. So not just you go up to them and say something nasty, but create a crowd.

Surround them. Create, incite some kind of incident, is what she's talking about, potentially. And yet, do I think that speech is okay?

Probably. It's not nice, but it's probably okay. And it's certainly, then you compare it. So that's going to be, the American people are going to see that too, and the Democrats are going to have to face that as well, as well as Chuck Schumer. 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. 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. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Let me just tell you our petition. We're right at 247,000 over that actually. And so I think we can get to 250,000 which has been our goal. And then we'll get those U.S. senators immediately broken down by state as well. If you go to ACLJ.org right now and sign the petition on our homepage, this is an unconstitutional. You can see right here, stop the unconstitutional impeachment trial in the Senate. And again, that's not even the updated number.

That was just a graphic we pulled from right before we were on air. So we're already up to over 247,000. Let's get to over 250,000 before we're done with the broadcast now.

Takes a minute, doesn't cost you a thing. You go to ACLJ.org and you sign the petition. I do also want to highlight, and Andy, we have posted and our team's been working on this tirelessly. I've got one kind of notated version here already in my hands. A 45-page, what we're calling is the reasons proceedings with this trial by the United States Senate sitting as a court of impeachment violate the United States Constitution. They're delivering it, as Thanos said, to all the U.S. offices. I've read from some of it, but this is a key document that people can go through. It's clear enough for them to read.

It's clear enough for them to send and share with their friends and family. I think it shows an example of what the ACLJ is doing on what we believe, Andy, is the most key part of this and key to that vote, of course, that will happen. We'll get another chance to see that vote as we've talked about after there's that four-hour initial debate tomorrow on the constitutionality of this proceeding. I think that's the most important. One of the two most important votes of the proceeding is that vote, if it holds to 45, and then the second vote is the witness vote. Andy, I think after being through the impeachment process before with me, once before, and being on the floor of the Senate, you would agree it's that vote to see, one, you can actually get a key here on how many people think it's just wrong that they're sitting there and then do the math. And the number two is how long it's going to continue, which will come later on, probably next week, which will be the witness vote.

Jordan, you're absolutely correct. You've got to 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 the two key things here. Jurisdiction being the first one. 45 senators, as you have correctly pointed out, on the Republican side, said we don't even have a reason to be here. We don't have jurisdiction.

And what we're trying to do is to convince the rest of the moderate and sensible Democrats, and there are, I think Joe Manchin is one of them, Senator Sinema from Arizona could be another one, who might say regardless of what we think of the guilt or innocence of the accused, we don't have the right to triumph, 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 it.

You looked at the final product and approved it. Your father, Jay Sekula, our chief counsel, has also looked at it. So it's been looked at by many eyes of constitutional scholars who have been through impeachment trials, as you, I, and Jay 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. And again, it's at ACLJ.org. I've tweeted out as well, at Jordan Sekula, and we get that posted to our social medias, too, after the broadcast today. Let me take some of the phone calls at 1-800-684-3110, and let's go right to the phones. We'll start off with, I'm just going to go in order today because a lot of people calling in.

April in New York, online, too. Hey, April, welcome to Sekula. You're on the air. Hi. Hi.

Thank you for doing the great job that you do every day. I'd like to know, this is what's confusing me. Because the Congress was able to impeach him and even vote on it, aren't there any checks or balances or breaks that could have stopped the snowball of them even having a vote in Congress? How come nothing stopped them from doing that? If it's not legal for the state, the Senate, I mean the Senate to vote, that means the Congress should not have been able to do it. How come they couldn't be just halted right there?

Okay, so here is the idea. Is THAN, the House can impeach whenever they believe there's been high crimes and misdemeanors committed by federal office holders, that includes the President, that includes cabinet members, that includes people basically who are confirmed for the most part, judges as well, even Justices of the Supreme Court. And they can hold them, they can then vote to impeach. That's kind of like the indictment and then the trial is held in the Senate and that's where you're either convicted or acquitted.

No President has ever been convicted. Jordan, 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 the House of Representatives clearly does have the constitutional authority to proceed with impeachment and in normal circumstances the Senate clearly does have jurisdiction and in fact must try impeachments. 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 U.S. House of Representatives, whether you agreed with them or not, led by Speaker Pelosi, impeached Donald Trump, you might have thought that they did not have cause to do that, but he was in office, it was their purview to take it up and to proceed it. But then she held on, she being Speaker Pelosi, held onto the papers is what we call it in Washington, D.C. She did not send it to the United States Senate and in the intervening space of time, President 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, what's interesting to me too is that, Andy, the Senate can hold the trial and simply holding the trial can be a motion to dismiss.

I mean, even in the situation where if you believe that they've got to somehow deal with this, I mean, in a sense, I think they could have ignored this almost. But they don't have to go forward with the trial. You can have a motion to dismiss right away as Rand Paul put forward. You could do it again after they put forward the arguments that there's no jurisdiction here, there's no constitutional jurisdiction, so they lack subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the President. So they don't have the subject matter because he's no longer President. They don't have the personal jurisdiction again.

He's no longer President but a private citizen. So they lack that case dismissed. They don't have to go past that if they don't want to. I mean, that's the Senate'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 and his COVID relief package that has to go through all that very careful reconciliation and not lose a single vote to try and do that. This could drag on. It's definitely going into next week, Andy. I mean, so the question is, when they get to witnesses, does it go for another two weeks? Yeah, it could go into the other week. We know that it's going to go into President's Day. But as you said, you correctly point out, you can move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction at any time, Jordan.

Yeah, at any time. Now, folks, we've got a second half hour coming up. We're going to take your phone calls. This is the day to get the questions in because tomorrow we're going to be, again, the trial will start at 1 p.m. Eastern time. We're starting to get the framework of the trial now, clearly. And again, we want you to sign our petition.

We're close to 250,000 right now. Sign it at ACLJ.org. Stop the unconstitutional trial of President Trump.

Vote no. Sign that petition now and we'll get it to those U.S. senators right at our goal of 250,000. 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. We're talking about freedom. We're talking about freedom. We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live.

And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. So again, folks, we have now made public, we've talked about you, really our memo, our analysis, it's 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 like a brief and a lot of legalese. Clearly, why the proceeding with the trial of a private citizen in impeachment for the U.S. Senate violates the United States Constitution. We're not talking hypothetical law review articles anymore, Laurence Tribe. We're not talking about, you know, this idea of some guy from the Secretary of War who, by the way, they'd love to leave out, Andy, what ultimately happened when the only time they tried to do this to someone who was no longer in office.

They love leaving out the Democrats and 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, but we don't have jurisdiction here and he was acquitted. Yeah, they don't want to talk about the Belknap case in 1876.

26 senators polled after the trial was over. 22 said, we believe he's guilty, but we're not going to vote to find him guilty because we don't have jurisdiction to try the case. Look, the first thing a court has 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's what jurisdiction means.

And those senators and the Democrats, of course, have avoided this scrupulously. They don't want to talk about jurisdiction. They want to get right to the merits of the case. Well, guess what?

You can't do that. I've been a prosecutor for 46 years and the first thing I've got to have in a court is jurisdiction. A court has got to have the ability to try a case before it can try a case. Fan, I want to play the sound from Senator Rand Paul and get your reaction because I wonder if this sets up a dangerous precedent for not impeaching but for removal of senators and members of the House because of their rhetoric, because listen to a bite too from Senator Rand Paul who had to deal with a violent mob once going after him and his wife. This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the Chief Justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court. So if people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there has to be a consistent standard. And to my mind, it's a partisan farce because they're not doing anything to Chuck Schumer, not doing anything to Representative Omar, not doing anything to Maxine Waters.

It's just not fair. It's just partisan politics under a different name. Let's play Schumer again just for everybody to understand that if you're going to play this game, you've got to be honest and play the other side. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. And as Senator Paul said, they were rebuked. Senator Schumer, now Majority Leader, was rebuked, which does not occur much by Chief Justice Roberts because of those remarks.

Sure doesn't. Look, Senator Paul is absolutely correct on this. If this standard is going to apply to one side in 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 we're supposed to have an atmosphere where you can engage in vigorous debate. It's vigorous debate that actually rubs the rough edges off of an idea.

I mean, that's sort of the whole idea. And of course, we've advocated many times on this program for the outcome to actually be merit based and for the best ideas to rise. And sometimes 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're going to attack it on one side, then the other side is going to have to abide by that standard as well. And Senator Schumer, Jordan, he fell short of that standard. Folks, we're only 1,800 people away from signing our petition to get to 250,000.

We're at 248,202. Sign that petition at ACLJ.org right now. This is an unconstitutional trial. We're going to get it to all those senators. We're going to break it down by state as well so they know the people in their state that agree. This is unconstitutional trial of a private U.S. 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 at ACLJ.org.

Let's get to 250,000 before it shows in. 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. Those people have been hanging on the line.

I want to get to phone calls. This show has been flying by. Listen, we're going to have full coverage of the impeachment. There haven't been a lot of broadcasts.

I already have been on a couple. If you're watching the show on Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, a number of places, or if you watch on Rumble later in the day, I've already been on a couple of broadcasts this morning. We'll be on more this afternoon as we are now getting a sense of the rules that are coming together, what the rules of the game will be, which are important. So we will explain all that too going forward starting tomorrow. What we know tomorrow we will get is 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 then 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 then move that to Wednesday.

We also don't know. Usually these don't start until 1 p.m. Is there any indication they may start in the morning? They may start at 9 a.m., do something different? I don't believe so, Jordan.

I mean, they certainly could, but I've not seen any indication of that. Everything that I hear starts tomorrow at 1. I do think an earlier start on subsequent days might be possible, but I think tomorrow we're looking at 1 o'clock.

Yeah, and then it looks like they're going to work on Sunday and on President's Day. So what will be key, I think, is—and I want to go around the panel here—so you get the key vote probably tomorrow, because it's only a four-hour debate. The key vote is how many of those 45 Republican senators do all 45 vote the same way again?

This is unconstitutional after hearing the debate. That's key. Second, the second biggest vote is probably next week, and it's going to be on witnesses, because it's going to be whether or not this trial continues past next week.

It's going to go into next week now. And I'd love to get a reaction from our team. I brought in Harry Hutchinson as well as Wes Smith. Harry, I mean, those to me seem like the two—we had—our key moment in the impeachment trial was the witness question. We didn't get the first question because he was in office, so he certainly could be impeached. We believed it was wrong. We won.

He was acquitted. But we didn't have that first kind of hurdle over whether it was even constitutional to hear it. So we didn't get that test vote. They're getting a test vote right away. They've got one.

They're getting a second one tomorrow. But then there's that third vote that will occur on witnesses. That's a majority vote, so 51. If 51 say we want witnesses, that means the trial goes on way past more than a week and a half. 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 their case is so weak. But on the other hand, to the extent that they ask 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 know, I'll take a call and go to you, Wes. Edward of Florida Online 3. Hey, Edward, welcome to Secular. You're on the air. Hey, how you doing, guys?

Appreciate you taking my call and appreciate all the work that you're doing. So really, there's no question that this is unconstitutional. Now, with Donald Trump being a private citizen now, if they do go forward with this unconstitutional impeachment, will he have some kind of repercussion, either suing somebody, defamation of character? I don't know what would apply law-wise, but going out, since it's unconstitutional with his rights being violated, what recourse legally can he have once this proceeds?

I don't see a lot of recourse. One, he's going to be acquitted. So the only way I would see recourse potentially, this potential, is that if he wasn't acquitted but convicted, and since they can't remove him, the only penalty would be that he would be barred from seeking future office, federal office, which is a right that we all have if you meet the certain criteria in the Constitution. So you'd have a fundamental liberty, a right 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 didn't have the right to take this away from me. But ultimately, it's acquittal by the Senate is the best way for Donald Trump to win again. Yeah, and it 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 too, and that is because the House held no hearings and called no witnesses, then it's up to the Senate to try and execute discovery, as we say.

And so it's likely they're going to allow witnesses in that regard. But back to the Constitution, Jordan, it's pretty obvious that the Democrats are really not interested in following the Constitution because attempting to impeach a private citizen, in this case a former President, violates the text. And I think the intent of what the Constitution is all about, you know, the role of the Senate is to decide whether or not to convict and by that trigger Article II, Section 4, which is the President, vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office.

Donald Trump is not the President, he's not the vice President, he is not a civil officer. And so it seems to me that the Constitution, for their own political purposes, has been laid completely aside. Yeah, I mean, it's just, again, this goes into our brief, the Constitution leaks the impeachment remedy of disqualification from future office with the remedy of the removal from that person from the current office they occupied.

It says and, it's not or, and. All the words of the Constitution, like shall and and, and words, if it doesn't say or, Andy, that has real specific meaning. The founders knew that, attorneys know that, lawyers know that, a lot of these U.S. senators, whether they choose to ignore it or not is up to them.

They know it as well. Yes, Jordan, you're absolutely correct. The Constitutional Conventions that drew up the Constitution were done by people who were very brilliant men who had training in the law, who had training in history, who knew the English system, who knew what the American system that they wanted to be was going to be when they said shall, they meant shall, when they said may, they said may, that means could be, as you point out. And when they said a President, they meant a sitting President and not an ex-President who is no longer in office. So I think what needs to be done is every senator 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, in our legal memorandum, that you cannot try a person for high crimes and misdemeanors in the United States Senate.

You cannot convict him of any of those crimes unless he is the 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. I mean, there's no due process in this in the House.

I mean, it was two hours of debate. And then you look at the House Democrats, they love to point to the British, the British, the British, Harry. But, you know, the interesting thing is they explicitly rejected the British model that basically allowed the Parliament to impeach anyone but the king, including private citizens, and to put forth these bill of attainers, blood libels, basically, which our 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 this to apply to current government officials, not people after they're already gone from office and their families, and we want to reject the British model, well, clearly, I think 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 has become a theater of the absurd, but nonetheless, because Democratic senators are so deranged with respect to President Trump, they are likely to persist in this particular trial, even though I think at the end of the day it is simply a foregone 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. You know, we have a two-minute break coming up in about a minute. We only need 1,002 people to sign our petition right now to get us to 250,000 on our petition to say that we oppose this unconstitutional trial of a private citizen by the U.S. Senate. The fact that we even have to have this petition, shocking, scary, but it's happening. The trial starts tomorrow at 1 p.m., and we want you to let your voice be heard.

It's absolutely free to do so. We're going to get this to all the Senate offices, but we want to hit that 250,000 mark before we start getting it there. Again, we're only 1,002 away. I know we can get there before the end of the show.

We have one more segment left. Will 1,002 of you go to ACLJ.org and take 30 seconds of your time and sign that petition right now? Do it at ACLJ.org, and remember, we have put forward our full bivarandum that I'm holding in my hand, 45 pages about why it's unconstitutional, and we've got this to the U.S. Senate as well.

Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

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

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

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

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

ACLJ.org. Alright, let's take some phone calls on Sekula. Let's go to Mike in Pennsylvania, line 4. Hey, Mike. Hey, thank you for taking my call. And my question is, is there any way that the Supreme Court could get this issue in constitutionality and rule on it?

And if they ruled on it as being unconstitutional, would that not put a stop to this whole nonsense? I could go around the table. I could say, I could go to Harry. I could go to Andy. I could go to Wes.

I could go to Tham. But I think we can answer it quickly. The Supreme Court's not going to step in initially and do that. As I explained, I think the only way the Supreme Court would even think about stepping in is if he was convicted and had a fundamental liberty right taken away, which is a right to run for office, which we're all guaranteed if we meet certain criteria in the U.S. Constitution. The age where you're born, you know that clause.

And then if you meet that, you can run. The court has been very clear. Tham, I think, on the rules, it really goes to you. The court's been clear on these issues. They defer to the U.S. Senate. They defer to the U.S. House. I mean, the Chief Justice sent a clear signal that this is not the trial of an actual President, so I'm not going to waste my time sitting there. So you're going to have Pat Leahy instead, who's going to somehow make decisions, which are not going to be good for Republicans ever, considering he's been called by the Nash Review, even in his older age, the nastiest member of the Democrat Party in the U.S. Senate, even with a smile on his face. But they make up the rules, and that's how the Constitution's written as well.

Jordan, I would say a couple of things. I agree with you that 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. So, Jordan, I think the Supreme Court has probably said all that they need to do. And the other thing I would say is, look, even though they're not the Supreme Court, the United States Senate, every one of those Senators still took an oath to defend the Constitution, so they must do this analysis on their own before they take that case. So that's why we're presenting them with this memo, and we're also asking them, Jordan, just simply read Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7.

It's only a few lines, and if they do that and read our memo, I think it's hard to come to a different conclusion other than the one that we've already come to. Let me ask you this, folks. Do we have 77 of you right now that will go to ACLJ.org and get us to 250,000? That's all we need, 77 people. There are millions listening to this broadcast right now, hundreds of thousands of you watching the broadcast right now, and millions more listening on radio. Seventy-seven go to ACLJ.org right now so that I know by the end of this broadcast we've hit, and I can announce over 250,000 on that petition.

This is an unconstitutional trial. So 77 of you, that's all I need. It takes about 30 seconds of your time.

Don't do it if you're driving. But again, if you can do it in these next, we are on the air for 5 minutes and 56 more seconds, and we will keep you updated. But I need 77 of you to do that right now at ACLJ.org.

I'll take Pam's call in just a minute, but I do want to go around and ask everybody this. As confident as I think most of us are that the President will be acquitted, and we'll get a second chance at that vote again tomorrow. Let me explain that because they're going to do four hours of debate on whether it's constitutional, and they'll have a vote on, after each side has their debate, the House managers and President Trump's impeachment attorneys, they will then take a vote on whether or not, after hearing the remarks, the debate, whether or not it's constitutional or not. If that number holds, I think that's it, the endgame.

You can call it, it was almost endgame the first time, but it's kind of endgame because it's very difficult to say. Even what you hear is horrible to say it's unconstitutional, but you know what, I heard some bad things, so now I feel like I have jurisdiction. But I never, Harry, want to say it's totally over because this is a trial, witnesses could get called, Democrats control the Senate now, and this could get really out of hand very quickly. I think that is correct, and 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, well, we will vote to perhaps 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 there was pre-plan, maybe even weeks in advance, and that the security officials who have, by the way, been fired, didn't do anything about it, and they resigned the Sergeant at Arms, both House and the Senate. Let me take Pam's question and keep going around the table. Pam in Virginia, final call of the day, you're on the air.

Thank you so much for taking my call. Do we have any type of recourse, like for my two Virginia Senators, Warner and King, they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, so if they vote for impeachment and they're not upholding the Constitution, what recourse do we have? Do you elect them? I mean, the ultimate recourse is the voters. Now, you may say, well, it's going to be tough to defeat them in a race because, you know, it's a blue-leaning state now, Virginia, but that is the recourse, ultimately.

Now, I mean, there 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 senators can be removed by the Senate. The Senate has to take that up on its own, and the House does the same thing.

But the ultimate recall of a federal official is your vote and putting forward good candidates to challenge that official. But let me keep going around the room because I still think as much as we might get that vote tomorrow, Wes and Andy, and I want to get everybody in on this, Wes, Andy, and Thad, 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 weeks. I don't think the Democrats want that to happen, but if it does, then everything kind of goes out the window. Yeah, this has the potential to become very, very ugly and very, very protracted.

I 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 United States Senate. And this is the very first time that the Senate has been asked to apply the Constitution's textual identification of, quote, the President to anyone other than the sitting President. So I think, you know, acquittal is likely, but not before it gets very, very ugly and protracted. Andy? I agree with Wesley. This is not going to be a pretty scene.

It's going to be a very ugly scene. The President of the United States, Mr. Biden, has said an impeachment trial must take place. I still think he could have stopped this thing by talking to Pelosi and Schumer and said, knock it off. I've won. I'm the President.

My agenda needs to prevail. But he wants this to go on as well. And the Senate is going to do his bidding. They have no jurisdiction to try President Trump.

They have no jurisdiction to find him 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 it. And quickly, too, I mean, those Democrat senators are going to be under a lot of pressure by those House managers to call to call witnesses, even though they want this to be over with fast. They sure will, Jordan. But, you know, it would reflect extremely poorly on a senator who says, I don't have jurisdiction here, but I'm going to vote to convict anyway. Jordan, it would take 12 Republicans to do that, to convict.

I don't see it happening. Yeah, OK. By the way, folks, thank you very much. We're at 251,000.

So over 1,000 of that goal. We'll get that again, that petition out. 251,000 you signed. We added a few thousand during the broadcast today on ACLJ. Check out our memo, ACLJ.org. 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.