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

Impeachment 2: Day 2

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
The Truth Network Radio
February 10, 2021 12:00 pm

Impeachment 2: Day 2

Sekulow Radio Show / Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 981 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

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


YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow
Sekulow Radio Show
Jay Sekulow & Jordan Sekulow

Today on Sekulow, Impeachment Day 2, Democrats attack on all of us, on all conservatives. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. They've indicated they might not. So have the President's attorneys for the impeachment. That means we could be on track right now for a vote Saturday or Sunday on acquittal. And I say acquittal because we had the key vote yesterday.

I want to go to Than Bennett. Than, yesterday was the constitutional issue. We knew we weren't going to carry the day. The votes weren't there to carry the day to end the trial.

We were clear on that. The big question was, would there be any major shift from the initial 45 Republicans who voted that was unconstitutional? Only one shifted. Only one shifted. So instead of five, now six joined Democrats saying it's constitutional to proceed.

So it's proceeding today. But tell people about who voted, who were the Republicans who voted yes again, and who is that new Republican? Yeah, Jordan, we thought it would be within one or two either way. We thought it would be very unlikely for a significant move to happen.

And that is exactly what happened. The vote when the Paul motion was granted a few weeks ago was 55 to 45. The vote yesterday was 56 to 44. Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana joined the original five. Which again, just as a reminder for folks, was Senator Romney, Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Toomey, and Senator Sasse. They all voted with Democrats saying that the Senate does have jurisdiction under the Constitution to proceed with the trial. All of the remaining 44 Republicans agreed with our position, Jordan, that the Senate does not have jurisdiction regardless of how you feel about the merits of the case.

And let me just boil it down to this. We're now past that threshold question, so the trial is going to proceed. But Jordan, I really do think that 56 number, I really think that's a ceiling now. Because now that in the midst of the trial you have said the Senate does not have jurisdiction, I don't think there's any way that you can vote to convict. So Democrats needed 17 Republicans to come along with them.

Jordan, to me, it looks like the max that they have would be six. Eleven short of conviction. I think acquittal is now virtually an ironclad certainty.

So I mean, there you go. I mean, so whatever you want to say about legal arguments yesterday and who did better and who did this and who did what. At the end of the day, only one vote shifted and it's still a very uphill battle.

Andy, I'll go to you. Andy, it's still an extremely uphill battle for the House managers to actually get a conviction here. It's moving towards acquittal probably Saturday or Sunday. But what we know today is the tarnishing of President Trump and his supporters is coming and it's coming strong.

Supposedly new video is going to be shown that people have never seen before. So it's all going to be about this evidence. And I was going to ask you right now, in a regular court of law, could you splice video like this with comments that were made three months ago?

Absolutely not. If this were a true court of law and you were trying a criminal case, which this is, it's a court, it's the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment. It is the Senate really conducting a criminal trial with the senators being the jurors. You could not cut and splice and make montages of video. That would not be admissible in court. You play the whole thing, assuming it's admissible, assuming it's been authenticated and you've got to authenticate something before you can admit it. In other words, it's got to be shown to be a true and accurate representation of what went on. But then you can't show parts of it. You've got to show all of it. You've got to show the entirety of it.

You can't cut and paste like you want to show the parts of it that are favorable to you and leave the other parts out. Not permissible. We're going to take your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's what we're watching for today is that you're going to see a lot of cut up footage with cut up sound bites from President Trump. Of course, they never played the House managers him saying peacefully protest and the word fight. I mean, look at all their fundraising emails. You'll find the word fight in every single one.

1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLU 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. Good. Senators who are being honest like Ted Cruz who's on Sean Hannity's broadcast. We played the clip for people who are watching the broadcast right now. If you're listening on radio or Sirius XM like most of you. You know he said like if we're going to, if saying we're going to fight to retake our country is now incitement. And is now is sedition or is again is something that you could impeach someone over. Then every single political candidate in history. I mean just take a listen here is the bite. Because this is the honest truth.

If you're being an honest politician on both sides of the aisle. I get a lot of fundraising emails. I get a lot of their emails. I see a lot of words like fight. I see a lot of words like retake. I see words like we're under attack. Okay. And yet no one thinks that that's speech that is unprotected. That's illegal speech in the United States.

It's not protected by the First Amendment. Take a listen to Ted Cruz by 29. You know the Democrats right now what they're trying to say is that President Trump's rhetoric caused the terrorist attack on the Capitol. And listen the President's language at times I think is overheated.

But if you look at the language he used saying things like fight. Saying things like go retake our country. If that is now incitement then we better prepare a long line to indict every candidate for office who's ever run. Anyone who's ever given a stump speech has said let's go fight. Let's go win.

Let's go retake our country. I mean this is why and Annie this is the heart of now the argument we were past the constitutional stage. We've got a very good floor for the President to be again acquitted and vindicated again. It does not look like he'll be impeached because 44 senators still believe after all the arguments yesterday they shouldn't even be there. So it doesn't even matter what's being said right now on the Senate floor by either side over these next four days they have no jurisdiction at all. So if that holds the Democrats which I think they never had a shot at this but certainly the way they rushed this through. But what Ted Cruz said I think is exactly point on is that I mean our language ACLJ.

Any Democrat fundraising email that you get or stump speech as he said Andy. This is protected. This is what the founding fathers were exactly thinking about was that you could get up on your soapbox and say we've got to fight to take back our country. We've got to fight to protect this right or we have to fight to protect the unborn or we have to fight for the right to keep a woman's access to abortion.

Or that abortion is murder. I mean all of those back and forth saying both sides of the issue. That's all protected speech Andy.

That's exactly right Jordan. It is all protected speech. We use fight all the time. We fight for this. We fight for that. We want someone to go out there and demonstrate.

We want them to peacefully demonstrate. What did Dr. King do but fight? He fought the discrimination of not being allowed to eat at a lunch counter in Alabama. The civil rights whole movement of the 60s was a fight. A battle. A war. It was conflict. And if you can't use those words then you're in bad shape in this country because we use those words all the time. I mean I'm breaking in right now because right now, I don't know if we can show the screen, the Democrat house managers are putting up that on December 12th the President tweeted we have just begun to fight.

As if that is somehow illegal speech Andy. We have just begun to fight. Now that was when the legal challenges were really just starting. And again there was a major Supreme Court case where four states were at issue that made all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. We have just begun to fight. I mean this is not, that was in December and they're going to try to blame that for January 6th. I mean to me, Andy alone, just showing that tweet shows how weak their case is. Why the President hasn't been arrested for insurrection or sedition.

That's right Jordan. What about during the Revolutionary War when I think it was John Paul Jones whose boat was attacked and what he said is I have not yet begun to fight. Oh my God, he needs to be indicted for making words and stinking statements that are inciting to insurrection and riot. Of course we fight in this country. We fight all the time. A child who is being aborted in an operation room is trying to fight for life.

He's trying to maintain that life in the light of someone trying to snuff out their life. We do that all the time. That does not amount to impeachable offenses and it certainly doesn't amount to the right of the Senate to convict for crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors. So they literally just used we have not yet begun to fight. That was the whole tweet from President Trump as a reason why he should be impeached. Okay, now we already think that it's ridiculous he should be impeached.

He's a private citizen now. But putting that aside, let's get to their other arguments. Take a listen to this. This is Democrats, just a snippet of Democrats using fight in their own language. What does Congress do about this? We fight. We keep fighting. We're going to keep fighting and fighting and fighting for this. We should dream big, fight hard and take back our country. This is a fight of our lives.

Stand up and fight for the best of who we are. And I'm prepared to fight and I know how to fight. But I'm ready for that fight.

Increasing numbers of people are ready for that fight. Stand up and fight for democracy. I will fight every day until he is impeached. This is time for every single one of us to get up and fight for our country.

We can't just imagine a better future. We've got to fight for it. We continue to fight for a progressive agenda in our future. That's what we're fighting against when we fight Republicans in Congress. And they just did, while we were playing that, they just showed another part of his speech, Thanh, where he just said, we have to fight.

We have to be ready to fight to keep our country. I mean, a lot of people, if you thought you just lost an election that was controversial, I mean, that's the kind of language you'd use. I mean, I think probably Kevin McCarthy was probably using that in fundraising emails. Hey, we're going to have to fight to fight back against the Biden administration. And these are just terms you use. The fact that the Democrat House managers, Thanh, are trying to use this term, which is so benign in politics, the word fight, as the insurrection, as that's the sedition, that's the encouragement for those to go out and commit the overthrow, an attempted overthrow of the United States government is absurd. Jordan, it's a baseline term.

I mean, it really is. The idea that that term is going to be the foundation for impeachment is just not believable. And look, I mean, I'll come right out and say we've had this conversation on air before, Jordan. I'm a guy who actually thinks this society needs a little bit more convincing speech, needs to sort of stand on the merits a little bit more and convince the other side of an argument, and that maybe we do have too much divisive speech inside our society.

But Jordan, it's not one-sided. And by the way, if our First Amendment, if our guarantee to free speech is going to mean anything, it's not that convincing speech that I like that needs to be protected. It's the divisive speech. It's the unpopular speech.

And so, you know, for one thing, it has to be protected. For the other thing, it happens on both sides of the aisle. And if you're going to start impeaching for this, there's going to be an awful long line of people who are going to be up for impeachment. And by the way, who's it going to involve? It's going to involve all 100 senators sitting in that chamber as jurors right now.

Yeah, I mean, this is the thing. So I want to take your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Should we listen in a little bit? This is Jamie Raskin, the lead House manager. He's making the opening. Now, this is kind of like the opening of the argument now. They've gotten past the constitutional stage.

Take a listen. Praise and sympathize and commiserate with the rampaging mob. It was to continue to act as insider-in-chief, not commander-in-chief, by telling the mob that their election had been stolen from them. Even then, after that vicious attack, he continued to spread the big lie.

And as everyone here knows, Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes and 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. But Donald Trump refused to accept his loss even after this attack. And he celebrated the people who violently interfered with the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history. I don't remember the President ever celebrating the people violently. In fact, when he did speak out, he told people to stop and leave. And when he spoke before, he told them to peacefully protest at the Capitol.

So before anything happened, it was peaceful protest. After, it was stop and leave. Enough. You know, stop and leave.

Stop what you're doing. And whether or not he liked the outcome of the election and whether or not he thought the election, Andy, was fair or not, irrelevant. Irrelevant in this impeachment. Irrelevant in the – they didn't spend the time writing their article of impeachment, Andy, their single article. To even make any of this relevant.

No, I mean, you know, in order for something to be relevant, it's got to have some bearing upon the issue in the case. The President's opinions with respect to the outcome of the election were the President's opinions under the First Amendment. He had the right to express those opinions. But I listened to the speech that he made. He always said, peaceably protest.

He may have said, we need to fight for our democracy. So what's wrong with that? I was in court earlier this year for two days and all I did was fight. Fight the other side. Fight the defense. Fight evidence that was trying to get in.

And I was doing so peacefully within the confines of a courtroom in Glynn County, Georgia. What's wrong with that? We're supposed to fight.

We're supposed to express our views. He didn't incite the insurrection. And I don't see where that possibly exists in the evidence that has been propped. And again, this is the problem with the House managers always.

It was the problem with yesterday. They never gave you the full story on those impeachments that happened. One was a pre-constitution post of former people and what actually happened at the end. They never gave you the full story about the President saying, peacefully protest. They never give you the full truth.

They have to splice and dice to make their case because they don't have a solid case. This is just about tarnishing conservatives. About tarnishing President Trump and all of President Trump's supporters. There's many of you listening to the broadcast right now. Go to ACLJ.org, sign our petition, we'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you 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. We'll 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, the 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. This is an interesting point because I do think this is a horrible moment for the country. And the reason why is because it's on every network. It's on major networks. It's not just on cable news. For the most part, it was covered – most of it was covered yesterday on networks. Some of them went to, finally, like local news.

I'm sure that depends on where you are in the country. So, you know, one of the President's defense team, as David's shown you, he opened with this, which I think is true, to have this entire idea of what the Democrats are trying to do with this impeachment. Because it's not about removing President Trump. He's no longer President. It's not even about President Trump. He's the former President. I don't even know who's on trial because the Chief Justice isn't there. So it's not the President.

It's us. And I think they made that clear. Take a listen to David Schoen. This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have only seen once before in our history. The House managers, in their wisdom, have hired a movie company and a large law firm to create, manufacture, and splice for you a package designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow Americans. So, I mean, I think – there you go, right there. I want to go to Richard's call in Kansas. I think this is important.

I think with the Cassidy switch yesterday, I'm sure there's people that are a little bit more nervous. And we're taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. Hey, Richard. Welcome to Sekulowpe.

Hey, how you doing? Good. So this is my take on this. And I do not trust the Senate not to impeach because the America First movement is against the political class, whether that's Democrats or Republicans. It's the establishment. And I just don't trust them to not impeach. Well, listen, I get your feeling that it's because President Trump was bigger than just the idea of being a Republican and brought so many new people to the party. But then I think to that point, he brought so many new people to the party that most Republicans understand, even if they don't like him or they see him as a potential competitor, some of these senators in 2024, because he might run for President again, they understand that he grew the party so much, even with losing the last election, that they are not going to, it's not that they're scared of him, it's that they want to continue to grow the party too.

Well, you have to have both sides of that divide if you're going to win elections in purple states. I think they understand that. But to the caller's point, Jordan, I mean, I get, and I think any good lawyer that's trying any case or anybody that's advocating inside of impeachment would not take it for granted. You argue every day as if the outcome is in question.

But here's where I come down on it. I just don't know how a senator yesterday, voting for the second time that the Senate does not have jurisdiction under the Constitution, is then going to turn around in a few days and vote to convict on something that they voted twice, violates the Constitution to even carry it. Now, look, I even think that Senator Cassidy, look, I'm not going to impugn his motives. I think he sat there. I think he took in the arguments.

And I think maybe his mind was switched. But Jordan, he's going to have an awful hard time telling his voters in Louisiana why he felt one way on the constitutional issue one day and the other way a few days later. A senator that has now gone down to the floor, to the well of the Senate and twice said, no, the Senate restricts me from taking this power. That power is not in the Constitution.

It is not mine to have. How is that senator then going to go say, I've said twice, I don't have this power, but I'm going to assert it anyway? Jordan, that's why I think that in this case, you may not trust them, and that's completely fine. I don't see how you intellectually make that switch, and I don't think they will. No, and I think, listen, even Senator Cassidy, Andy, I don't see any indication that because of his vote, by the way, I would only say that probably Mitt Romney, Andy, and Pat Toomey are the only two, I'd say almost are 100 percent you could say are going to vote to impeach. I'd say the others that even believe they might have jurisdiction here, which we said even in our reef, if you believe it's a gray area, if you go one way or the other, we're past that issue now, they're not 100 percent votes for impeachment either. So the idea that they think they only need to get 11 more Republicans, I don't think that's true. I think they need to get 13 or 14 more Republicans to go for impeachment, and how can you do that when they said they don't even have jurisdiction?

Let's reconnect with Andy. Sometimes you've got to do that with these connections we're all doing across the country. Again, I mean, you've had both Senator Mike Lee, who's a Republican, and Senator Murphy, a Democrat, they've conceded that jurisdiction is an unsettled issue. Now, it's been settled for this trial. Now, what does that mean?

Well, I will tell you this. For all of you who called before and said, man, can we still impeach President Obama? Now we can.

I don't think it's necessarily the right thing to do, but we can. There's precedent. I mean, there's precedent now to hold, to strip his Secret Service, strip his $4 to $5 million worth of travel budget he gets a year, take away all of his security, make it a lot tougher on him.

He'd have to do a lot more Netflix deals to pay for his lifestyle. Well, in many ways, Jordan, that's why this was the most important vote of the trial, because unfortunately, that's the precedent that has now been set. Now, there's going to be a full trial on a former President who's now a private citizen, and regardless of how you feel about the merits of that case, that precedent has now been set. And Jordan, I couldn't agree with you more on where the parameters are for the votes, because look, if you're one of the 56 senators who said the Senate has jurisdiction, well, you can still vote either way. You can have jurisdiction and find to convict or find to acquit. If you're one of the 44 that has twice voted that they don't have jurisdiction, you can only vote one way. You can only vote to acquit because you don't think you have jurisdiction.

That's a threshold that has to be crossed. So look, there are 56 senators in that chamber that could still vote either way, and that includes the six Republicans who have voted for jurisdiction. And I'll tell you, Jordan, if I were forced to take a guess, I don't think all six of those will vote to convict. No, I'd say maybe half. Maybe half, maybe four. Let's say they all do. Doesn't get you to 67, doesn't get you to 66 if Leahy doesn't vote, which by the way, he did vote yesterday, so I'm assuming he is going to be voting.

But Jamie Raskin tried to play it this way today. Like, well, it doesn't matter that you voted that you don't have jurisdiction now. So even if you believe that you shouldn't be here, that doesn't matter anymore. And if that's the case, then let's go impeach Barack Obama next time we're in power. Strip his Secret Service and take away all of his travel budgets, about $4 billion a year, take away all of his security, make him pay for it himself, make him go out and figure out how to do that himself. Because, I mean, fast and furious, let's litigate that in the public again. Let's bring forward the family, those who were killed by those guns.

How about all those people targeted by the IRS? I'll bring them forward as witnesses in the Senate chamber. And we could just re-litigate that. Let's do it with Hillary Clinton too.

Because we never really got to the bottom of our servers. And hey, John Durham is still a special counsel. I'm sure he's got some people we could impeach through that too.

Because they've opened the door, and that's the argument Jamie Raskin just made by 40. Now the factual inquiry of the trial is squarely posed for us. The jurisdictional constitutional issue is gone. Whether you were persuaded by the President's constitutional analysis yesterday or not, the Senate voted to reject it. And so the Senate is now properly exercising its jurisdiction and sitting as a court of impeachment, conducting a trial on the facts. Now, Annie, let's try to tell those 44 senators, well, you know, it doesn't really matter that you voted against this.

That's just bogus, because if you truly believe in your heart of heart you don't have jurisdiction, you can't move forward and say, now I'm going to vote to impeach and do all this. But the end of the day is, he is right that they've opened the door to do this to former officials now. Well, yeah, he's opened the door to any former President of the United States who did anything. How about Bill Clinton and the Me Too movement?

Let's open up and look at what old Bill did. Exactly right. Exactly right. This has opened up the Pandora's box that Lindsey Graham said. Again, is it right? Is that something we would advocate to do?

I'm not sure. Maybe I do feel like impeaching Barack Obama in a few years. Maybe I just don't like the way he gets to go around Martha's Vineyard on our dime with his travel money, with the security I pay for, after all those controversies he was involved in with Eric Holder protecting him.

Just think about it. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back.

Second half hour of Sekulow, and it's going quickly. 1-800-684-3110 to take your calls, and I want to answer your questions, too, because now we are in a factual stage. We're monitoring closely. We're supposed to see all this new footage. We were told, anyways. So far, that has not occurred.

So, so far, it's gone from Raskin to another house manager with just making arguments. So, it did not launch again with some brand-new footage. So, did they oversell that? Is that how they're going to close today?

I'm not sure. But it was supposed to, at least the media was reporting, open with this just shocking footage. Now, they have 16 hours to do this, and I know that the networks are all covering it.

I'd go to Than on this. Than, the first time around with impeachment, I think people were tied to it. The President was in office. You had all these house hearings. You had all these cast of characters, as you would say, the Adam Shifts of the world.

You had, you know, we were involved on the floor. She had these kind of famous attorneys, if you will. Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Jay Sekulow, Pat Cipollone, White House counsel, all that. And you strip all that away this time, and the President's not the President anymore, and the chief justice isn't there. And it's, they might be trying to get people to watch it, and yes, it's still COVID, so a lot of people are at home. But I feel like this is not what they're tuning into. So, it maybe won't have the same political impact that they're trying to have on tarnishing the President.

Yeah, probably won't, Jordan. I mean, I think they're looking for any impact at all, and I think the biggest factor there is that there's not a sitting President. I mean, the last time around, look, whatever you think about the case, had the Senate voted to convict, it would have resulted in the sitting President having to vacate office.

That's not the case now. I mean, hypothetically, I don't think the Senate is going to convict here, Jordan, but if they did, what would the impact be? The impact would be that Joe Biden would still be the President.

He's going to be the President either way, so you just don't have that factor in play. I think that's really playing into it, and by the way, Jordan, just to kind of maybe underline the point you made about they didn't open with the videos. The other interesting thing to note that I think our listeners should pay attention to, there was an opportunity here for motions to be filed on any number of different matters, a motion to dismiss or other things. No motions were filed, so that's yet another sign that the timeline of this trial is likely going to be compressed. I think if there had been motions, we were looking at it pushing into at least Monday, probably later, and Jordan, you said at the outset of the broadcast that you thought it might be able to wrap by Saturday or Sunday. This is another sign that a quick and a speedy conclusion is definitely possible.

Not a single motion filed today by the deadline. And that's exactly what deserves to happen. I mean, there shouldn't even be an impeachment, but Andy, the fact is, it shows the failure of Democrats in there. If they thought that they didn't need the President in office, you know, I was talking to our producer Will earlier this morning, Andy, if they thought it didn't matter if he was in office or not, why did they have to do a snap impeachment? Why didn't they call witnesses? Why are they going to end up having an impeachment trial that is done in less than a week that they lose? Because they didn't do the work because they thought, hey, if the argument was it doesn't matter if he's in office or not, they didn't need to rush this one poorly written article, which is kind of all over the place and doesn't actually kind of single out the specific charges? Well, that's true, Jordan.

That's absolutely true. Look, the Democrats here rushed an impeachment through while the President was still in office. They conducted no hearings. It didn't go to the Judiciary Committee.

Nobody conducted any analysis into whether or not high crimes and misdemeanors had been had been committed by the President. The only purpose was to tarnish the President and to blacken his reputation. This is and I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is nothing but a bill of attainder.

And that's an important thing that our audience ought to look up. It is an attempt to put to violate the bloodline, so to speak, of the incumbent President and to prevent him from holding office ever and ever again. It's not going to work. All right, folks, we're going to continue to take your phone calls 1-800-684-3110.

I can't wait. Ted Lieu can't wait for Eric, Chinese spy Swalwell to tell us why he is right and why a former President should be impeached. I mean, this guy should be thrown out of office himself by his own party.

But no, they're elevating him to a house manager. How ridiculous, how absurd, how partisan, how it's the opposite of uniting. Let's put it that way. It just makes me angrier Democrats and angrier liberals because of who they chose even to represent. 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, 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. Welcome back to Secular Radio. You know, again, this is not a real impeachment. I want to make that statement. Why is this not a real impeachment?

Why am I saying that? Well, because the Chief Justice isn't there. It's not a real impeachment of a President. It is a Senate trying to hold a trial of a private citizen. That's why the Chief Justice isn't there.

He can't remove anybody. You know, one of my ideas, we're still part of the President's legal team. We're handling a lot of issues for the President because he's under what I call lawfare.

I said it on Sean Hannity's radio broadcast yesterday. I mean, the President is being faced with different things from all over the country. One of the things he's not being faced, though, with is any charges that he committed, a sedition or insurrection, by the way. So he's not facing those legal challenges, which is interesting because, you know, they keep saying, well, there's a January exception. There's no January exception to being President.

No, there's not. It's called legal system in America. But, you know, again, one of my ideas early on was not even to show up.

I mean, I think it's dangerous. Sometimes you let these Ted Lieu types and Jamie Raskin types and Eric Swalwell types just talk. But the truth is it doesn't even deserve written response, maybe on the constitutional issue and only that. Because, again, the idea that you can't use the word fight as a politician.

They keep throwing this up on the screen while I'm talking to you right now. Fight, fight, fight, fight. That is a word that you can no longer use in politics.

I want to go to Harry Hutchinson, also a former law professor. Harry, the idea that you can't use the word fight in political speech, we would all be in trouble, including every member of Congress, like Ted Cruz said. Absolutely. And so fight has been part of the vocabulary of politicians going back hundreds of years. And in fact, if you look at recent history, the recent history of the Democrats over the last 12 months or so, they have been encouraging people to do what?

To fight, to fight in Portland, Oregon, to fight in Seattle, to fight in Minnesota, in St. Louis, you name it. Wherever riots have been found, Democrats have been urging people to continue to fight. And so we cannot exclude the word fight from our vocabulary, particularly when we deal with politicians. And so the Democrats have engaged in a selective memory campaign. They're basically saying we can use the word fight as much as we want to, but when a Republican uses the word fight, then that Republican faces legal jeopardy. This is clearly and unmistakably a double standard and it's unsustainable.

Wes, I continue to feel like for our country, I mean, I go to your side, not just in the military, but as a minister also, and that as a country facing COVID still, facing economic uncertainty because of COVID, school reopening questions in some parts of the country, life is not back to normal. And yet this is what we're seeing on all major networks right now, is a former President, private citizen on trial with the House managers using their time, so the House is taking their time, and the Senate using, today it'll go from noon to about 10 o'clock at night, focusing on this, when most Americans are just figuring out when are they going to get their COVID vaccine shots so they can get back to work. Yeah, that is very disheartening and troubling to me, and I think to most Americans, because we already know, I mean, short of something really, really unexpected happening, and it's just not going to happen, he's not going to be convicted. And so what happened on January 6th was deplorable.

It was horrible. It hurts us to even watch some of the video. But as we've said on the show before, you know, the impeachment article, as it's written, is a pretty sloppy impeachment article, but the House managers' point so far is not to really, it's designed not to convict Trump, but to arouse shock and indignation with what they're saying and what they're showing.

And I don't know about you, but all of us are shocked and indignant over what happened on January 6th, but what they're failing to prove is that President Trump actually caused that or incited that, even though that's their stated charge. In the meantime, as you alluded to, Jordan, Americans are struggling. We are tired of being pushed into our corners politically. We're tired of political revenge.

I think we would like to move on, especially knowing that a conviction is extremely unlikely. Why are we putting ourselves through this? Well, we are not putting ourselves through this. The Democrats in the House and Senate are forcing us to deal with this.

Right, and there were not enough Democrat senators to step up and say, you know what, we're not going to put people through this. I mean, they keep showing the same video, fight, fight, fight. They don't say the peaceful protest part.

Andy, I have two problems with the House managers, their presentation. Of course, the media won't, you know, they'll say, oh, it's wonderful, it's moving. You know, I'm not going to question Jamie Raskin.

I know he went through a personal tragedy. I do question, like, using that, though, in a trial that you also wouldn't be able to do. You wouldn't be able to get up in a trial and say, oh, also this happened to my family.

You know, my son did this. And again, it's horrible that happened, but normal trials, this is politics, and politicians are pretty gross. So to bring up your son who committed suicide in this trial is kind of disgusting to me. Well, Jordan, let me tell you, it's one of the first rules of procedure in a courtroom. You never, ever, ever try to liken the situation for which you are advocating or against which you are advocating to a personal situation of your own or to a personal situation of a juror.

That is not done. You never express your personal belief or you try to raise personal emotion by adverting to situations that you have gone through or that a juror may have gone through. But as Wesley Smith so correctly said, this is a political trial intended to besmirch the former President of the United States, and it's done for this reason. The Democrats are scared to death of Donald Trump. They want to eradicate him from the face of the earth. They think they're going to get the votes to convict.

Guess what? You're not. They think they're going to get a majority vote to keep him from holding public office in the future or keeping Republicans from making gains in 2022. They are not. That is not going to happen. What Joe Biden, the great unifier, needs to do is to tell Pelosi and Schumer, knock it off and stop this and get on my agenda.

I mean, they keep showing the same video. Fight to stop the steal. These are things you can do in politics. These are words you can use. This is not incitement to insurrection. And again, large crowds, and then if there's bad actors within large crowds, the Speaker is not responsible for them. And the Supreme Court has been clear about that.

I go to this bigger point of this. If they believe that it didn't matter that he's in office, shouldn't they have gotten hearings on this? Shouldn't they have gotten the Capitol Police to come and testify to the House and have hearings about why did the Sergeant of Arms have to resign from the House and the Senate? Why didn't they prepare? Why didn't they do a better job? Whose fault was it really that the security wasn't there? How long in advance did they know about the problem, people? Why were there also Black Lives Matter activists who are being charged with crimes right now who are inside the Capitol too?

And yet we're still talking about this was only about MAGA and these Proud Boy groups and all of that, and yet it was a mixture of basically all of a lot of different bad actor groups. I think they didn't want to have that because they knew that would come out. Yeah, I mean, it should have been one of two things, Jordan. I mean, number one, if they were going to pursue a late impeachment, if they're going to wait until President Trump was out of office to try it anyway, you're absolutely correct. They should have done all of the due diligence. They should have had all the hearings. They should have had all the depositions. And later, when they have this debate over witnesses, they should have had dozens and dozens of witnesses to choose from. Now, when that debate comes up, Jordan, they're going to have exactly zero witnesses that were called in the House that they can choose from. So they're going to have to make the case that they should call new witnesses. But Jordan, if they weren't going to do that, they should have done the exact opposite. Now they're saying that there's a January exception.

Jordan, that is their own problem. President Trump was still in office when they brought this up, so if they were not going to do a thorough job, if they were not going to interview everyone, then they should have moved quickly. There's nothing in the Constitution that says if the threshold is high enough, if the bar is high enough, and I'm not saying it is in this situation, but if it's high enough, Jordan, the House and the Senate could have moved in one day. They didn't do that.

They didn't go in either direction. They didn't say it's so serious that we have to move immediately. But then they also didn't do a thorough job, even though they were going to go for a late impeachment. And I think the failure to do one of those two things, Jordan, I think it proves the case that this is political.

And to Andy's point, I actually think it's about 2022. I hate using the words like liars and hypocrites and fake, but let me tell you something about the House managers right now. They just pulled another lie. So they played President Trump from a Georgia rally where he said, now is not the time to give up, now is the time to keep fighting. He wasn't talking about his election. He was talking about the two Senate races there. But the House managers didn't explain that. So they were saying, see, he was still talking about keep fighting the day before in Georgia.

Yeah, because of the Senate runoff elections, there were two races there. They can never tell you the truth. It's why they never get convictions. It's why Donald Trump will be acquitted and vindicated. Because acquittal, not guilty, is the charges you brought weren't good. Wasted the country's time. Didn't have the evidence.

Didn't prove your case. You will fail Raskin. You will fail House managers. You will fail Democrats. And it'll be the President who ends up winning without ever having to say a thing.

Without ever having to say a thing. He's not out there giving speeches, commenting, because they aren't even telling you the truth about the videos they're showing. It's ridiculous. It's absurd.

They're lying to the Senate. 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. So it's the impeachment hoax again. I mean, the first time around with Ukraine call, let me tell you, so sitting on the floor of the Senate, I mean, it was like Adam Schiff trying to make up an excuse to just impeach a President. And this time around, they're splicing video to impeach a President and trying to use a bad event that had nothing to do with the President to impeach the President.

And do we have the sound now? Because I want to show you this. So they played this to the U.S. Senate without context. Take a listen. This is President Trump the day before January 6.

He was in Georgia at a rally. Take a listen. We will never surrender. We will only win. Now is not the time to retreat. Now is the time to fight harder than ever before. Understand this. Understand that right before that, he said, we have to get out the vote for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler to show the radical left that will never surrender.

We will only win. It was a political rally in Georgia. And Andy, they didn't play that part. They don't tell you. They're acting like these U.S. senators aren't smart enough to figure that out.

They are. And the Democrats who want to ignore that, fine. But the Republicans who were there sitting there saying, my God, I was probably I might have been at that rally saying the same thing. This is the selective presentation of evidence, Jordan. This is not a full, fair and complete trial that you would have in a courtroom. This is a political trial.

They have taken a page out of the Stalinist page purge show trial of the 1930s. You pick and choose what you want to say. You don't show the whole video. You show snippets of it. This video would never be admissible in a court of law because it is not a complete transcript of the evidence.

It is partial. It would never be admissible in any court in the land. And yet and yet they presume to show it before the United States Senate and to predicate a conviction of a former President. Remember, a former President upon a spliced up video montage without the key elements and the predicate sayings like he did in Georgia.

He was talking about Ossoff and Warnock. So we elected them. We elected leftists to the Senate. You don't need the right if you're a conservative to fight against them. Of course you do.

I wish we do. Warnock's up in two years. I hope the President comes back and fights again.

And the same thing with Ossoff. So if he uses the word fight again, what's wrong with that? That's what we do in the United States. It's called the rough and tumble of American politics.

And it's perfectly permissible. You know, again, I want to kind of take the phone call and then get more thoughts to the final segment here. Because this is going to go on for at least another day. Now the House managers are saying they're not going to use all of their time. But I think they'll go into tomorrow. If not, then you could see the President's legal team tomorrow, I guess.

And they may not use all their time. You could see a vote, I mean, I guess possibly Friday or Saturday. But it looks like we're going to probably have a vote Saturday or Sunday unless something comes about with witnesses, which it doesn't seem like either side is pushing for that right now. Let's go to Marie's call in South Carolina on Line 1. Hey, Marie. Hi, Jordan.

Thank you. I have a question. Aren't many of the senators are trained lawyers before they went into politics? Can't they see that the videos are out of context?

Yes. And will Trump's lawyers, will he come back and say, can't you see that all of this is out of context? I'm sure they will.

I'm sure they will. One of the issues with impeachment trials is it goes on for 16 hours, the one side, and you don't get to respond as the other side for another 16 hours. So you have 48 hours until you can even make that point. Now, we can all do that in the media.

And that's kind of what we've been doing. That's why I've been doing so much media over these past few days is we're able to immediately, it's called rapid response, because the lawyers just have to sit there and wait till their turn. They can't do that.

So they will make that clear. But you know what? The sad thing is, Harry, those who many are trained attorneys and the ones who aren't are still very smart people to get to the level of the U.S. Senate, like them or not, good motives or not. They're at least very highly manipulative people to get there. And most have pretty good educations and a lot of lawyers. But what it is is pure partisan politics. They don't care.

I think that is correct. And I also think that most of the lawyers in the United States Senate and most of the senators who are not lawyers, they have enough experience to recognize that the Democrats are engaged in selective editing of videos, in part because the Republicans, at least, know that the House managers, the House Democrats are motivated by copious amounts of bile and bitterness toward President Trump and Trump voters. This propels, in my opinion, the Democrats to overplay their hand and to make material misstatements of fact.

In common parlance, the Democrats are in some cases engaged in issuing fibs, falsehoods, sleight of hand and deception. And I think at the end of the day, most senators who have open minds will recognize that. And so I think one of the risks the Democrats run here is that if they keep overplaying their hand at some point, it will indeed backfire. This is how it backfires.

Midterm elections. That's how it's really going to backfire. You know, it's one thing to try to tarnish a President and do this right before an election. And then they had COVID and maybe that hurt President Trump, ultimately, even though he was acquitted and vindicated in his first impeachment.

I think it was more the COVID issue and more the mail-in ballot issue and things like that. And the election law is changing. But second time around, when you barely have, I mean, when it's a 50-50 Senate and you lost, you're the only party that lost seats in the House and you just lost another one in New York.

And I mean, you would think that you'd be a little more careful. Yeah, I mean, I think that's the upside of this being a purely political process, is that the ramifications for it are political as well. And what does that mean? It means that the American voters, you and me and everyone listening, we're the ones that get to decide what should happen here. And look, you know, I can guarantee you, Jordan, that there is not a single senator on either side, that the context for that speech down in Georgia is lost on them. They know that the control of the United States Senate was on the line. And what was every one of them telling their voters and their political apparatus on that day in that moment? They were telling them to rise up and fight because the future of America was on the line. And they had a very different future in mind, depending on what side they were starting for. But every single one of them, Jordan, was telling their people the same exact thing that the President was saying in that moment.

We've got to fight because control of the Senate is on the line and control of the Senate will dictate the future of America. They're all in the same boat in that regard, Jordan. All right, I just kind of want a final minute here.

Let me just go quickly to everybody. Do you think that the American people, that this just kind of angers them? I feel like it kind of upsets everybody on both sides.

I think that's true. But I also think what this impeachment does, this trial does, is that it will motivate particularly Republican voters in 2022. Well, this is a political trial. You know, we're used to rules in a regular courtroom. In a civil case, it's a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial, it's beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone. None of those rules apply here. At Senate impeachment trials, there's no single standard of proof. It's a political judgment and it's going to be governed by the rules of the Senate and for the individual senators voting.

It is very subjective. The rules that we're used to in a courtroom do not apply here. It's political. You know, again, I don't have time to get to everybody, but we'll have Dan and Andy back on tomorrow and we'll really get to see, we'll take in the full Congressman Castro. I mean, you know, it's just like, come on, so partisan, so absolutely partisan.

He got up and said, good afternoon, y'all. I mean, you know, this is a serious thing. But see, it's not because it's not a real impeachment trial. 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.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-12-25 20:52:07 / 2023-12-25 21:16:37 / 25

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