Day 3: How Much Longer Will the Impeachment Trial Last?

To wonder, how much longer will this phony impeachment trial last? We'll talk about that more today on Sekulow. 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. Hey, welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Yesterday we got to see the House Impeachment Managers put on really their full display, their full attack on President Trump, trying to make a connection between the President's words and the horrific actions of January 6th. Now, what we were talking about yesterday really came to fruition throughout the day yesterday, and that was that they never tell you the full truth. They're always taking things out of perspective.

We played a bite yesterday. We're going to play both of them for you in the next segment, where they played a bite from a rally in Georgia that the President was doing, and then they didn't give you context that that was for the two Senate runoffs, and they acted as if that had something to do with January 6th and the next day, when it didn't. So they never will give you the full context. And I think that's always at the weakness of the Democrats' case, both in the first impeachment and in this impeachment. They just don't like to tell you the full truth.

They don't like to give you all the information. And I want to go right away to Andy Economou from our team, because, Andy, that's my takeaway, is that, yes, the footage is horrible. We've all condemned that footage.

We know it's bad. But there's no real direct connection when you're talking about insurrection, when you have to start splicing videos from the day before at a Senate rally or months before at a separate rally. Yeah, that's absolutely correct, Jordan. In order for there to be an insurrection charge that has any meat against it against the President, you've got to create a connection, a nexus between what he said and what ultimately occurred, and that his words and his actions and his protestations and whatever he said, which I recall saying, let us now peaceably march, was the direct cause or had a causal connection to the events that took place at the Capitol grounds on January 6th. They have not been able to make that connection. You cannot make a connection here that is going to, in other words, satisfy the requirement of the law in any event between the words and the deeds that occurred.

And that is the serious flaw in the case. So what they try to do is piece together bits and pieces of things that he said out of context at other times and in other places and say, see, there is a connection. Well, guess what?

There is not. I mean, they had time and time again, we saw, in fact, maybe we can put the tweet up on the screen right now for our audience because time and time again we saw that, oh, the President, it's his words using fight like, and I'm not going to say the other word, but, but then we've got it from Joe Biden where he says the same thing in his tweets. We're going to fight.

We're going to fight like, you know what? I mean, it was said over and over again yesterday. So we've got it from Joe Biden. I've got three examples I can read through from the house manager's leader, Jamie Raskin. That's a pretty weak argument to a bunch of politicians who use that kind of rhetoric every day in their fundraising emails and in their political speeches. That's probably the biggest problem that the prosecution, the managers in this case have, Jordan, they're trying to make the senators who are the jurors in this case believe something that they, something that they do every day in their regular course of work. Jordan could be a incitement to insurrection. It's just not a compelling case to those individuals.

By the way, I also think it's a dangerous one. The other point, it ties into the conversation that you had with Andy. Remember it was the prosecution that got to pick what the charge was here.

I mean, they could have gone for something a lesser if they wanted to. They chose incitement to insurrection. So it is their duty to prove that case.

Jordan, I just don't think they're doing that folks. We are going to be taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110. What we are hearing is that the house managers will wrap up their case today. They'll focus on what the President was doing during the riot. You mean like telling people to leave, telling people to go home, getting in the national guard, which the sergeant of arms didn't do, getting the right security there, which Congress didn't do. We've got over 280,000 people in our petition because we still believe this is unconstitutional, trying a private citizen.

We'll be right 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, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to Sekulow. We have got a lot to talk about as the impeachment second day of the impeachment trial is getting underway. And we were hearing that the house managers fan, I'll go right to you.

We don't think they're going to take up and they didn't even yesterday really their full time. They ended kind of on a bizarre note where Mike Lee stood up and said, that's not true. That's a lie. What you're reporting, you're reporting a CNN account, not a, not an account from him, not an account from Senator Tuberville. And they ultimately, uh, the house manager, Jamie Raskin, pretty embarrassingly at the very end of a, a day that, you know, the left was praising, had to withdraw evidence. Uh, and that was the final move from the house Democrats was they had to admit that yes, they had lied to the American people.

Yeah. I mean, first of all, on that point, Jordan, you can't blame Senator Mike Lee when words were put into his mouth and essentially they were trying to make him a witness in the case. Uh, he got up and objected for a number of reasons. The main one is that he said the account was not true.

They were relying on reports, but the second one, and I don't think it's an insignificant one, Jordan, they were trying to imply that he was a witness in the case rather than a juror. And he wanted to get that straightened out. So then rather than have a vote on it, which is how that would normally be adjudicated in the Senate. Uh, you're correct.

Manager Raskin pulled that motion from, uh, from the table. And there was some indication that there might be debate on it today. Jordan, we'll see that debate is just now getting other underway. Uh, but then on the first point that you made, uh, yes, the managers have up to eight hours today to finish presenting their case. It's my guess, Jordan, that they may not even spend as much time as they did yesterday. We'll see.

They have up to eight hours to finish. Uh, but no matter what happens, whenever they yield back, uh, Jordan, I would not expect the defense to start their case until tomorrow. And then maybe this is getting ahead of ourselves a little bit, but you know, based on what we've seen so far, I would say there's at least a chance that the defense would be able to make their case in one day.

We'll see. That's up to them. That's their strategy decision to make, but they have, uh, just like the managers had, they would have up to two days, eight hours a piece, a piece to make their case. And unless there's a motions for witnesses and they first have to vote to say that they will have witnesses, uh, and then they would have to, they would have to, um, actually break, have depositions done, uh, behind the scenes of the witnesses and then have votes on whether or not each one would testify. Uh, you could actually see a vote on this this weekend.

President Trump could be acquitted by Saturday or Sunday. I think we're still on track for that unless something like witnesses, uh, shows up, uh, in a debate, which right now we've got no indication one way or the other, but certainly with the pace that they're moving on the house manager side, they're not making a very good case that they need witnesses because you're not even taking up the time you have to make your argument. But I want to go back to something I mentioned the first segment and this was, this was I think one of the worst lies put forward by the house managers because that's what splicing is. Ultimately it's to mislead you.

It's to make you believe something that didn't happen. So they played this bite of President Trump and then they played riot footage. Now listen to the bite that they played.

This is the part that they played from President Trump and then it went into riot footage by two. 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.

Okay. That was on December 5th. Donald Trump was campaigning in Georgia. Here's the full clip so you understand the context of what President Trump said. We're not going to give up. We're going to keep fighting. Why?

Take a listen. And right now we have to get out to vote for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler to show the radical left that we will never surrender. We will only win. We're going to win. We always win.

Somehow we find a way to win. Now is not the time to retreat. Now is the time to fight harder than ever before. You know, Andy, to me that is just, I'd be pretty scared as an attorney to splice language like that and put it before a judge. Now they don't have to have that kind of fear because they are, this is a political trial. I mean it's a hoax of a trial. It's not even, it's not a real impeachment of a President because the chief justice is there.

But I want to focus in on that. You pull that off at a trial, you end up losing your bar license. That's absolutely correct, Jordan. First of all, no trial judge, no lawyer that's worth anything would ever presume to play before a judge and a jury parts of a tape like that or parts of a video and cut and splice it and not play the whole thing. They know that there are sanctions that are available to the court for any lawyer who did something like that. The law, at least in Georgia and in most jurisdictions, is that if you're going to play a tape or a video or a statement such as a confession that a defendant has made, you play the whole thing. You don't cut and slice pieces here and there to make the point that you want to make. This was a absolutely reprehensible act on the part of the house managers to take a portion of what the President said when he was speaking in Rome, Georgia in connection with the senatorial contest and to make it seem, to make it seem that that was the prelude to what happened in Washington a month later on January 6th. But I suspect very clearly that the senators who are the jurors knew very well what was being done. At least the Republicans are not going to be swayed by those kinds of illicit and illegitimate and horrendous tactics.

I mean, they cut out the front of it. They edited part of the middle of the statement. But you know, we've been putting together these montages. We had a 44 second one yesterday of Democrats using that same kind of fight language. I think Sean Hannity did an excellent piece yesterday for his broadcast that I want to play for you. We played it for our audience watching on Facebook, on YouTube, on Periscope and places like Rumble. But I think for our radio and Sirius XM audience, which is our biggest audience, it's important for you to hear this because interspliced, because we can do that too, with the Democrats language is the house managers accusations of Donald Trump. Take a listen or watch this. The House impeachment managers argue that one man, former President Donald Trump was solely responsible for it all.

Donald Trump surrendered his role as commander in chief and became the insider in chief. Democrat members of the Congress said there needs to be more unrest in the streets while there was unrest in the streets. And somehow that's not incitement. Kamala Harris has a real problem because she actively engaged in bailing out rioters. If you're a politician trying to raise bail for people accused of rioting, you're inciting more riots. The House team argues that in the weeks before the Capitol siege, former President Trump built momentum for trying to overthrow the election. I do have one very affirmative statement to make.

We won. You can run the best campaign. You can even become the nominee.

And you can have the election stolen from you. Did she incite insurrection? The President of the United States ordered the crowd to march on Congress. And so the crowd marched.

Go to the hill today. Please get up in the face of some Congress people. He made statements lauding and sympathizing with the insurrectionists. Everyone beware because they're not going to stop. It is going to they're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day. His rhetoric was dangerous and it was going to result in deadly violence. The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest.

They're going to absolutely harass them. The violence was what he deliberately encouraged. I said no. I said if we were in high school, I'd take you behind the gym and beat the hell out of them. He didn't condemn the violence.

When they go low, we kick them. He incited it further. I will go and take Trump out tonight.

I think you need to go back and then punch him in the face. I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be. There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. I mean, there you go, folks. Those are all Democrats using words like unrest in the streets. Nancy Pelosi, uprisings.

I don't even know why aren't there more uprisings? Hillary Clinton saying her election was stolen. Joe Biden saying he wants to punch Donald Trump. John Tester, a Democrat senator, saying he wants to punch Donald Trump. Maxine Waters, surround them all. Make their lives miserable. Get in their face, as Cory Booker said. I mean, this again, this kind of rhetoric, which by the way, most of that I still don't think is criminal.

I think you would say it's again, it's in a sense, I'll go to Andy on this. It's not the idea that I'm trying to say that their speech should be criminalized, but if they want to hold Donald Trump to a standard, well then we should hold them to the same standard. That's exactly right, Jordan. If you're going to say that what you say is protected speech and does not incite to riot, then what the President said is the same thing. Protected speech that does not incite to riot. I mean, they blasted the President who continued to say that he had the election stolen from him and yet Stacey Abrams from right here in Atlanta where I am today said, we won, but they say we lost, but we really won. Well, isn't that exactly what they're claiming the President said and said that he did and did illegally and illicitly? And what about getting in your face with Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris bailing out people who have committed riotous acts? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, except for the Democrats.

They're allowed to say these things, they get away with them, but a former President, a former President, not even the incumbent President gets impeached and tried, then certainly hopefully will not be convicted. You know, folks, we're going to take more of your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Our petition that this is unconstitutional, that President Trump, a private citizen, should not be dragged through an impeachment after he's left office as they got over 280,000 signatures. You can sign that online at ACLJ.org right now.

That's ACLJ.org. I want to continue to take your phone calls though. We want to answer this for you. We're going to point out the flaws in their argument, but we also want to talk to you at 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. Anyone in 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, the 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. Welcome back to Secular. We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110.

And let me encourage you now to start. We've got a phone call coming in, and we want to start answering your questions. One of those, Ben calling in from Oregon on Line 1. Hey, Ben, welcome to Secular. You're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. I was wondering, there isn't much chance of this happening, but if Trump gets convicted, can it be appealed on constitutional grounds? Okay, so if he's convicted, could it be appealed? I think, Andy, it would be the question would be, again, is this impeachment constitutional? Would the courts ever hear it? And the second part would be if they barred him from running from office, which is a guaranteed right we have as Americans to run if we meet the qualifications of the Constitution, which he otherwise would. I don't think he's going to be convicted, but I think it's a big question and likely know that the courts would actually step in here. Yeah, Jordan, there is no appeal from a Senate conviction.

There is no such thing. But if they went ahead after that and tried to disqualify him from holding public office, then I think as a private citizen, he would have a right to appeal to a federal court to say, you have taken a liberty interest away from me without due process of law. You have not impeached a President who was sitting in office.

That's required by the Constitution. But I don't think we get to that scenario because they're not going to get 67 votes to convict. But again, if you'll notice, throughout this political process that began last November, the courts have been very, very hesitant to intervene in the political process that has been going on. Not one court intervened in any of the lawsuits to take any action that the President filed challenging the election. The Chief Justice, and I think this is very important and I keep focusing on it, the Chief Justice of the United States refused to participate and preside over this phony impeachment trial that is taking place in the Senate, saying that's all politics and the judiciary is not going to play a role.

He's not the incumbent President. So I think the courts would probably most likely stay out of it. It's interesting, Chuck Schumer just said that they would break for dinner if that's needed. So there's already some sign that this could be over early or late afternoon from the House Democrats and that they would rest their case. Their case right now focusing in on what the President was doing while the riot was occurring.

And of course, they won't be giving all the truth there either. But again, it just kind of shows you they had 16 hours, but it's tough to fill 16 hours when you rush through an impeachment with no witnesses, with no testimony in the House. The House didn't do its job as fact finder as the trier. Remember, it has the duty to try all impeachments. And they had, I mean, to impeach and the Senate does the trial. Then the House part, when you have the duty to impeach, that's the duty to be the finder of fact, to get together the evidence. The Senate's not supposed to have to do that for you.

They're not supposed to have to figure out this for you. I think it actually shows to the weakness of their case that they have so little to say without videos. Yeah, especially since the House didn't call those witnesses, they can't actually just bring the same witnesses forward to present that testimony. They'd have to start fresh.

A couple of things, Jordan. Reading the tea leaves just a little bit on schedule. You're right. It looks like Schumer kicking off today said that they were going to take their standard breaks like they did yesterday, you know, briefly in the afternoon. And then he said they would break briefly for dinner if it's needed. So, you know, again, I'm guessing here, Jordan, but that suggests to me that he does think that maybe the managers will be wrapped up by then. We're just going to have to wait and see. But look, I think one of the things that you are going to hear a lot today is what happened during this attack and whether or not the response was timely enough.

And, you know, I think maybe that maybe there's cause for some criticism there. But then, Jordan, this goes back to the point we made in the last segment of the broadcast. Really, all of that is fairly irrelevant. I mean, because that would have been relevant if the charge they had brought forward was dereliction of duty.

That is not what they charge. They have a burden of proof to prove incitement to insurrection. So, you know, what happened after the riot was underway is not really relevant to that point. Now, look, just like yesterday, it's going to be horrific.

You and I have both said that repeatedly, as has Andy, as has your dad. It was an incident that should never happen again in the United States of America. But it will be fair for the President's defense team to come back up and point out that much of what you're going to hear today, Jordan, it's not going to be on point to what is in this article. The article alleges incitement to insurrection. It doesn't argue dereliction of duty.

You know, I mean, that's the thing. It's not about dereliction of duty. It's about insurrection. And we can go through insurrection for you. And let me just actually read it for you.

This is the statute 18 USC section 2102. As used in this chapter, the term to incite a riot or to organize, promote, encourage, participate, or carry on a riot includes but is not limited to urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written one advocacy of ideas or expression of belief not involving advocacy or acts of violence again, or encouraging people to commit those acts. And I go to that, Andy, and the President never encouraged people to commit acts of violence. This idea that, oh, he whipped people into a frenzy because he's a good orator. That's not incitement to violence.

No, it's not. I mean, if oratory, if oratory, if powerful oratory was a crime of incitement to riot, then everybody in ancient Periclean Greece, the greatest orators in the history of the world in Greece and in Rome, and the orators that spoke in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords in England, great orators that we praise today and that we find to have been really the advocates of democracy in a republican form of government in, say, in Rome in the time of the order Cicero, would all be subject to indictment and accusation for having been great in their speech and affable and viable in their talking. This is not the point whatsoever that makes it an insurrection. You've got to have an actual direct nexus between what you say and what you advocate directly.

Go out and kill and attack and bust and break and trample down. The President never said anything like that. I heard that speech peaceably one march down Pennsylvania Avenue, my favorite avenue, he said a beautiful avenue, using his rhetoric that he used, but he never advocated the overthrow of the government or what happened on that horrific day, and the House managers have not proved that. Let me just encourage you, too, and we've got a second half hour coming up.

Leave us a call at 1-800-684-3110. We're continuing to have our team watch the proceedings as they go on, so we'll update you on that, and then kind of a preview for you how we think the President's legal team, of course, some of us on this broadcast are still on that legal team. We're not handling this impeachment, but certainly we put forward that brief on the unconstitutionality. We've been doing a lot of the rapid response in the media to this, but what we think we'll see from the President's legal team in response to this, I think we've talked a lot about that, the fact that you can't just slice up words, the fact that using this horrible imagery isn't directly connected to the President of the United States. We'll talk about all of that in the second half hour as we take your calls and I encourage you to share this broadcast with your friends and family. Share it now with your friends and family.

Again, if you're on Facebook, Periscope, Twitter, share it with your friends and family. We will be right back. I encourage you to go to ACLJ.org, sign our petition. We're close to 300,000 on that petition. This is unconstitutional and wrong. Sign it.

We'll be right back. 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 to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And I do think we want to kind of set the stage now for what we expect next. What do we expect next in this impeachment trial after the House managers finish their case today? But first, I want to go to Sam Bennett, because, Sam, what are you hearing reaction on Capitol Hill?

Are you seeing anything, any kind of shift? Because I know that our audience, ultimately, at the end of the day, this is really about smearing the President and his supporters. But is there any movement at all, significant movement at all, amongst senators who would actually vote, who maybe voted that this was unconstitutional, to somehow switch it because of what videos they saw spliced with, speeches that were inaccurately spliced to say nicely, but basically how they were lied to with these speeches being spliced, actually changing their vote?

Yeah, Jordan, I don't think there's been significant movement. And look, if we just walk our listeners back through what has happened when it comes to actual votes, I think it'll be, it'll illuminate for them exactly where these senators are. When they voted on the rules package, there are 11 senators that voted against it for various reasons. But most of them were just that they thought the House proceeding had not been thorough, had not been accurate. So that vote was 89 to 11. So the rules were approved and they moved to trial.

And then we got to that first opening question that we at the ACLJ have really spoken the most about. We issued that 40 plus page report on the constitutionality of the Senate's jurisdiction in impeachment. So they debated that, Jordan, and then they had the vote on whether or not the Senate had jurisdiction. That was maybe where there was one small surprise when Bill Cassidy of Louisiana joined the previous five who had voted that they thought there was jurisdiction. So that vote was 56 to 44. But Jordan, if I just might interject a little bit of editorializing here, I think that was actually the opportunity for the managers to bring along the extra votes they had. Because if you weren't going to convince a senator that they had jurisdiction, I don't even know how you put evidence to them that says you don't believe you have jurisdiction and yet you should convict someone that you don't think you have jurisdiction over. So I think that was the vote where they needed to add the additional 12 Republicans.

They were only able to add one. So in my view, their entire universe for the options that they have to get senators to vote for conviction now caps out at 56 votes. I think yesterday, to directly answer your question, Jordan, I mean, I think the video was certainly emotional, but I don't think it was new for these senators. They were in that building when it was attacked. So when it comes down to actual votes, I think the maximum number house managers could expect would be 56.

And if I'm going to guess, Jordan, I don't think they're going to get to 56. I think Bill Cassidy, at least in the end, is probably still an acquittal vote. Yeah, I mean, let me read for you as we go into this next break, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110. And then with Andy and Wes, we'll start previewing some of what we think will be coming from the President's defense team. I mean, some of it's obvious. You take what they did and you play the full speech. You take the videos that we've played for you of all the incitement kind of language that we still don't think would meet the legal standard of incitement to violence that's been used by the Democrats. But here's Jamie Raskin in the written word, if you will, doing interviews.

This is back in 2019 with the Atlantic magazine. He said, you know, but we live in a time when there is nothing normal. Let's hope for the best, be prepared for the worst and go fight like, you know, that phrase that was uttered over and over and over again. But then back in 2017, Jamie Raskin, we've got to wake up every day and fight like again for liberal democracy.

This is the House manager leader. And they use this over and over is like the major phrase from President Trump that was the problem. He said the GOP, this back in 2020, September after Justice Ginsburg unfortunately passed away.

The GOP's rush to replace Justice Ginsburg is about to destroy the ACA, women's health care and reproductive freedom, the voting rights and civil rights. We must fight like, again, you know what, to stop the assault on health care. He used that like this, the House manager lead manager using that language for years. As we've said, this is the language of politicians. It's the language of politics. You have to fight. It's the language of law. You have to fight back for your freedoms, fight for your liberties every single day or they will be taken away.

That's not inciting speech. We'll be right back on Secular Radio. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

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

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

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

We are taking your phone calls at 1-800-684-3110. Of course, we're bringing you live impeachment coverage, phony impeachment. It's a fake impeachment. I don't even know if it's fair to call it an impeachment trial. It's a charade by the U.S. Senate trying to, in effect, assert its jurisdiction over a private citizen. And what a dangerous precedent this would set. Because as I said yesterday, if this is the route we're going, when Republicans take back the Senate, which eventually they will, maybe even the next cycle in the House, let's impeach Barack Obama, right, for Fast and Furious, for Benghazi, for the IRS targeting of conservative groups. And you may say, well, you can't remove him from office, and he can't even run again because he served two terms.

But you know what? We can strip him of his Secret Service protection. So he'd have to pay for that out of his own Netflix contracts. We can strip him from his $4 million travel budget he receives every year. I mean, this is how outrageous this would go. You can do it to Hillary Clinton. You can do it to any former cabinet official. You can do it to former Presidents. Hey, could you impeach Joe Biden as formerly as vice President? I mean, it's just bizarre where they have gone. I don't want it to go there. I think it cheapens why we have impeachment, why the founders put it in place to begin with.

It's not a substitute for our regular legal system. Now, I want to go to Harry Hutchinson first. Harry, first, Wes Smith. I want to go to Wes Smith. Yeah, I want to go to Wes Smith first. Okay, okay. So Wes is not in our studio yet.

Let me go to Andy then first on this because, Andy, we've talked people through what happened yesterday. We know that today we'll kind of close with, see the President didn't do enough, but that's not really what the charges of impeachment. So let's kind of move on to what we think and how we think the President's legal team should dismantle what has just been presented to the American people with this caveat. Half the country can't be convinced they hate Trump. The other half of the country loves President Trump and just wants to hear a strong defense. That's exactly right. You've got a 50-50 polar split in the nation.

The defense that I would mount would simply be the following. The article of impeachment has not been proven as it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because a crime has been charged against the President. And in fact, as we have said, he's not the President, so they don't have jurisdiction.

But assuming you reach that hurdle and the Senate has decided that it does have jurisdiction, you have not shown that this President incited anybody to riot. He may have spoken eloquently. He may have spoken rhetorically. He may have given a periclean oration of the first tone and the first quality, but he was very careful in the words that he said. And he did no different than any other Democratic politician whose snippets we played just recently on the show and just on the last half about fighting, getting in their face, taking them behind and knocking the H out of them and doing things like that.

What is the difference? There is none. Therefore, the article of impeachment has not been proven. No prima facie case has been made. A speech was made.

That is it. There is no nexus between that speech and what the President, what ultimately occurred in the Capitol. And therefore there should be an acquittal. That is what my defense would be. Jurisdiction, number one, you don't have it and I ask you to revisit that. And remember, Jordan, you can revisit jurisdiction at any time. I'd make another motion to dismiss.

It probably wouldn't go anywhere, but it should be made. And then I would say the article has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All this is is speech. It is speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The President, ex-President, now exercised his right to do that.

He should be found not guilty. We played for you that longer montage of Democrats using kind of inciting language that we still think is protected under the Constitution. But we also have for you that 44 seconds of, because they keep using, well, the President said fight. He said fight. He said fight. Check out the Democrats using the term fight.

Take a listen. 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.

You know, again, fight, fight, fight, fight. I want to go right to the phones. Carol in North Carolina online too. Hey, Carol, welcome to Secular. Thank you.

You're on the air. Okay, my question is, if John Roberts isn't even presiding over this, how on earth can it be legal? And even if they say that they found him guilty, how can they, how can they make that a finding when there's no judge that's presiding over it, because everyone there that is in the Democrat Party already has told us that they thought he was guilty.

So that wouldn't even be a trial. They are setting, Wes, it would be a dangerous new precedent, a precedent that we can try. Former officials, including former Presidents, even when the Constitution seems pretty clear that if you're going to have a President on trial that you need the chief justice there.

He's not there. And they still move forward and they believe that they had jurisdiction by vote. If they continue on, if this precedent is not a one time thing, but it's something they continue on utilizing. I think we've opened up a door to nonstop impeachment, but also every time a party takes over with the expectation that they're going to impeach the former party's President. Yeah, there's a reason that we have impeached so few Presidents in our American history. That's because it's supposed to be reserved for the most serious of crimes. It can't be convoluted. It can't be based on manipulating evidence and parsing words.

And the hypocrisy on the other side is pretty amazing. The other thing is that there's no way that the President is going to be convicted. I mean, you think about the fact all the senators who voted that this whole procedure was unconstitutional, that they do not have jurisdiction. It's going to be really, really a big leap if you're one of those senators that said, we don't have jurisdiction to in the end vote to convict the President. The other thing, Jordan, is that, you know, a plain reading of the constitution, we have one President at a time. We call former Presidents, President Bush or President Obama as an honorary title. They are not the President. And when you read the constitution about impeachment, it talks about the President and that the chief justice is supposed to preside.

And absolutely none of that has happened. Listening to the, to the presentation yesterday, you can make the case that the Democrats have been pretty eloquent, but there's a lot of emotion and very little effectively tying it to Donald Trump as far as what was said. And again, using the words like fight and what have you, you know, for those of us who make our living with words and who try to convince people, as I sat there listening to all of this yesterday, I'm thinking, you know, I understand the horrific things that happened and I understand that they don't like Donald Trump, but they're not doing a really good job of convincing me or I think the average American that somehow that Donald Trump was directly responsible for what happened at the Capitol.

A lot of emotion, not a lot of facts. Let me go to Kathleen in New York on line one. Hey Kathleen, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Hi. Um, I watched the news yesterday and I would have believed, uh, Donald Trump was guilty had I not been watching the ACLJ. Um, I just want to know, um, why aren't we getting the entire speech on the news and why is the media only showing one side of the problem? Oh, because the mainstream media wants this President sullied as much as possible. He wants you, all of us sullied as much as possible canceled as a President canceled as America first movement canceled this new populist uprising that's happened in the Republican party fan because it's a threat to Democrats even with this election loss because they didn't pick up any seats in the house. They barely took the Senate. Um, and there was a lot of kind of chaos around those two races when you can question whether those are the greatest candidates in the world either to be carrying the American first mantle.

Uh, but, but then the idea is that because the Republican party has added so many new groups to its, to its big tent, so you've got more African Americans, more Hispanics, more blue collar workers, more people who probably don't even consider themselves Republican, but are going to become potentially likely Republican voters in the future if the party remains with the same kind of ideology, whether, how, whether or not President Trump is highly involved or not, if it continues with that same ideology of that growing America first populism. Yeah. Jordan, I think this is proverbs 18, 17, which talks about the first person that comes and makes their case seems right until the other side presents their case. Just wait for the next couple of days. Although to the, to the caller's point, Jordan, it won't surprise me at all if coverage of actually airing the trial drops off for those next two days. So watch for that.

Yeah. Watch for that. Watch for them just trashing the other side's attorneys.

They love doing that and praising the left. Ultimately what happens? President Trump will be acquitted. President Trump will be vindicated yet again. The only President to be impeached twice and for the Democrats to fail twice to actually get to a conviction final segment coming up and go to 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 were saying. When you stand with the American center for law and justice to defend the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn. It's called mission life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

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

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

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

Become a member today, aclj.org. Yeah. Our producer will, he just put it in the chat for me. Uh, this is from Chuck Schumer's us Senate website, Chuck Schumer.com and it was an old petition.

Add your name. It's time to fight like, well, you all know what they say. It's time to fight like, and it's about fighting back against whoever, uh, President Trump was going to announce as the nominee to fill the late justice Ginsburg seat. We know now that's justice Barrett.

That's all done, but that's the language to use in the heading. And again, do we blame Chuck Schumer? Do we blame Bernie Sanders? Uh, I'm going to stay embedded on this because then this was, this was a really difficult situation when you had that shooter open up fire on the Republican, uh, uh, congressional softball team as they were preparing for the big game they have at this, at the stadium.

And it's a fun kind of bipartisan event, but they, they have a little practice before cause they actually do play a game and a shooter showed up and he said he was inspired by Bernie Sanders. I felt bad for Bernie Sanders. No one blamed Bernie Sanders or his rhetoric for causing that shooter to take that horrific action.

That was a crazy person, uh, who was, uh, who could put anybody's name down and done that act because to do those kinds of acts, you were already off the edge. I agree with you, Jordan. I feel the same way about Chuck Schumer's speech.

I mean, I think it's protected and I don't think he, you know, he should be held culpable for any violence that ensued out of it. But look, the standard has got to cut both ways. And that's why Jordan, if I were, you know, if I were defending this case, of course I'd make the jurisdiction case. Of course I would remind them of the charge that they chose to bring and the threshold that they have to clear based on their choice to bring that charge.

But this is the other point I would really drive home. Jordan, I would play some of the sound that you'd been playing and remind them that most of them, if not all of them in that chamber speak exactly the same way. I would remind them that context matters. I would ask them why they omitted peacefully and patriotically out of that speech when they played it from President Trump. Of course I know the answer, but I would make it clear to the senators who use very similar speech that if they say this is the standard, they will have to be held to account for it. And look, you know, Jordan, I think a lot of us can agree that political discourse in this country has maybe gotten to an unfortunate place, but it will go to a worse place if only one side is held to a standard of incitement. And that is really what House managers are asking the senators to decide.

I don't think it's a convincing case, Jordan, but I think when the defense team comes up, it is imperative that they point out this is the standard that you will be held to if you agree to it. They've got a lot to work with. They've got to present it to the American people. And I think also that President Trump supporters, many of you listening, those of us who are on his legal team, President Trump himself deserve that.

They deserve that strong defense. It's tough to sit through these two days when they can't be making, you know, they can't respond. But then they will get their opportunity to respond and they need to respond clearly. They need to show all these clips we've showed. They need to play all the sound that we sound. They need to do it the same way, except for they don't have to splice it up.

They can just play it as is and say, if what you're saying is true, then this is true, too. Let me go right to the phones. Ruthanne in New Jersey, line two. Hey, Ruthanne, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Hi, Jordan, how are you? Thanks for taking my call. I'm just wondering, I haven't heard much talk about whether or not they're going to be bringing up anything about the fact that as arrests have been made from the events of the six that they're finding out this was a preplanned situation, that there was a lot of preplanning that went into this. So doesn't that negate the accusation that it was in direct response to the President's speech of that day? Well, listen, I mean, the fact is that is why I think, Andy, they don't want to call witnesses because witnesses may actually damage because then the President's team will get to call witnesses as well. And these witnesses that talk about, including people who've been arrested, who have been charged with crimes, who could be brought in as witnesses as well, we'll talk about many of them that they were planning this for weeks, if not months.

That's true, Jordan. You know, sometimes it's smart not to call a witness rather than to call a witness. I've always taken the position that I don't call anybody as a witness unless I know what that witness is going to say.

You never ask a question that you don't know the answer to already. That's the biggest mistake lawyers make in court is asking questions that they don't know the answer to. You better know what that witness is going to say. So it's better for the House managers and the President's defense team stay away from witnesses because you don't know what may come out of their mouth and this pre-planning thing that may have occurred may come out of their mouth and then they're really found with an embarrassing situation.

It's better to rest. I don't think they deserve witnesses in this because they rushed an impeachment through West. It was done, you know, they call it a snap impeachment. They called no witnesses. It is the House's job to do that, to be the finder of fact, if you will, and then issue the indictment.

They're like the grand jury hearing for witnesses. They didn't do that. And the fact is that if they didn't do that, then the Senate, just like in the first impeachment we argued, that hey, you've heard from all the witnesses because the House did it.

This time around the House said we don't want to do it, we don't need to do it. Well, okay, why are you going to make the Senate have to do that and delay this for the American people? Let's get through these next two days and let's have a vote on Saturday or Sunday and move on and let's vindicate and acquit President Trump. Yeah, they're making the Senate do their job, you know, the whole issue of discovery and finding out the facts.

There were no facts presented in the House. This was a snap impeachment, which should never be allowed in the United States of America. And just because it's a political trial does not mean that you should ignore elements of due process. I mean, for example, what we've seen the last couple of days is, you know, manipulating evidence and a little bit of jury intimidation and what have you. And, you know, those are the kinds of things that would never be allowed in a courtroom. Because this is a political trial, they don't have to abide by some of those rules of fairness. And yet because of precedent and because of the high profile nature of this, you know, they should be more honest and have integrity on certain matters like this, splicing the videos and presenting, you know, part of the evidence, but not all of it.

Even if you can do those things in a political trial, should you really be doing those things? You know, it's crazy. What is the purpose of all this is what I ask. I mean, I think the American people, you know, the purpose is to just destroy the Republican Party, destroy the American First Movement, destroy the populist movement, which has been kind of taking more of a major influence inside the Republican Party, which is adding voters to the Republican Party. It's the Democrats' worst nightmare. How can we stop it? How can we destroy it? We need to take down their leader and everybody associated with him needs to be canceled out. Than, I feel like that was the whole theme for this whole impeachment.

It's still ongoing, but that is the theme. We need to cancel out these people who supported President Trump, who worked for President Trump and his administration. Don't hire them at companies.

Don't hire them for positions or jobs. And we need to erase this from history. I think it will backfire. But I think that was their ultimate goal. They know they couldn't actually get to probably a conviction, but they want to erase this from history and at least make it be make you a bad person if you support President Trump. Well, that's why I believe from the beginning that this was as much about 2022 as anything.

I mean, I think it's obviously about 2024 as well. But, Jordan, I think they're looking to drive a wedge inside the opposition party, in this case, the Republican Party. They want to make pro-Trump Republicans and anti-Trump Republicans forever divided. They don't want to allow candidates to win in purple states. I think they were always looking for a political edge in 2022. And I would tell you, there are going to be two factors on whether or not they're successful, how long they stay at it. And then, Jordan, those who disagree with them, how well they resist it.

I mean, that's just the honest truth. Just, Andy, quickly, you can have the great team, you can have the great resources like these House managers, you can be good orators as members of Congress, but if you don't have the facts, you'll lose, and they're going to lose again. They're going to lose again and they're going to lose bad, and it's going to be embarrassing and they ought to lose. They have no reason and no right to have this President, who is no longer the President, convicted on charges that are absolutely spurious. Our coverage continues tomorrow. 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.