Senate Impeachment Trial Schedule Announced

Jay Sekulow we have a date when the student will take the impeachment trial of former President and private citizen. Donald J. Trump article impeachment will be delivered today trial with two weeks we'll talk about all that today on secure radio live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow phone lines are open for your questions right now called one 806 843-110-1800 68412, and now your host secular. Here's what we know folks which was up in the air until this weekend and it really later on Friday with Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell came to an agreement to come to agreement on much it. They came to agreement on when the impeachment trial will begin and with it with the when they will receive the article impeachment that ceremonial acts of the house managers walking over the articles of impeachment and there that you do so with Raskin and Eric swallow while the other is Lieut. Lewis I guess you got categorize it. How would they put out. The sky was all of our lives in this time will either because that is not a negative. So the walkover that big a ceremony you know today that happened at 7 PM Eastern time. They deliver them to the Senate tomorrow. The Senators gets warded as jurors. But they've agreed. I guess I'll vote on this or that you started by agreement between the leaders they've agreed that they will not actually start the trial until February 9 will be the first day, you'll see all the sinners there in the trial see the house managers at their table presents team on at his stay at their table and the trial begin we don't have a trial schedule yet so we don't know how long the impeachment the first to really have 12 hours to open up the right ads and you sit for about started nude so we don't really also started one diddly I don't think we know about that yet either. We don't know if there to try to happy so because the Supreme Court was still taking Argie right so there's a lot to talk about here so you got a two week plus one day build up to the actual trial.

A question about who is going to preside over the trial, it becomes clear that slights not to be Chief Justice Roberts. The question is, is it going to be VP Harris maybe or the Senate Pro for which it which I get patently it's a mostly ceremonial role if they follow the boat that though the had a model of Chief Justice Roberts. They leave most of the decisions up to the Senate there thereto. To really for the question answer type because they read the questions in the direct those to respond to the questions and that's really the key parts you got the opening statements which I imagine will still be significant out of the 3012 hours. This time over what article I would. They had no no witness testimony and nothing like that subprime in order to look a lot I need to look a lot different than what we did a year ago were doing a year ago this week yet because we had multiple accounts with complicated separation of powers arguments and complicated constitutional issues. Nothing better because disclosure here at the front. Of course, which is this idea of impeaching a President was already removed from office, which is the reason why think John Roberts will not be presiding over this, but I think the fact of the matter is that the briefs are not can be exchanged until the week of February 2.

Then again February 8 and then February 9 the house managers will submit the rebuttal and then exits perspective. Trial will begin yeah me.

This is get so what we don't. Also what is still remaining out there. Sometimes I we get this done in three days. He takes them at least a week.

They forget that how long it takes to get through opening statements and the north side of these congressmen want despite right and negative question of the Senators adding that they can keep that going. They may try to call witnesses that mean you there was Eric swallow's unstated answer that question is to leave it up to the team of the witnesses will actually be members themselves likely who were there at the events, but that but again, what we are fairly confident I can be right now is that this will lead to another quit why my confident that because if you listen to Republicans closely about this.

They are all push coming up with their own reasons why they do not support this impeachment.

Whether they think it's wrong for the speech is protected whether they think it's wrong to impeaching a private citizen. They're all coming up with reasons.

I still think they'll be a handful that I can even get to continued still not you today. Getting to 17 post presence challenges facing Americans or some time in our value our freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/what you see here this trial is people supporting scholars left and right about whether or not you can impeach a former official in the Senate. Now go back to Joe Biden's words when he wrote this to consider to his fellow sinners has to think about the general welfare of the country so is this a precedent they want to set impeaching past Presidents and what then prevents them from saying we can impeach every past President we delight because of the new party will come in and commute can instill impeach Barack Obama Wert for fast and furious, and for that I risk targeting the answer. Ghazi yeah right now is out of office. So here's the thing. This can happen to me. Even Senators that think what the President did was wrong and it is a dealer in Clinton as it is a former cabinet member to keep her again. MS partner motivation that will trump running impeach Hillary Clinton for what she did with the email scandal and all that scandalous conduct so that she can't run again for public office either. So let's get it. Let's get a handle on kind of where where is Stanley got a schedule now of sorts which resist things get a start in about three weeks two weeks a day weeks in a day. You not I will tell you that it's very different than the one we tried in that the issues as I said earlier in our case where fighting much more complicated legally because you had somebody separation of powers issues the power of the President of our policies at Zenith, its highest and then you had this you know impeachment by either leaking and it was so. He was acquitted.

He's gonna be acquitted. Again, there is no waste can be convicted. I me I just there's no way whether you think that in that name. Sinners may think that the conduct itself was impeachable by the way, but there to this constitutional issue looms out. There's no right there's no here is the answer I me. I think there's there's arguments on both side. The stronger policy argument looking at the words of the Constitution, the President says that a former President he would do it to.

But what, what's the sense of timing out how things will work well first of all I think the most significant difference between last time and this one is exactly that last time it was a sitting President with some time left in his term, and Senators had to look at it through that rubric, but now they're not looking at it through that. And J. Maybe I'll go in reverse, starting with your at your at your question about what is the sense I think the consensus position, even among Republican senators who are troubled by the President's actions are that they don't have jurisdiction here, and you started to hear from a number of congressmen Sen. cotton Sen. Rubio Sen. sass is even said that he has some concerns about this and so look, I think a lot of people organize a will there's a lot of Republicans that are concerned about the President's actions that may be true but that's not the question that there gonna be asking and on process J of the discussion you had with Jordan about how this is gonna play out and why we don't know some of the details. That's actually good to be one of the most significant differences as well because remember, into before you even get to the possibility of witnesses or questions, a motion can be offered so look. I expect a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds to be offered at the very outset and right now JII don't think we can say conclusively that that will pass. I think it could pass them and you have to get Joe mansion in Christensen, the mind. Some of these others to go along with it and you have to keep all the Republicans together while Republicans have said that they were inclined to impeach other than the Mitt Romney will impeachment bid. Sass said it impeachable but doesn't think it's right so that's as far as he went.

Lisa Murkowski wanted resignation, but hasn't said that she would deftly go to impeach and the racemic that you suffer Marco Rubio that he just thinks this is throwing which is I agree fuel on the fire and that is in line with where Joe Biden is been the passive sinners that you have to look at the general welfare of the country before you just look at how they feel like doing is politicians and what it will do to the country versus what it would do to the man who is being impeached as a private citizen so I think there's a lot of them. Who would've voted to impeach this President because of this a decent amount of Republicans. I don't know if it ever got 17 by the way yeah but overly a lot more than two or three. I don't think the Murkowski's in the college and think their definite yes vote on impeachment fan because because of the precedent they would be sending their big on that. A lot of those nonattorney sinners care a lot about the registers they set the institution of the Senate and they been very clear Jordan that they are not an automatic yes on impeachment. I mean I think Mitt Romney probably went to Ferguson saying he may be a yes. But even as he said he would consider it and look Joe mansion said that he's not for starting this trial either. So now, like I'm not I'm not telling you he's in a vote not guilty at the end but this is not just on the Republican side in the process.

Arguments aren't just concerns on the Republican side either Luddite is constitutionally every one of these Senators Jordan even once a don't think the trial should happen at the end of the day.

It looks like there to be presented with their argument, and there you have to answer to questions. One, do we have jurisdiction to be convicted of putting aside the whole been owed by one unity in the country was obviously when these are delivered today that that unit is over with. But but here's the here's the question that you look at the impeachment managers. Wesley said this earlier that have been selected here including Ted Lou, including Jamie Raskin and Eric swallow well and you save yourself you said this well is like their total death of what this singles yeah either Nancy Pelosi is truly trying to blatantly insult the American people of all stripes or she is completely clueless. Clues clueless as to how this team you know is perceived and how it affects this idea of healing and national unity. And besides that J impeachment power. I think, is designed to protect the nation against harm from an incumbent President not to exact political revenge and it does appear that there either are clueless are there tone deaf as to how this affects the nation in it gives the appearance that they don't care near as much for the country as they do for politics only had this the head of the patient for the Democrats.

The manager head of the measures of the Adam Schiff of this impeachment to get the password to the said Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler to the U.S. Senate to try to convince Republican sinners because that's who they're there folks is that the Democrats activate convince republics is the two most partisan guys in the in the house, convince them they're already inclined not to support anything that comes out of their mouth, and he got so partisan the attacks there. This even more so Jamie Raskin is is there one of the main article. Impeachment is this you know, impeding the certification of the election will still flashback as he impeded in 2016. Take a list. This is the Democrat house manager you'll see a lot of in two weeks you'll see tonight leaning over that the article of impeachment back in 2016. He also here Joe Biden's voice because he was that like in the pits roll back. That is vice President. Take a listen and memorize all I because 1029 electoral votes cast by Florida were cast by electors not lawfully certified because they violated Florida's prohibition to officeholder rate is out of order. Section 15 and 17 of the United States codes require that an objectively presented signed by the members of the House of Representatives of the member.

The house represented Zana Sen. Daisy objection in writing and signed not only by the member of the House of Representatives, but also bison is in writing signed by sin, not as of yet. In that case, the objection cannot be entertained. Usage of over one Ted Cruz and Josh Holly traders for doing what Jamie Raskin was done to go in the league manager. Yet, the lead manager is good to some bad decision. There ended swallow Ted Lou are just despised by the conservatives. So how you commit 70 Republicans. It's why are they giving Donald Trump another victory.

You have to keep Esther so I don't think Donald Trump in the news today when he can't even speak through social media outlets yet that get every major news outlets but in their title Donald Trump. I am trying to determine the calculus that the Democrats are yearly zest with a may be a process and they don't want them to run in 2024. But they know they're gonna lose I mean is you meant maybe they thought right afterwards. They had some momentum, but quickly and it reshuffled like the deck we shuffle quickly. He said what is impeaching previous Presidents caused the horrible constitutional present and that scholar started coming out saying you can't do within the scholars thing a candidate it's a clearly could be up to the Senate and then you say to yourself, what is the political calculation here in this room trying to figure out for this to be the imaging a two-week trial and then the Senate pro tem River of the VP as the President of the Senate is going to the rollcall. They do the days and days and there are 50 boats you know to convict and 50 boats to acquit. Thus, it fails, or if there's 52 votes to come to acquit because you got a couple that concern Democrats concern about the constitutional issues so that the headline in the Washington Post once again I'm I think I have it somewhere. I should broaden its Trump acquitted it to beat Trump acquitted, again, what in the world is the political calculation on that one though. I think it's as Rick's absurd political calculus is because they're thinking something that many think there's some reason to do this or that they must think that they could somehow scare Republicans from being associated with present Trump and and I think they're doing the opposite. They don't understand Republic never understand the mindset Republican voter saying stuff Republicans understand the mindset of a Democrat voter. What I can understand what I do understand is encouraging their supporters to reorganize after they were exhausted and to me it is present.

Trump the jumping off point to start re-engaging because they're making him the focus so I wouldn't be surprised that come February 9. I he start re-engaging in whatever media he can because easy private citizen at issue of to try to be impeached by Ed Ted Lou and Eric swallow the Chinese spy got Ed Jamie Raskin, who, who objected to his election certification because he had a rally give a speech signal protest peacefully as the country we live in. This is getting a brief back and right back to the forefront of our country will take approximately hundred 684-3110 only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice as is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition like it will show you how you are personally pro-life publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways, your membership is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ 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 event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God will where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ date know the ceremonial action will take place tonight and tomorrow night. The house manager over the article judgment at 7 PM Eastern time at it tomorrow. We will find out I guess. Who is presiding over this because it was that the seated sinners will be supported. Technically, the at that point impeachment trial has likely gone there's activity arguments on the floor you like to see the back-and-forth of the questioning until February 9 which is a Tuesday through two weeks and one day out and drag the country through it even more in the build up even more to this.

It impeachment of a private citizen with the February. My guess around number 17, February 20 yeah I mean and you never know you just don't. You cannot predict the inmates pricing an answer.

Helen and I go with us three days.

Today's 12 hours that was clear was a long time for you and the Apple days and it was Donald he was like you to be over… When it was kinda done yet is this kind of petered out yet very late into the night and let's take a phone call. They don't want this one to be like that you could tell the sinners they don't but actually before I take classes. How does that they made any kind of ruling Jenna like timing about this case, art is very set other than like Saturday, which was a shorter day and Sunday was off. You had to set time, but you also can go very late to their early hours the next day yeah I've not seen one. Jordan, you know, to be honest with you I don't know how much of that we can expect until we actually get through those early motions that that's why mention that because I don't and I don't think there's any certainty that there gonna get to the questions I would suspect if I were guessing here. I'm guessing you'll get guidance from leader McConnell and Schumer on if they get to questions how long each senator would have and what opportunity they would have, but Jordan, I don't think you can have certainty on until you get through those early motions that they figure out any certainty on like you try to do half-day work and then go start the trial at 3 o'clock does not sound like it Jordan, it sounds like this deal is sort of allows them to get through. Maybe the covert measure and the most important nominations and then move wholly to them. And I think that's the plan. Okay I Leslie in Massachusetts on like three Leslie, welcome to Jay Sekulow Lodge on the right one attorney and I like what going on with with present Trump's closing remark about no peacefully liking down Pennsylvania. Maybe he might start typing I can think is that he said to the people that were watching the riots that will be going with you. There is you have to forget actual law and precedent high crimes and misdemeanors is broad and the Supreme Court said the state and that so this cynic to make up whatever charge crime they want for the specific trial studies. I would say think Banana Republic is a very high bar.

That's why no presence ever actually been convicted in these impeachments the only present likely, that would've been his Nixon, but he resigned Ed so that was likely basic told votes are to be there to impeach that Republicans were still in jail for dystopic of the of the President submitted it would. And so basically that's all I can even look back in history and say maybe the votes were there.

We could, but they need to get to that point. So here you look at the situation and you have to take off your lawyer had the sense of well courts have defined this kind of speech and made it clear that there's a very high bar to incitement all that doesn't matter what the Senate wants you to play so they will argue that I know that the present Trump's legal team will bring up the fact because they care about that but it doesn't govern. It's not like precedent that there's a presence here. They could make up the crime as they go along and add that though there is a very lack of there's a selling class to where the 5560 with witnesses and hearings in Nablus committee had its committee newsletter. There were no hearings before the House of Representatives was no opportunity for the President to present a narrative or our legal argument they just said no. The President speaks led to incitement that is as limited insurrection, working of doing impeachment within Surette on insurrection, with two hours of debate, that was it. They barely debated. They also added that phone call to the Georgia secretary of state. That's good to come up more than you think you I think it will. And I think you're gonna push that the Democrats although it's not listed as the dollhouse kinda mentioned. Yeah, it's not a separate count just kinda mentioned that seated he just leading up to this was doing things organic cause of violence and mental that's what I get to see that. I think that the Democratic house manager to take everything that I can just take the words enough to believe me that I can highlight the words peacefully protested.

It was a march on the capital's house. I can just be itself, yet you know this is gonna fight. It's not just be the President speeches and the other people that participated in that the question you would ask yourself legally. Normally, as does this reach the Brandenburg standard. This imminent lawless conduct that you knows that happened that you're doing it clearly it doesn't, but that doesn't matter in eight impeachment trial, which is totally political it is. It is not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding it out and in your right. Didn't have any sworn testimony for the house. No hearings and I think most people they could take this and it was gonna be interesting tonight as is the flow drama the gravity SAP managers walk through the hallways of Congress would be a lot more believable and they'd have more integrity. Had they not brought up such a farce.

Impeachment a year ago the American people fall through that as did the Senate and had that been more legitimate or had they behaved more integrity a year ago. Then I think people would say will. This is a little more believable. But it's all an act is all drama and they know it's not going to to succeed and I'm like you, Jay.

I'm wondering what is the political calculus here because it's obvious you're not going to convict the President and my question is in two years. Is this going to majorly politically backfire on the new Party and I think it should think it when I get it I'll let me close this segment will grab a cement level to complement and accept our let me say this. We secured a a major victory, the ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Jewish organizations of Jewish students of Georgia that attend Georgia Tech the Georgia Institute of technology in the federal complaint. We asserted that the those at Georgia Tech had violated title VI and were engaged in an unacceptable discriminatory practices and the department of education actually joined in an investigation after we file the federal suit. I am happy to report that the case has been resolved at Georgia Tech has modified and change its policies and is superbly stated that mom berated Lester the US Board of Education launched an investigation into an incident involving a Georgia Tech student organization Georgia Tech is pleased that the parties reach an agreement case not close respect to the core value at Georgia Tech and one way that we recognize as critical to cultivating an inclusive diverse and dynamic campus community. We are committed to fostering thoughtful interaction. Global perspective anti-Semitism in any other form of discriminations are not acceptable. Georgia Tech recognizes that per the Executive Order on combating anti-Semitism dated December 11 20 19th, the US Board of Education considers the international Holocaust remembrance alliance working definition of anti-Semitism and contemporary examples. When evaluating the intent. In cases of discriminatory harassment and Georgia Tech. Then we settle the case with Georgia Tech. Your support of the ACLJ allowed us to numbly bring this commentary and thought duties case around the globe.

The student group at Georgia Tech University. Support the work of ACLJ journal and do the ACLJ.org ACLJ.org and and we need your support this year because there are a lot of battles coming or just getting started with the buying administration and in all this information. We also this broadcast wave of reach each day.

Whether watching or listening to it is your score. The ACLJ donate online ACLJ.org ACLJ's been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and secular back to secular radio. We are to your phone calls would hundred 64 3110. I think it was importantly, update you on the ACLJ's work outside of just all these issues that have been kind of captivating the nation since election day.

They need to go back further since the first impeachment that we were involved in, which is the victory at Georgia Tech gets anti-Semitism.

The fact was start a fight that is very real at the ACLJ and the it's up@aclj.org. You can actually learn more about the case as we do all this work. Some of it. We don't haven't had time to get to on radio that's what it would just came out today so when to update you on that at ACLJ.or you not.

I think this is a MBA interesting question is to just discuss Charles and YouTube his gospel back. The last impeachment. You say how did that affect the 2020 election, but Charles Anita Road you think this impeachment affects the 22 2022.

The 2022 midterms as it hurt or help Republicans and it's interesting because if you look at it. I mean, George. We had the impeachment 2020 and the President put in the presence race aside to the Georgia race. The two centers that want our Democrats so I don't think it helps.

I don't think. And even though I think you will be acquitted. I don't think this helps. It just brings up conjures up so most of you will.

I think that's the way to look at this and this was it was a very sad day for America on January 6 when this happened and I think that all this does is highlight that this kind of discourse, social discord, so I I don't think that you may make the President stronger politically but look, no matter how you view the election results on whether it was whether it was stolen. Whether it was meant or whatever it was, at the end of the day I brought the process Joe Biden one however you look at how agape have to jump right behind is the same present United States, so let's be realistic here. Okay, so did the impeachment help the President. No, I don't think it helped the present. But I'll tell you what what really hurt was the Chinese with covert that hurt segment and overtook the peak right after the teachers always are shutting down so we like left at trial, and in about two weeks later, we Artie knew about Tovar that point presence first debate was not a good debate, and then was not as bad as I answer the second one midterms I think. Listen midterm election is really good to be up to our good candidates us are running in state-by-state and there will be the?

Fan about how involved the President will be in in these IT shall be involved in seven and not in others.

Depending on the candidate you probably on the preference of the candidate.

Look at any I've said several times before that, I think this effort to pursue impeachment is as much about 22 2022. Is it is 2024 and the reason for that.

Jordan is if I look back on the 2020 elections.

I totally agree with Jay about the impact in Georgia. If you look at the house elections across the country.

I think the divisions on the left definitely helped Republican candidates and I think this effort for impeachment is a way to try to continue to divide the right moving into the midterms in 2022.

Because historically Jordan and you notice that the party that does not have the White House typically win seats back in at least the house and when one party controls all of government, as is the case now that party that is out of power usually does even better in the house Jordan that they only need a handful of seats to get back control of the United States house and in the Senate. They need a net pickup of exactly 191 pickup so look in 2022.

It could easily be a Republican house and a Republican Senate with Pres. Biden, and I think that may have as much to do with pursuing this is anything else you still tend to think Wes that they are trying to make sure Donald Trump is not running President and even if these acquitted. Maybe it's just a bridge too far for people in their thought process. I think that Taylor Tomei political calculus. I think the dams you know they're making the political calculation that the risk of blowback and rejection of the American people are worth it.

In order mollify the left-wing political base plus they want to get the GOP senators on the record in this impeachment trial as well is the political calculation to take your phone calls 164 30 want to be on one line open right now to a talk to us on air 100-684-3110 also been Sean Hannity's radio broadcasting.

A shared real Fox News at tonight talk about that is a Newsmax this morning talking about all this as a people are kind of getting ready to go again with another impeachment. This time though not of a sitting President brings a whole host of other issues as a private citizen challenges facing Americans are substantial time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court 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 her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms and then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.

The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. You are already a member. Thank you.

Not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.

And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn cold dishes like will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications of 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/you will hear this come up to its Artie coming up in discussion and what happens as those who support the impeachment of former Pres. front don't like to give you the full answer. What exactly happened but let's go to Rogers call on my five in Minnesota. Roger welcome secular radio Selectric make all our Sen. Amy Corbett cared was publicly yesterday with the argument that she felt there is precedent for trying President truncating a piece of private citizen now in the example she used was war Sec. William Belknap back in 1876 and I'm wondering does this even hold water case so they did have a trial I was so the peach they left office. Then they tried me was out of office.

He was acquitted and 22 of the 25 senators that voted for acquittal. So we think with the centerboard did was impeachable but we don't think we had the authority constitutionally to try him. So yes, that's think that's the example they're using, but those Sen. said the majority those Sen. said no it's not significant sufficient enough to impeach that person. Because of that, so it put you back in the same thing. So they went to this entire trial for people to now here you may see emotion to dismiss right up front on constitutional grounds.

You could deftly see that that would take 51 votes. The question is where those 51 votes come from. That would be that so I don't know if you're going to get so you know, let's unite you lose at least Mitt Romney probably is as it was to hear arguments so that he doesn't want he doesn't think it's can be dismiss right there. I don't know if there be others. Republicans who had a sickening vote. Impeachment is it that's a tough row to say to 51. I would take probably deftly takes a Democrat or couple so you have any Democrats that anything publicly other than Joe Manson say Mrs. Eddy's and really independent while everything else is been pro-impeachment that I've heard that campaign brought out the idea of the 14th amendment and the man, sitting centers campaign is in Virginia using the 14th amend what I'm getting at the backdrop of him saying that he has said that he's not going to get convicted he to Democrat activities.

He said the reason that he would say how he would vote no on the Constitution was meant to McCain's death Tim Kane is raising the 14 amendment issue but the disappointing thing about American politics today Jay is that each party are for the most part, the members of that party are in lockstep. In another day and time, even when I was younger senators would depart and vote differently than their party leaders congresspeople do the same thing Republican and Democrat because they were voting rational conscience. These kinds of things. Nowadays it seems like the whip in the Senate and the house in the majority leaders.

They get all of their people in total lockstep so that the possibility of a few Democrats voting to dismiss, knowing that it's pointless and that is hurting the American people. They will not walk the ball against the party leaders in order to simply vote for something that is really really sensible and rational and good for the country.

The party members are absolutely in lockstep most of the time and also different from that case of the 1800s is that that Secretary of War found that this was coming rush to resign light at the same day you house this a different time so and different time with how you get when you think of communicating and still that feeling finishes to her present state finished his term, he didn't resign his full term in office. Impeachment came in the trial didn't that you just start until after sex is not a research lab at this whole and is still said no.

This whole idea what was planned by the Tim Kane brings up is the 14th amendment gets up opposable more minute to the Constitution. It's a basically between the palms of your you know what you were an insurrectionist against the United States were in a bar you from office. You got to get special clearance to sit back and that would be that's a majority vote. That would be a real stretch to mean a real stretch and I think would create all kinds of constitutional issues is not impeachment. So the cool spring court would have to engage that no interesting right now is we have a case up the Supreme Court on behalf of the President involving the district attorney in New York and I expected that state to be lifted today because the presence out of office and it wasn't and what does that tell me, as of the sum of these issues that are lingering got constitutional significance of the courts may still address so who knows… But that would be one where I think you go to court and say to the report of this work first and ultimately speak words like wait a minute, it can't mean for this for us in any majority.

Seneca basically you know what will be the evidentiary standard of that speech very difficult to say very difficult to stay but let me ask you this.

I heard John Cornyn statement Van and John coordinate was a pretty levelheaded and very levelheaded guy.

He's got no appetite for this will know he wants to get about the work of the United States Senate, and he initially said that he was concerned about the events of January 6 but look the President's term is over and I'd I don't think John Cornyn is going to stand in favor of proceeding at all.

I think you will be with Marco Rubio. Voting for the trip first chance to dismiss other J, I wanted to add one thing to the conversation you are having about know whether or not she could get to 50 votes for a motion to dismiss what this is the reality of living in a covert environment in the United States Senate is. It is very, very frequent these days to have less than 100 senators of voting and and look I think both parties are to make every effort to get every senator in the chamber, but you know this from having tried it before. Once it gets started.

Some of these votes just happen and I can easily see a scenario where your only to have 98 or 99 senators voting so that a majority.

Jay might not be 51 on some of these votes. So if you got one Democrat even if you lost Mitt Romney could be decisive if I just I just I still understand this political calculation. It's legally look out will be able to be commentary. While this proceeding, like will talk about what happened.

What happens tonight we'll talk about the marvelously redundant so the uniqueness about listening to our broadcast on this is. There's a handful of lawyers that have done these impeachments in our history, and a good portion of those handful of lawyers on the set right now and one will be in the our studio in Atlanta tomorrow and so you will have three lawyers that were involved in this little be able to comment on this during the proceedings and we may been go live on a couple of the key days. You know, depending on how those hearings start when we want to go over some key points really certainly save it for the next days radio, TV, full analysis of what's going on but dump look. Impeachment proceedings are only significant but they are cheapening the meaning of impeachment by doing this you having at your interesting questions, and on and I was retained by phone. I Karen and Montana online three care and welcome to secular radio you're on the air understand their controversy over him to attend a private session and I wonder what impact beginning this process in the Congress while Pres. Trump with Dylan office has on that lead to interest because the position that he can always be impeached.

10 years later, Hamilton not so much. He took a different view. You got my colluding former Chief Judge of the judge of the US court of appeals for the Fourth Circuit saying unconstitutional. You've got John you former Justice Department official office of legal counsel St. unconstitutional. Can't do it. You've got other saying you can do it so the problem or issue here is, it can be decided by the center.

I'd I don't see an opportunity.

I don't see the court weighing in on this impeachment rests with his auntie pointed out last week on the broadcasting in the United States versus Nixon that impeachment uniquely rests with the United States Senate and House and that it's that's their responsibility. The courts knocking away into this if they don't have to exact payment think that that's what you cannot rely on the court to fix this problem in the 14th amendment issue.

If that comes up that brings up a different issue that may be justiciable courts, but I don't think they want to touch impeachment out of the John Roberts to be there. I that will raise issues to and issues. It didn't arise in art. We wait what we were doing it, but like you, as President of the Senate. Technically, let's have this motion to dismiss.

Could Kemal Harris be the tie-breaking vote if she's not sworn in. I mean, and she's not presiding over its is not actually present.

Is she still the present senators that stop because you're the trial. Those are issues that the Senate is going to have to resolve.

You and whoever's, and I think those are to be votes on votes potentially that you may never get that vote wouldn't have that issuer John Roberts said what if he had to be tie-breaking but well with that initiative and that he was very reluctant judge, he remembered penalty was very re-said no. When they asked him to be the arbitrator of witness: right of the irrelevancy witnesses and we argued that with due respect to the Chief Justice that he is sitting, not as the chief Court shows that you just of the states. But as the presiding officer not the judge is the presiding officer. Procedural could start doing substantive rulings we thought would been unconstitutional and ultimately John Roberts decided he would not engage in those so there's a lot of play in the joints that will take place here about the other somewhat uncharted water here plot back to this possible motion to dismiss the J you know in our court system.

Speaking of the courts frequently. If there's a case is going to trial, and a person asked for immediate relief in injunction from a judge. The judge will denied the injunction because they are not likely to succeed on the merits right in the Senate. They are not likely to succeed in convicting the presence of why not grant the motion to dismiss. Why don't some the Democrats have cooler, calmer heads and say look this be done with this is not going to happen at the politics of AmeriCredit as a will or copperheads. It is vision. Divide and conquer is the past and the path victories narrow for both parties.

So they got a divide and conquer as best they can try to harm the other side as much as possible… Truth that it's an important truth is one you see divide evisceration dealing with now on day one can even try to stop that only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of weighing 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to discover many ways your membership is empowering the right question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to soar.

Constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in 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 and then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.

You are already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ God where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ secular radio final segment we are take your phone calls now. So did Georgia face with this issue of the Chief Justice is just constitutions.

It has to be Chief Justice. Actually, this case know it says with the President has to be the Chief Justice. That's the only time to the other other officials that can impede psych and the more free which judges actually is the most frequent that you see in history.

It's the Senate handling it yet and that it is not big news. It's not set aside something that the networks cover. But when it's the current President. Yes, the Chief Justice has no choice.

Thereafter, he got his ass because you don't want it to that to depoliticize what is already a very political will augment the vice President said said it would, they would become the President to take that issue. Advice realized vice President would be sitting in and if convicted that vice President becomes present as well and Dershowitz at that point.

The first question is who is going to preside.

I don't think it's going to be Chief Justice Roberts. I don't think you will agree to preside over trial of a former President. There is only one President and his name is not Tromp. Let me let me ask you this day and do we have any sense yet. Are we getting any rumbling on that issue J, I asked several people on the Democrat side of the aisle, the United States Senate. That question over the weekend and they were not unanimous. I will tell you that the most frequent answer I got was Senate pro tem Patrick Lahey but I did also hear the answer, Harris.

I only heard one person answered that they thought it would be the Chief Justice on with Alan Dershowitz on this.

I don't think it's good to be Chief Justice. If I had to bet, I would bet on Pat Lahey.

But J even the United States Senate on the Democrat side of the aisle. They don't know the answer that question at this point Javi Kemal Harris. I should want to do it. Just becoming vice President be thrust into the role of silence, but also I made you know it makes it even more partisan that Pat Lahey is a Chief Justice because he is a partisan Democratic truth. They throw issues up to him to denied he started, she could start making decisions.

What did I mean I'm what I'm wondering is why this is so bad it it it is so bad that they are setting these precedents as left-sided is committed to making up as they go realized that little you say they're making a business go you me literally the making of rules on the sets… Like the you say what is the law. What is the standard note they can impeach over anything they want. If they can get two thirds of the Senate to agree with them which do not been able to do here you first and second a big fight of the witnesses that I don't want to call the bunch afferent representative members that we were in there when this attack was going on they call vice President. That's for my present tense and say what was your reaction to this question will be, will they get witnesses now that Senate is equally divided. The tie-breaking vote is the vice President it's really really unique and unusual. Yeah, the framers knew they debated and rejected the idea of having the federal judiciary preside over impeachment trials. They thought was better to let the Senate make up their own rules, except in the case of impeaching a President Donald Trump no longer the present. I just don't. That's why none of this fits into the right frame or because you plus he had witnessed the debate. Remember that witness debate we had hours and hours and hours on the floor.

The state Senate I was doing a lot of that argument why witnesses were not appropriate because Harry had 17 witnesses acting like they had now, they had no witnesses now so they rusted through.

By doing it in the United States Senate again exactly what they want to do so. They want to curate by having witnesses may be the Senate to how long that debate goes on who is let's say it's 50-50, 50-50 gazettes with the Senate so the vice President Harris cast the deciding vote. That's why this makes no sense. That's why this makes no sense, yet also they set a bad and I think a horrendous precedent by voting through an article impeachment without any witnesses, without any hearing any any statements without putting anything on the record and just by say what we all live it so we all know what happened. While there were 3535 people on the phone call with Ukraine then just say under 35 people in phone call so we do need to hear from you write this. This readout is the readout and they think and you like with who they were calling were not like the Republicans were able to call but not able to call or not by time we got to the Senate they'd heard from a number of people they want here for more because it is still the house. It had messed up and there were people that they didn't really fight it to to it feel like fighting to actually try to get if subpoenaed to testify in and they would have the Senate do that for the and the Senate decided were not going to do that for you and this was a given impeachment that you knew the outcome was just potentially help help out how few Republicans would actually go along with it. The same thing again. It's a very small well like Amy believes on this committee. It's so ridiculous is not impeachment manager. I was asked this question. Take a listen you expect members of Congress, potentially, to testify, since they're the ones who saw this whole interaction for whatever Senate rules allow.

As you pointed out, is no trial.

Perhaps, as had insurers who were also witnesses jurors were victims, jurors who ran for their lives.

That's true because that would be badgers. Yes, you could be at your due process, but there's no slick none of this, none of the supply selector to see if it if I was trying the case. I think the person I'd open up with is a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds. If that is denied likely that you don't have the 50 votes are to do that.

51. I would then go to the merits and the merits of my argument.

I would say assuming everything they're saying is true, does it meet the constitutional burnout. This is not protected speech. Social everything they said was true doesn't meet the burden of Brandenburg versus Ohio, which is the key Supreme Court decision on this which sets the bar very high for what is not protected speech. It may not of been advisable speech made in one speech. It made have been a design giving it is wishing never was given an egg.

I could list 100 things I don't like about but the fact is, the reality is that to say that it was uncut, not constitutionally protected is pretty darn dangerous, and it was really a state in which the plaintiff right now. I think that I would do is I will learn. I would use the President's speech.

In my defense, actually. And then I would take the Chuck Schumer speech.

Do we have a I want people to remember this because this becomes relevant and I believe I like as bad as this is his protected speech.

His get to talk.

This platform is that they don't take it so that my has the majority leader that we may not have it so we do have we got this with Chuck Schumer about spring court justices I wanted to, you know you will will, in our view was good to be launched against you. You will not know what hit you like to wait a minute. This is lifetime employment that you get saved because it would be in election right is no defense there. He was chastised by the Chief Justice on that by the dead John Roberts. But the fact is, was that speech not protected. Then it was protected speech protected speech can be aggressive offensive, rude and protected, unseemly, and protected. So it depends on what women want the standards to go. What do you want the standards to be what we want the state as a decision and I think that would be great to have this very hurt present yet but is not that like if I would always bring that up. I constantly be bringing that up so I get folks where it will be analyzing this small well either. He's willing to give it away or they still don't understand either Darrell and you'll find for those house managers big difference with them, and attorneys usually if they were former attorneys is a bit out of practice for so long to think they come across so partisan it was ugly. Watching how partisan they were how offputting they are to have the Senate and definitely the 17th. It would need to convict that. That's why you this before it starts.

It was something as I've said spectacularly bad habits wrong goes on to predict the outcome wait for this even begins. Will talk to you more tomorrow. Walking people through this ACLJ is been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thanking God's well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ