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

Wonder how much longer will this phony impeachment trial last talk about that more today.

On second Washington DC questions right now: one 806 843-110-1800 68412, your host, secular. They welcome the secular yard for your phone call one 800 631-200-8431 10. Yesterday we got to see the house impeachment managers put on really therefore display the full attack on Pres. Troutman tried to make a connection between the President's words and the horrific actions of January 6 that what we're 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 about yesterday. Ripley, 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 was for a the two Senate runoffs and they act as if that was a that was had something to do with January 6 and in the next day when he did so. Never will give you the full context I think that's always at the weakness of the Democrats case both in the first impeachment in this impeachment.

They just don't like to tell you the full truth they don't like to give you all the information I want to go right away to and accountable for two because Andy that's my take away is that yes the footage is horrible. We will condemn that footage. We know it's bad but there's no real direct connection when you talk about insurrection. We have to start splicing videos from the day before the student rally or months before the separate rally. Yeah, that's absolutely correct Jordan in order for there to be a member insurrection charge that has any meat against and against the President, you've got to create a connection annexes between what he said and what ultimately occurred and that his words and his actions and his protestations, and whatever you said, which I recall saying that is not peaceably March was the direct cause or had a causal connection to the events that took place at the Capitol grounds on January 6 they have not been able to make that connection you cannot make a connection here that is going to another words satisfy the requirement of the law.

In any event between the words and the deeds that occurred and that is the most serious flaw in the case of what they try to do is piece together bits and pieces of things that he said out of context that other times and other places and say see there is a connection will guess what there is not there. Time and time again we side effect may we can put the tweet up on the screen right now for audience because time and time again, we saw the all the present. It's his words using fight like a molecular say the other word. But then we got it from Joe Biden where he says the same thing in his tweets were to fight were in a fight like you know what it was that over and over again yesterday that she got from Joe Biden. I got three examples I can read through the house managers leader Jamie Raskin. I think that's a pretty weak argument to a bunch of politicians 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 during their trying to make the senators who are the jurors in this case I believe something that date something that they do every day in the regular course of work, Jordan could be incitement, insurrection is just not a compelling case to those individuals. By the way, I also think it's a dangerous one.

The other pointed ties into the conversation she had with Andy.

Remember it was the prosecution I got to pick what the charge was here mean they could've 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 both we are taking a phone call one 800 684 31 to what we are hearing that the house managers will wrap up their case, they will focus on what the President was doing during the riot. We like telling people believe how people go home, getting in the National Guard which the Sgt. of arms that do getting the right security there which Congress didn't do that over 280,000 people. Our petition because we still believe this is unconstitutional. Trying a private citizen will be right back on secular challenges facing Americans are substantially similar value freedom insert constitutional rights are under attack is important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ is going on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in courts in Congress. In the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. You are already a member. Thank you Knott's well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless to protect.

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 defend the rights of life, we've created a free hour for 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 supports 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 abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways, your membership of the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/got a lot to talk about is the crowd getting underway and we were house managers right here. We don't think they're going to take up and they didn't even yesterday. Really there full-time day in the kind of a bizarre nowhere likely stood up and said that's not true that's a lie when you're reporting your reporting a CNN account, not a nut account from him not to count from Sen. Turberville and they ultimately the house manager, Jamie Raskin pretty, embarrassingly, at the very end of a day that you know the left was praising had to withdraw evidence, and that was the final move from the house Democrats was they had to admit that yes they had live the American people jamming first on that point. George can't blame Sen. Mike Lee when words were put in his mouth and essentially they were trying to make him a witness in a case he got up and ejected for a number of reasons. The main one is that he said the account was not true. They were relying on reports of 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 that rather than have a vote on it which is how that would normally be adjudicated in the Senate are your correct manager Raskin pulled that motion from from the table and there was some indication that there might be debate on it today.

Jordan will see that debate is just now getting other underway but then on the first point that you made your 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 will see they have update hours to finish. But no matter what happens, whenever the yield back 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 will see that's up to them.

That's their strategy decision to make but they have just like the managers had they would have up to two days, eight hours a piece of peace to make their case. Unless there's a motion for witnesses and they first have to vote to say that they will have witnesses and they would have to take. They would have to actually break have depositions done behind the scenes of the witnesses and then have votes on whether or not each one would testify. You could actually see a vote on this this weekend present from could be equated by Saturday or Sunday. I think were still on track for that unless something like witnesses shows up in a debate which right now we've got no indication one way or the other but certainly with the pace that they are moving at of the house manager side, not making a very good case that they need witnesses because you're not even taking up the time you have I to make your argument, but I want to go back to Sammamish in the first segment and this was this was I think one of the worst lives put forward by the house managers splicing is it. Ultimately it's to mislead you to make you believe something that didn't happen, say play despite a Pres. Trump and they played riot footage that listen to the bike that they play. This is the part they played from Pres. Trump and then it went into riot footage by two we will never surrender. We will only now is not the time to retreat. Now is the time to fight harder than ever before. Okay that was on December 5.

Donald Trump was campaigning in Georgia.

Here's the full clip so you understand the context of a present from sin were not to give up were going to keep fighting. Why take a listen and right now we have to get out to vote for David perdue and Kelly Leffler to show the radical left. We will never surrender. We will only when 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 and it to me.

That is just be pretty scared as an attorney to splice language like that before Judge now they don't have to have that kind of fear because they are is the political trial is a hoax of a trial it's it's I cannot even it's not a real impeachment of the present because the Chief Justice development focusing on that, you pull that off at a trial. You can end up losing your bar license that's absolutely correct, Jordan, first of all, no trial judge with no lawyer that's worth anything, whatever presumed to play before a judge and the jury parts of a tape like that are parts of a video encoding splice 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.

In most jurisdictions is that if you're going to play a tape or a video then 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 6 but I suspect very clearly that the senators were 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 really 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 yet yesterday of Democrats using that same kind of fight language like Sean Hannity didn't and excellent piece initially for his broadcast to play if you would played for audience watching on Facebook on YouTube on periscope in places like rumble, but I think for a radio and not Sirius XM audience was your biggest audience is important for you to hear this because enter splice as we can do that to with the Democrats. Language is the house managers accusations of Donald Trump.

Take a listen or watch this teaching.

Managers argue that one man, Pres. Donald Trump was solely responsible for it all.

Donald Trump surrendered his role as commander-in-chief and became the insider and chief Democrat members of the Congress center need to be more unrest in the streets. While there was unrest in the streets and somehow that's not incitement, Harris is a real problem because she actively engaged in bailing out rioters if you're a politician trying to raise bail for people accused of writing your inciting more riots.

The house he argues that in the weeks before the C Pres. Trump built momentum for trying to overthrow the election.

I do have one very affirmative statement to make. We want you can run the best campaign you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you that she incite insurrection, the President of the United States ordered the crowd to march on Congress and so the crowd marched to the Hill today please in the face of some congresspeople. He made state lobbing and sympathizing with the insurrectionist everyone to be aware that before election day November and stop after election day. His rhetoric was dangerous, and it was going to result in deadly violence that people gotta turn on them. They got a protest they got up absolutely harass them.

Filings was what he deliberately encouraged. I said no. I said if we're in high school I take you behind the gym and he didn't condemn the violence. Although he incited further.

I will go take Trump out tonight think you need to go back and punch him in the face. I just don't know why the uprisings all of the country.

Maybe they will be there needs to be on the rest of the streets for the rest of our lives. All immigrants using words like unrest in the streets to Pelosi uprisings. Why aren't there more upright Hillary Clinton saying hello election was stolen Joe Biden say he wants to punch Donald Trump John tester Democrat Sen. say he wants to punch Donald Trump Maxine Waters surround them all make their lives miserable. Get in their face as Cory Booker said this again. This kind of rhetoric which by the way most of that. I still think is criminal. I think you would say it's it's again if it's in the sense to Andy on this is not the idea that I'm trying to say they did their speech should be criminalized.

But if they would. I Donald Trump to a standard within. 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 a riot than what the President said the same thing protected speech that does not incite a riot. I mean, they blasted the President who continued to say that he would have the election stolen from him, and yet sex status Stacy Abrams from right here in Atlanta where I am today said we want but we they say we lost but we really want will is not exactly what they're claiming. The President said and and said that he did and did illegally and illicitly. What about getting in your face with Maxine Waters and Kemal Harris bailing out people who have committed rioters 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 of former President, not even the incumbent President gets impeached and tried and certainly hopefully will not be convicted. You know, folks, we did it take for your phone calls or 1-800-684-3110 our petition that this is unconstitutional. The present Trump a private citizen citizen should not be dragged through the impeachment after he left office. As I got over 280,000 signatures.

You can sign that online ACLJ.org right now that's ACLJ.org. I want to continue take your phone calls that we want to answer this we will point out the flaws in their argument.

We also want to talk to you of 1-800-684-3110 zero VAC only one. A society can agree that the most lonely voice 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 publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition will show you how you are personally publication includes all major ACLJ Jesus were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists.

The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life side of the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission 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 ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress. In the public arena and exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms in the van 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. 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 your phone call that will fit four 3110 and let me encourage you now to start. Got a phone call coming in. I don't want to start answering your questions. One of those been calling in from Oregon online one hade been welcomed the secular you're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. I was wondering where 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 again is this impeachment constitutional with the courts ever hear and in the second part would be if they barred him from running for office, which is a guaranteed right. We have as Americans to Ron. 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 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 the 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 intervene 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 that I keep focusing on 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 in a play a role he's not the incumbent President so I think the courts would probably most likely stay out of it and it's interesting and 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 you know early or late afternoon from the house Democrats if they would rest their case to case right now focusing in on what the President was doing while the riot was occurring. And of course they will be giving all the truth there either but but I get it just shows you they had 16 hours but it's tough to fill 16 hours when you rush through an impeachment when no witnesses with no testimony of the house. The house didn't do its job as factfinder as the prior member has the duty to try all impeachment they had they been in the B-2 to impeach the Senate. Does the trial in the house part when you have the duty to impeach the duty to be the finder of fact to get together the evidence. The students are. To do that for you 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, especially since the house didn't call those witnesses they can actually just bring the same witnesses were to present that testimony did at the start fresh. A couple of things Jordan reading the tea leaves just a little bit on schedule your right it looks like Schumer kicking off today said that they're 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 that suggest to me that he does think that maybe the managers will be wrapped up by then, we'll just have to wait and see below what I think one of the things that you are getting here 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 again during this goes back to the point we made in the last segment of the broadcast. Really all of that is fairly irrelevant to me because that would have been relevant if the charge they had brought forward with 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. No look just like yesterday. It's good to be horrific. You and I have both said that repeatedly, as has Andy added as has your dad 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 getting here 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 that something is not about dereliction of duty throughout insurrection and we can go through insurrection for it 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 promoting curve participate or carry on the right includes but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but Walsh 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 Andy and the President never encourage people to commit acts of violence. This idea that all he whip people into a frenzy because he's a good is a good he's a good orator. That's not incitement to violence, no it's not.

I mean if that if oratory of oratory. If powerful oratory was a crime, valve, incitement to riot. Then everybody in ancient Berkeley and Greece. The greatest orders in the history of the world in Greece and Rome and the auditors that spoke in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords in England right argues that we praise today and that we find to have been really the advocates of democracy and a Republican form of government in the state.

In Rome the time of the order says Xerox will be subject to indictment an accusation for having been great in their speech and an affable and viable in their talking this this is not the point and whatsoever. That makes it an insurrection. You've got to have an actual direct annexes between what you say and what you advocate directly go out and kill an attack and Boston break in and trample down the President never said anything like that. I heard that speech peaceably wind marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. My favorite avenues at a beautiful lab about 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 prove that right so I let me let me just encourage you to and and we got a second half-hour coming up this call 1-800-684-3110 were continuing to have our team watch the proceedings as they go on so will update you on that end and kind of a preview for you, how we think the house that the presence legal team of 47 Exum was on his broadcaster still on that legal team not handling this impeachment, but was certainly would look for that brief on the unconstitutionality of the doing of the rapid response in the media to this, but what what you think will see what we think will see from the presence legal team. In response, visiting with talk a lot about that interest place upwards.

The fact that you don't using this horrible imagery isn't directly connected to the President of the United States will talk about all that in the second half-hour as we take your calls I heard you share this broadcast with your friends and family share now with your friends and family again that if your Facebook hair still twitter share your friends and family will be right back, encourage you go to ACLJ.org sign a petition for close to 300,000 on that petition that this is unconstitutional and wrong cited will be right back decades, ACLJ has been on the frontlines of protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member. Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow live and now your hose Jordan secular 68431106843110 and states that what we expect next. What to expect next. In this piece of trial after the house managers finish their case today, but first they stand. Reaction on Capitol Hill to see anything to shift our audience will all day.

This is this is really best cleared President and his supporters, but is there any movement at all. Significant movement all about suitors who actually vote to who may be voted. This is unconstitutional to somehow switch it because of what they videos they saw sliced with speeches that were it accurately, sliced is nicely basically how I'm alive to these speeches based life changing about you. Do not think there's been significant movement in look if we just walk our listeners back through what is happened when it comes to actual votes. I think it'll be ill illuminate for them exactly where the 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 at and then we got to that first opening question that we at the ACL day have really spoken the most about. We issue that a 40+ 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 were going to convince a senator that they had jurisdiction. I don't even know how you put evidence to then 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 for the options that they had to get senators to vote for conviction now caps out at 56 votes. I think yesterday to directly answer your question, Jordan, and I think that the video was certainly emotional, but I don't think it was new for the 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 like they're getting get to 56. I think Bill Cassidy, at least in the end is probably still an acquittal, vote breakers, call success for the very limited, with Westminster previewing some of what we think will be coming from the presence to face the many summaries you take what they did play the full speech you take a videos of inflated view of all the excitement kind of language that we still think would be the legal standard of incitement of violence is in the written word. If you will. Doing interviews is that implementing the Atlantic magazine. He said you know we live in a time when there is nothing normal. Let's hope for the best prepare for the worst and go find like you know that phrase. It was uttered over and over and over 27 CJ rested without wake up every day and find like liberal democracy.

This is the house manager leader in this over and over is a major phrase from present trial that was the problem he sent you back in 2020, September after I just unfortunately passed away that you need to rush place just get hers back to destroy the ACA women's healthcare reproductive freedom voting rights and civil rights must find like you know what to stop. Saw healthcare use that as the house manager lead manager using that language for years is the language of politicians.

Language evolves you have to fight law you have to fight back your freedoms and liberties every single day, you take away cited speech will be right back on secular radio challenges facing Americans are substantial time and or value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in courts in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you for your thoughts. Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us.

ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work become a member today ACLJ only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless to certainly protect. 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 life will show you how you are personally pro-life battle supports the 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 discover the many ways your membership of the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/secular. We are trigger protocols at 164, 31 to the report were bringing you why impeachment coverage, only impeachment.

It's a fake impeachment out even though it's fair to call 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 is as I said yesterday, if this is the route were going when Republicans take back the Senate, which eventually they will make even the next cycle of the house. Let's impeach Barack Obama right for fast and furious four for Benghazi for the IRS targeting of conservative groups may say well you can't remove them from office in and he can even run again because he served two terms but you know what we can strip him of His St., Secret Service protection we can to have to pay for that of his own Netflix contracts. We could strip him from his $4 million travel budget. He receives every year I mean this is this is this the how outrageous this was going to do with Hillary Clinton to do it any Former cabinet official with the former Presidents. I hate it because you impeach Joe Biden as the as formally as vice President.

I mean it's just bizarre where they have gone. I don't wanted to go there. I think it cheapens why we have impeachment by the founders put it in place to begin with. It's not a substitute for our regular legal system now want to go to Harry Hutchison, first Harry, first I hear from Wes Smith. I went to West with the obligate of two to West Smith first okay okay so what's he got in her studio yet. Let me go to Andy did efforts on this because any we would talk talk people through what happened yesterday. We know that today will kind of close with see the President didn't do enough. But that's not really what the charges of impeachment. So let's get a move on to what we 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. The country can't be convinced they hate trump the other half the country loves Pres. Trump and just wants to hear strong defense that's exactly right. You 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 is we have said he's not the President so they don't have jurisdiction, but assuming you reach that hurdle in the Senate have decided that it does have jurisdiction you have not shown that this President incited anybody to ride. He may have spoken eloquently. You may have spoken rhetorically, you may have given the Paraclete and oration of the first stone in the first quality, but he was very careful of 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 the last half about fighting getting in their face taking them behind and not in the H out of him 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 capital 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. Remember, Jordan, you can revisit jurisdiction at any time I 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 it speech 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 pleasure that longer montage of Democrats using kind of exciting language that we still think is protected under the Constitution, but we also have for you that 44 seconds of the because he keep using what the President said fight. He said Friday said fight to the Democrats using the term fight. Take a listen. Was Congress to about this site. Keep fighting to keep fighting and fighting and fighting for this please should dream big slight hard and take back our country. This is a fight of our lives, stand up and fight for the best of who we are to fight and not fight them ready for the increasing numbers of people ready for that fight.

Stand and fight for democracy country we can just imagine a better future for continued feature were fighting against it when we fight Republicans in Congress and get fight fight fight fight a legal right to the phones Carol in North Carolina online to a Carol welcome to secular you're on the copper. I never did how the legal even say that they found him guilty that there are five separate pump everyone there that the Democrat party are you proud of the fact that he was A thing that would make them 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 have a present on trial that you need to cut the Chief Justice there. He's not there and they still move forward and they believe that they had jurisdiction by vote, and if they continue on. If this person 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 in every time a party takes over, with the expectation that they are going to impeach the former parties present there is a reason that we impeach so few Presidents in American history. This because is supposed to be reserved for the most serious of crimes. It can 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 is 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. This could be really, really a big leap if you're one of the senators who said we don't have jurisdiction to in the end, vote to convict the President. The other thing Jordan is that in a plain reading of the Constitution.

We have one President at a time we call former Presidents President Bush are present Obama as an honorary title they are not the President. When you read that the Constitution about impeachment. It talks about the President and that the Chief Justice is supposed to preside and absolutely none of that is happened listing to that to their presentation yesterday, you can make the case that the Democrats up and been pretty eloquent, but there's a lot of emotion and very little effectively tying it to Donald Trump source what was said and 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 capital a lot of emotion. Not a lot of facts to Kathleen in New York on line 1 hey Kathleen, welcome secular you're on the air. I would happily and watching LJ now on quietly getting the entire speech on the new online media only showing one problem because the mainstream media wants this President sullied as much as possible. You want you all of us sullied as much as possible canceled as a present canceled as America first movement canceled this new populist uprising that happened in the Republican Party fan because it's a threat to Democrats. Even with this election lost because they didn't pick up any seats in the house. They barely took the Senate. There was a lot of counter chaos around though those two races when you can question whether those of the greatest candidates in the world either to be carrying the American first mantle, but then the idea is that because the Republican Party has added so many new groups to its to its big tent city got more African-Americans more Hispanics, more blue-collar workers more people 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 present, Trump is highly involved or not. If it continues that same ideology of the growing America first populism do not think this is Proverbs 1817, 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 eyedrops offer those next two days, so watch for that you want for that water than just trashing the other side. Attorneys they love doing that praising the left ultimately what happens.

Yet again the only President to be impeached twice.

The Democrats failed twice actually get to a picture I will cite go to ACLJ.org. Only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless to. 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 support the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ plainly faces 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 side of the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and or value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.

Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. In the event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you Knox 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 category. This is from Chuck Schumer's U.S. Senate website Chuck Schumer.com it was old petition add your name, it's time to fight like 12.

You all know what what they say it's time to fight like ads. It's about fighting back against whoever present Trump was going to an announce is the nominee to fill the late Justice Ginsburg see we know now that Mrs. Barrett that's all the that's the language used in the heading. And again, do we blame Chuck Schumer do we blame Bernie Sanders they've been on this because then this was this was a really difficult situation when you had that shooter opened up fire on the Republican congressional softball team was there preparing for the big game they have at this at the stadium, and it's a fun kind of bipartisan event that they they will practice before possession to play game and a shooter showed up and he said he was inspired by Bernie Sanders. I felt bad for Bernie Sanders note blamed Bernie Sanders was rendered for causing that shooter to take that horrific action that was a crazy person who was who could put anybody's name down and done that act because to do those kind of acts you were already off the edge. I agree with you Jordan, I feel the same way about Chuck Schumer speech. Amanda gets protected and outthink you do it you know he should be held called culpable for any violence that ensued out of it. The look, the standard has got to cut both ways and that's why Jordan, if I were in a fire 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 in 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 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 play different present Trump. Of course I know the answer but I would make it clear to the senators who use a very similar speech that if they say this is the standard, they will have to be held to account for it and look Jordan, I think a lot of us can agree that political discourse in this country is 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 the what 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 have a lot to work with the President of the American people and I think also that present Trump supporters, many of you listening those of us who are on his legal team present Trump himself deserved that they deserve that strong defense. It's tough to sit through these two days when they can't be making it really can't respond then they will get their opportunity to respond and they need to respond clearly, they need to show all these clips, we show the need to play all the sound the sound they need to do it the same way except they don't have to splice it up they can just play it as is and say what you're saying is true, then this is true, to let me go right to the phones were then in New Jersey lied to Haworth and welcome to secular you're on the air hi Jordan, how he thanks for taking my call plundering.

Haven't heard much talk about whether or not to be bringing up anything about the fact that the rent have been made in the event the text that they're finding out this without preplanned situation that there was a lot of preplanning that went into that style that negate the accusation that it was in direct response to the President speech of that day will 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 in the that they the presence he will get the call witnesses. Well, these witnesses that talk about including people been arrested and charged with crimes or could be brought in as witnesses well will talk about many of them that that they were planning this for weeks if not months next to Jordan.

You know, sometimes it's smart not to call the 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 witnesses 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 for the time the President's defense team stay away from witnesses because you don't know what may come out of their mouth and this preplanning thing that may have occurred may come out of their mouth and then there really found with an embarrassing situation.

It's better harassment. I don't think they did or witnesses in this because they they Russian impeachment through West and it was done in which they call it a snap impeachment called don't know witnesses.

It is the house's job to do that to be the finder of fact, if you will then issue the indictment there like a grand jury hearing from 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 argue that that hate you per problem. Witnesses because the house did it this time around the house and what we don't want to go, we don't need to do. Well, okay, why do you make the Senate have to do that and delay this for the American people.

Let's let's get through these next two days. Let's have a vote on Saturday or Sunday to move on and let's let's vindicate them and equip present Trump now they're making the Senate do their job. 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 on me that, for example, what we see in the last couple days is, you know, manipulating evidence and little bit of jury intimidation and what have you and your 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 to abide by some of those rules of fairness and yet because of precedent and because of the high profile nature of this they should be more honest and and have integrity on certain matters like this splicing the videos and in presenting your part of the Evans but not all of it. Even if you can do those things in a political trial should you really be doing those things either. It's crazy what what is the purpose of all this is what I asked about think the American people. The purpose is to just destroy the Republican Party destroy the America first movement I destroy the populist movement, which is been Taking more of a major influence inside the Republican Party, which is adding voters to the Republican Party if the Democrats worst nightmare. How can we stop and how can we destroy we need to take down their leader and everybody associated with him needs to be canceled out. Then I feel like that was the whole theme for this whole impeachment. It still ongoing. That is the thing we need to cancel out people who supported Pres. Trump who worked for Pres. Trump and his administration don't hire them at companies higher than for positions or jobs and that we need to erase this from history. I think you will backfire, but I think that was their ultimate goal. They know they could 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 present Trump. That's why I believe from the beginning that this was as much about 2022 is anything I may think it's obviously about 2024 is well. The Jordan I think they're looking to drive a wedge inside the opposition party in this case the Republican Party they want to make a pro Trump Republicans and anti-Trump Republicans forever divided they don't want to allow our candidates to win in purple states.

I think they were always looking for a political edge in 2022 and I would tell you their dignity to factors in whether or not there successful, how long they stay at it and then Jordan those who disagree with them. How well they resisted. I mean that's just the honest truth is adequately anything you can be the Greeley could have a great team have a great resources like his house managers can be good orders as members of Congress. But if you have the facts you lose and lose again.

They're going to lose again.

Other than the lose bad but it's going to be embarrassing on layout of they have no reason and no right to have his President was no longer the President convicted on charges that are absolutely spurious, are covered tomorrow for decades ACLJ has 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. Thank you for your thoughts.

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