Watch our show Mujahid Talks with Imam Malik Mujahid in conversation with Professor Brian Kalt and Paul Jay
Guests: Professor Brian Kalt - Professor of Law at Michigan State University Paul Jay - Journalist and Filmmaker
Host: Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid - President of Sound Vision and Justice for All.
Like, Share, and Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/MuslimNetworkTV/
Muslim Network is the only channel through which America can discover its Muslim neighbors.
Muslim Network airs on Galaxy 19 Satellite covering USA, Canada and Mexico. It also streams on Amazon FireTV, Apple TV, and Roku.
© Sound Vision Foundation
Views expressed are those of hosts and guests, not those of Sound Vision Foundation.
Watch Us 24/7 on Link Below
Abdul Malik Mujahid 00:06
Salam and peace. This is Imam Malik Mujahid and you're watching Muslim network TV. We are there 24 seven on galaxy 19 satellite as well as Amazon Fire TV, Roku, Apple TV. And of course you can download our apps Muslim network TV or watch online on Muslimnetwork.tv. And if you are into watching everything on YouTube, we are there But do remember to subscribe. Today we'll be talking about politics of impeachment 2.0. There are many interesting, you know, impeach he was impeached, but Senate did not agree with the house, except that some of these senators did agree with the house but not enough votes to punish former President Trump, but many interesting angles are coming out a professor who was quoted by Trump defense, that professor is going to be our guest. He's saying actually he was misquoted there. And then we have someone who is not a constitutional lawyer, particularly the keen eye on the development starting from the beginning of January about the military coup and why police was was incapable of dealing with all the crowds and things like that. And that is Paul Jay. Welcome to Muslim network TV. Paul
Paul Jay 01:39
Thank you for inviting me.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 01:41
Paul Jay is a journalist and a filmmaker. He's the founder and publisher of theanalysis.news. And has been to White House and as well to Capitol Hill as a as a journalist, with passes and everything and have good insight into that. So Paul, tell me I mean you have a unique take on it. You You You think Trump actually was trying to have a military coup that didn't quite work out. So what is your thesis about it?
Paul Jay 02:19
Well, honestly, it's it's kind of my thesis in the sense that it's all out there in the public domain. It's just for for reasons I guess we can get into the media and the po- and the political class don't want to talk about because it I think it reveals a great weakness and dysfunctionality in the American political structure. But essentially, what I've been able to piece together and I say it's nothing secret that's all out there. But on January 4, this is the sort of the in the trigger into it. 10 former Secretaries of Defense from both parties, organized by Dick Cheney, no less apparently, issue a letter warning, the Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who had just recently been appointed by Trump after firing the previous Secretary of Defense, warning him in no uncertain terms, not to interfere or let the military interfere in the outcome of the elections. And it's in a letter that comes out the same day by an Admiral. I always miss mess up his name. It's a Greek name, something like Stavridis, Stavridis. This is not a retired Admiral, but he's not just a retired Admiral. He's also the former Supreme Commander of NATO. And he's also an operating executive board member of Carlyle Group, which is one of the largest private equity firms on Wall Street and a major investor in arms manufacturers in the industrial military complex. He issues, writes an op ed column in Time magazine supporting the letter of the 10 Secretaries of Defense, so that they obviously think there is a real possibility because he also names, the Admiral names Christopher Miller, he actually uses the words, the the Secretary of Defense doesn't have the temperament to stand up to a willful president. So they are clearly concerned that Trump is leaning on the his his new Secretary of Defense, not to get involved in the elections. And then the admiral says that the letter of the 10 Secretary former Secretary of Defense is specifically written in response to the statement by retired general Michael Flynn recently pardoned Flynn in mid December where he calls for martial law that means military intervention and a new election. So this is all out there. And you know, in the public domain that obviously, all these guys thought there was a real possibility of what amounts to a coup.
It begins in mid September, Steve Bannon is on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox TV, mid September. So this is, you know, a month, six weeks or so before the election. It's already clear Trump's gonna lose. And Bannon calls and these are his words for a war that begins on November 4, to stop the steel. So they're already talking about the stealing of the election. The campaign begins in mid September. And then what happens in after the election result, and it's obvious that the elections, you know, as fair as these elections can be, and there's no widespread fraud, and so on. Trump simply won't hand over power. And at first, I think it looks to people like it's another Trump sideshow to make himself the center of attention, and he'll do it for a while, and then eventually he'll concede and play ball with the system. But as time goes on, after the election, it starts to become clear to the elites, even to the leaders of the Republican Party, that Trump is out of his mind. He's absolutely delusional. he really believes he can organize a coup. And one of the things that's the trigger for these guys, and and the admiral specifically mentions this in his article in Time Magazine. He says that when the 10 secretaries who he says has been studying this for months, as all this unfolded, meaning from September, when they saw the efforts Trump went to, to undo the election results in Georgia. Now I'm quoting from the Admiral's article, a shiver must have gone down their spine. Well, why? If the vote in Georgia is overturned, it's not enough electoral college votes to change the outcome. So why does Trump put so much effort into doing it to the point that he's so pisses off the Secretary of State of Georgia, that he releases publicly their telephone conversation? Why Why take such a risk, because it's part of this crazy, cool plan, the overturning of the vote in Georgia would give him something to hang his hat on, in terms of the elections being fraudulent. Because up until that point, he had nothing. So in the article by the admiral Admiral, he points to this Georgia case, as evidence that shook these Secretaries of Defense and himself. And for me, too, I was saying at the time, there's something going on here Trump is risking too much. So, I mean, I can get into more detail of it, but the gist of it is, Trump attempted to enlist the apparently this, you know, based on what these authoritative figures are saying, tried to get the Acting Secretary of Defense to get the military to intervene, and it must be to intervene on January 6, that's the only thing that makes sense that they create such deliberate chaos at Congress on January 6, in an attempt to stop the certification of the vote for Biden, that it's such a threat that the military comes in, declares martial law, and orders a new election and they were expecting Bannon and those guys they've been doing a national campaign on stop this deal. They thought there would be similar attacks on in state capitals across the country. While the whole plot failed, the military refused to get involved the leadership, not just the acting secretaries, but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Millie, all the senior leadership, at least one what one concern public said do not get involved and issued very stern warnings to the military, do not get involved. And I don't see any evidence that they did, or we're going to I think the efforts of the senior military leadership asserted themselves, and the military, we're not going to get involved. But that apparently, is not that that it was that this thing was blowing up in his face.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 09:45
So Paul, if there is no evidence that military is going to get involved, then don't you think this whole whole thesis falls apart which you have you're developing that military was about to get involved, but it couldn't get involved because there was so much opposition to it before it happened?
Paul Jay 10:07
Oh, I'm not no, no, that's my thesis isn't that the military was going to get involved. My thesis is Trump attempted a coup attempted to get the military involved. And it was going to be done through this, the reason he fired the former Secretary of Defense, one of maybe the main reason for putting...
Abdul Malik Mujahid 10:27
If they were thinking since September about the military coup, when was he fired? You remember that?
Paul Jay 10:34
Oh, I don't know if the military coup starts in September, I think. I have no idea when that begins. Bannon starts the campaign to stop the steel in September, they start organizing the crowds the mob, they start getting ready to, you know, to march on Washington, the military part, the only public evidence of it is mid December when Flynn calls for martial law. And according to the admirals letter in Time Magazine, the letter from the 10 secretaries of defense is quote in response to Flynn's statements. So I don't know any more than what's in the public domain. I'm guessing this I'm only seeing the tip of the iceberg. But it's a heck of a tip of an iceberg.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 11:24
So do you think America will ever know what transpired all of that? Do you think that intelligence agencies and FBI and the CIA and the military intelligence I don't know how many other agencies are there, will anybody will take all that information put together to know how close America came to whoever interning democracy?
Paul Jay 11:52
Well,I'm not sure how close it was in the sense that I don't know if anyone serious in the military, ever considered getting involved. There's no evidence either way on that. But there must have been something going on because for these 10, Secretaries of Defense to have such a public letter and the admiral, it shows weakness, it shows dysfunctionality, it shows the possibility that a president is so deranged, he'll get his secretary of defense to try this. So I don't know how close it came to reality. But the fact they went public suggest it was closer than maybe we think, as far as it doesn't require any intelligence agencies in the sense that I think it's known. I mean, obviously, the guys that wrote the letter, the admiral, the military knows exactly what happened, or they, you know, they, they wouldn't have written the letter. So I don't think it's any secret here. I think it goes further than that. My guess is that at the top levels of the political establishment, they know what happened.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 12:53
Of course, if if if Bannon is talking about these things, and way before the election actually happened. And they are organizing, mobilizing, talking about all of that. And the fact of the matter was that that there were many former military and some a president of the Sheriffs Association told me that active duty sheriff's were present there in the intersection and so, so all this conversation, and fill in call for military, martial law and all that, all of that is public information. So how can the people who are supposed to secure Capitol Hill were not taking all of that into consideration?
Paul Jay 13:45
Well, Yogananda, I'm probably butchering her first name. Her last name is Pittman. She's the Acting Chief of Police of the Capitol Hill police.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 13:58
Paul Jay 13:59
The guy now
Paul Jay 14:01
Yeah, after January 6, the guy who was chief of police Sun,- I think was his name. He he retired right after he was forced to retire. Well, she testified to the House Appropriations Committee, I believe it was on January 26, I think. And in her testimony, which was supposed to be closed, a closed hearing, but New York Times got hold of the testimony and published it. She said they knew everything that was coming. They knew that there were white supremists coming, they knew it was going to be violent. They knew it might be armed. They knew they were going to storm the buildings and tried to enter the buildings. They knew they were going to try to threaten members of Congress. It's all there in my article. That's all in theanalysis.news. I have the whole quote from her. It comes from her testimony. Of course, they knew exactly what was on its way. So she also testifies that on January 5, the day before, the then chief of police asks the sergeant of arms of the Senate and the House to call in the National Guard and have them on the perimeter the next day. They get a no, the sergeant of arms of house and senate and now, the sergeant of arms of the Senate is the more senior person in this process because the Senate is more in charge of infrastructure than the house is. And who does the sergeant of arms of the senate answer to? Mitch McConnell, that is his boss and he says so in an article in The Washington Post, where he's in it, where he's interviewed a couple of weeks after the six and he calls McConnell, his boss, in fact, he says on January 6 itself in the afternoon at 3:45 in the afternoon, when there are when the mob has already breached the buildings, he says he asked McConnell to call in the National Guard. Now, the chief of police says he asked the sergeant of arms of the Senate to call the national garden right away. And he says, I have to ask my boss, Mitch McConnell, and the Chief of Police says I never hear back from them. That's a quote out of the Washington Post. I have all these quotes in the article. Without it's beyond any reason that McConnell doesn't know before the six, what's coming, the chief of police says says it the Acting Chief of Police says it, there's the DC police knew it. There was all kinds of intelligence and they made a decision not only not to call the national Guard in, they don't even call reinforcements from Maryland and Virginia, which later in the day on the six they did but could have before. Oh, why? They didn't like the only theory now is they didn't like the optics of soldiers standing on the perimeter. Well, anybody knows anything about security in these kinds of situations. If you really are worried about optics, and sometimes they are, you hide the the reinforcements. Congress has miles of tunnels beneath it. You could have put 1000s of police and National Guard in the tunnels. And if you needed them, bring them out, which is what the Capitol Hill police essentially was asking for. And they get a no well, McConnell had to be in on that. No, it's just not possible that the Senate sergeants arms say no without asking.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 17:37
Paul let's take a short break. You're watching Muslim network TV, and we're talking with Paul Jay, about January 6, some aspect of things which are not in common knowledge and Paul Jay is putting them together. We'll be right back after these messages.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 18:30
Welcome back to Muslim network TV. This is Imam Malik Mujahid, talking with Paul Jay. So you think that McConnell knew.
Paul Jay 18:40
He had to.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 18:41
Why McConnell was not worried about his safety and the safety of all other people?
Paul Jay 18:50
Well, the fact is the leadership got taken out pretty quickly. But let's let me say why I think McConnell didn't take now I'm into the area of speculation, because now I'm speculating on his intent. I think it's pretty good speculation. But still, it's speculation. I think by the six, it was obvious that one, Trump was out of his mind that the military intervention wasn't going to happen, and maybe never was. But there was certainly an attempt, or you wouldn't have had all these letters being written. But I think the most important thing is that the elites and by by elites, I'm talking about the financial elites, the big banks, the corporate elites. They had had enough of this guy Trump, and they wanted a peaceful transition. And something happens on January 6, which is
Abdul Malik Mujahid 19:42
are saying that the deepest state stood up?
Paul Jay 19:49
Well, it depends what you're calling the deep state. If McConnell's the deep state, I don't know. I'm talking I'm talking about something called the American Manufacturers Association. I don't think it's deep state. It's a public lobbying arm for corporate America. The doors of Congress get breached around 2pm in the afternoon. At 3:34pm and I can be precise because that's what they have on their website, the American Manufacturers Association, in the midst of all the chaos issues a statement, calling on Vice President Pence to issue or use the 25th amendment to remove President Trump from office. So 90 minutes after the doors are breached, the manufacturers- American Manufacturers Association, one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, one of the most important voices for corporate America, that had been pro Trump for four years, after getting every tax cut, they wanted, every deregulation, they wanted milking the Trump presidency for everything they possibly could, now they decide Trump's not good for business anymore. And they want him gone because he's nuts. You can't come to a conclusion to issue a statement for Pence to remove Trump in 90 minutes. At the very least, the American Manufacturers Association had to already have deliberated and decided Trump has to go. And then can they have this quick emergency meeting. Oh, we're gonna wish you the statement calling for the 25th amendment. Maybe I don't know. But it's pretty weird. And so what my point here is McConnell, Lindsey Graham, who votes to certify Pence under enormous pressure from Trump to the point where, you know, they're running around with a noose to hang the guy. He votes to certify and plays his role as vice president certified Biden. Why? Because the elites at this point, want Trump gone. He's too insane. They, you know, they don't mind volatility in the markets, but craziness of not having a transition after an election. That's too much volatility, and they want this crazy guy God. So this has to be seen what McConnell's role is in the context. That, you know, the banks come out later and say they're not gonna fund anyone that voted not to certify Biden. I mean, the the elites made it clear to McConnell and to Pence I don't care how much you piss off this Republican base. You get rid of this guy. And and they did.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 22:37
So. So your use of the term elite don't come very close to how the right wing extremists are talking about elite.
Paul Jay 22:50
There's ,sure well, there is an elite. So you talk about them, and you can talk about it from the right from the left as a journalist, but they I mean exist. So and actually, you raise an interesting point, because I think there's sections of the right particularly who have started to adopt the language of the left. Like if you if you look at Trump's messaging, it's actually almost identical to the messaging of Ronald Reagan, which means it's all anti government. You don't really talk about the corporate elites. You don't talk about big business all that much, you know, a little bit, but mostly, the problem's government, government government. And you know, Reagan's famous line government's not the solution it's the problem. Well, what the right has done over this last few years, and the best representative of this is Tucker Carlson, who started to actually use language from the left to attack corporate elites and and sound like a leftist. Of course, he's totally in the service of corporate elites. But, you know, Hitler used to attack big business. I mean, Hitler call himself a socialist. It's nothing new about the right picking up the language of the left in order to actually serve those elites.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 24:13
That's that's an interesting point. I mean, yeah, Hitler socialist nationalism or something like that. What was the name of the party?
Paul Jay 24:21
National Socialist. He picked up the language of being like a socialist, he attacked big business, especially if they were Jews, but all big business. But of course, what did he do in power, he was completely at the service of crops and the German corporate and arms manufacturers.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 24:40
The same is happening in India now I'm in the these fascist government is using these socialist terminology while almost killing its farmers.
Paul Jay 24:53
Yes, a perfect example they they learn to pick up the language of populism. And they'll call them like right wing populist. It's a contradiction in terms really. But they learn the language of populism in order to fool people because it's all about like, Listen, what kept when, when there was slavery in the United States, what kept these 10s of 1000s of slave slaves slaves. It wasn't the weapon itself. And it was there weren't even enough guns on these plantations. It was the fear and the psychology that people were simply convinced not everyone because some escaped some thought. But the psychology that I can't be anything other than a slave, it's my lot in life. And the same thing happens with workers you know, you can fit like India is a wonderful example. Millions and millions and millions of people and destitute and poverty if they ever organized and got together, they would wipe these Indian fascists this year, right? They are fascist fascist off off the face of the earth with with with a sweep of their hand. Why don't they? Because they've been convinced it's their lot in life, and they can't do anything else. So it's an old thing. I mean, what the how the feudalism last so long.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 26:13
In the case of India, the caste, you know, the top castes, historic control, but but the you know, this, this is India, I mean, 25,000 British soldiers control hundreds of millions of people there for....years. And so, so psychological, you know, component is very critical. How you think the psychological impact of Trump's survival is? I mean he has convinced a huge number of people that he is the Messiah.
Paul Jay 26:47
Well, there's a very, Yeah, exactly. I mean, that's what it is. There's a very interesting thing that was in New York Times yesterday, I think it was there's a congressman from Illinois, I forget his name. Yeah, he voted. He's a republican voted to impeach Trump. And he gets a letter from his cousins, who denounced him as having joined, quote, The Devil's army. And, and, and they say he's, you know, he's, he's pro abortion. He's a slave to socialism. And he's three four times they call him part of the devil's army. Yeah, there's a big component. This, I would call it religious fanaticism.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 27:27
So calling him again, Scott, and the guy is pretty conservative. I mean, I'm, we're based in Illinois, he conservative, and he is other than this particular action. So Well, um, so So, you know, how, so what do you see future of Trump and the republican party? Do you think McConnell, if you know, there is no evidence of it, but there is common sense that he knew what is coming and he's an extremely smart silent guy who knows how to play his cards. And who could deny Obama appointment with a Supreme Court justice while he will get it done for him so he knows and is a clever operator. So So do you think you know him not thoroughly protecting, which need to be investigated?
Paul Jay 28:32
Uh he left the door open nevermind thoroughly protecting he virtually left the door open. But here's the here's the rub.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 28:39
Was it to wrestle back some of the republican party?
Paul Jay 28:44
Yeah, he does it cause he, I'm, here's where I speculate, but he did it. So it would it would turn into such a mess. They blame it all on Trump. And they did. And and that for a while there, it looked like they were going to reverse so discredit Trump, and so inflame public opinion against him. Their hope was they could pry his hands off the republican party and he would leave office so discredited, that's was their hope. I call this a failed coup within a failed coup because that McConnell coup against Trump also failed. Because the fanatical support for Trump is so strong. His people didn't even care. In fact, they don't even believe it was his people who did it. How many what percentage of republicans think it was antifa and black lives matter? Whatever I mean, it's craziness. But there's another thing here that might let McConnell off the hook here and why they didn't target him in the impeachment hearings. And why they may not even if they have these 911 I do quotation marks around 911 because I don't think the 911 Commission while as a commission, it might be a good model, but the conclusions 911 commission came through I don't think they got The truth of what happened. But anyway, that's another conversation. But the sergeant of arms of the senate reports to McConnell but the sergeant of arms of the house reports to Nancy Pelosi. So did Nancy Pelosi not know what was going on? Now, I don't know. But I do know that she has since and some people that work with her have since said the sergeant of arms of the house, lied to them, that they did ask meaning staff of Pelosi did ask, what are the security plans and that they were lied to and this is in the press. And and though, so I don't know, maybe Pelosi Pelosi didn't know. But there's an interesting thing happen at the end of the senate impeachment hearings. Jamie Raskin, who's the head of manager of the impeachment, announces, they're going to call witnesses and have several witnesses they want to call starting with this Congresswoman who knows about the phone call that Trump has with McCarthy. And then all of a sudden, Ted Cruz says, okay, you call witnesses. Well, then, so are we. And we're going to start with Nancy Pelosi. And we're going to ask her, what did she know about what was going to happen on the sixth? And what did she do about it? And all of a sudden, all of a sudden, Raskin says, Okay, we're not going to call witnesses. And when he stands up to announce that they've worked out a deal, where they're just going to have a written submission from this Congresswoman about the phone call. What What does he give us the reason why they're not going to call witnesses, he says, because the republicans threatened to call Nancy Pelosi and turn this into a circus. And let me just add one little thing. Now you think if they add, if they start questioning Nancy Pelosi as Ted Cruz threatened, wouldn't they worry about McConnell, but Ted Cruz hates McConnell. And McConnell hates Ted Cruz. So I don't think Ted Cruz would've minded...by McConnell.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 32:07
We will continue this conversation but little bit more on the constitutional side as a professor of law is going to join us. You're watching Muslim network TV. This is Imam Malik Mujahid, and I'm talking with Paul Jay. And we'll continue conversation as Professor Brian Kalt joins us. Stay with us. We'll be right back after these messages.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 32:09
Welcome back to Muslim network TV. And thank you so much, Professor Brian Kalt for joining us. He is professor of law at Michigan State University and the author of constitutional cliffhangers, A legal guide for Presidents and their enemies. So professor, welcome to Muslim network TV, how many presidents have been reading your book?
Abdul Malik Mujahid 33:19
So, so it seems that we have a little audio problem as we resolve that. Paul Jay, you talk about that he should President Trump should have been charged with with sedition and what else use.. treason. And, and I wanted to ask Professor Kalt, what are his his thoughts? Whether that's a possibility or not? I hope he is still listening while we're trying to figure out his his audio issues. But why do you think that that would have been a better chart and instruction because ... everybody saw, defining it as a treason would have been a little difficult so they probably wanted to go for the...
Paul Jay 34:34
I think, I think, well, interaction probably leads to a charge of sedition, which just is more in the realm of if I'm not a lawyer, but you I've been reading recently, is more in the realm of incitement of insurrection is more like a charge of sedition. The reason I say treason is because of the what seems to be evidence of the attempt to get the Secretary of Defense to involve the military in intervening? I think if you look just at the events of January six, if that was an isolated event, then probably it doesn't rise to the level of treason, although even it might that there's a one opinion from a Supreme Court justice, I believe his name was Chase, who specifically says any use of organized force to over overturn or prevent the government for exercising the law, and in this case, would be the law of transition from one president to the other. That would be treason. Maybe as I say, I'm not an expert. But I think the issue of the attempt, maybe it's conspiracy to commit treason, but that in the in the Justice Chase's decision, he says it's irrelevant whether it succeeds or not. And it's also irrelevant how many people are involved in the act of force, although in this case, it's it's many it's 1000s. In the buildings, it's at least hundreds. So based on Chase's definition, I it's certainly to a layman's eyes, or journalists eyes, it looks like treason. But the reason I think it should be treason is to force a pressure and a real investigation into the events that led up to January 6, which is this potential attempt to organize a military intervention?
Abdul Malik Mujahid 36:29
What is the punishment of treason?
Paul Jay 36:30
I don't have it in front of me. But it's, there's two parts to it in the Constitution. One part is an attack on the government, which, which is I'm not quoting exact words, but it does not have to be in the service of a foreign power. The first part is an attack on the government to overthrow the government, I forget the exact words. But then it's an or not an end, or in the service of a foreign power, attacking the government. So treason doesn't require any relationship to a foreign power. And and that's where I think it gets confused. A lot of people think treason necessarily means in the service of a foreign power. So if I'm understanding it correctly, and I hope our constitutional lawyer gets his audio fix, so he can help answer this. My understanding is any organized attempt to use force to prevent the government or attempt to overthrow the government is treason. And that seems to me that's what happened.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 37:44
So do you think that Nancy Pelosi, if she was in on what was going on, will actually go ahead and have the commission?
Paul Jay 38:01
When I i'm not saying she was in on it. I don't I have no idea. I only know that she may have been lied to. It's very possible she was lied to if she was lied to
Abdul Malik Mujahid 38:14
Congress persons. Paul, different Congress persons are saying they were text messages between Congress persons to be careful on on January 6, AOC has said other people have said they were text messages people were aware of these things.
Paul Jay 38:34
Oh, yeah. No, I think people knew something bad was coming. There's some Congress people that were planning to bring their families and then didn't. But the question is, did she or someone that works for her, ask this house Sergeant of arms that reports to her about security precautions, and and was she lied to? That's what they're claiming. It may be true, it may not be true. I don't know. If she really pursues this 911 type investigation, it will come out. And maybe she was lied to. I mean, I have no opinion on it, because I don't have any evidence.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 39:13
You think, so do you think that commission will actually come into being or not?
Paul Jay 39:22
Let me add just one other little piece. It's not it's one could argue, well, if Pelosi was lied to then wasn't couldn't have been McConnell was lied to? Well, yeah, it's theoretically possible. But given that it's primarily the Senate's responsibility the security. And given that on the six, the sergeant of arms of the senate says I got to go ask my boss McConnell about calling in the National Guard. At least want to think he probably asked his boss before the six about the National Guard. But an investigation will show that do I think there will be a 911 Commission. I said again, I wish they'd come up with some other terminology cause I'm not a big fan of the 911 Commission. And I'm more a fan of the result of the investigation conducted by Senator Bob Graham and the joint congressional committee that investigated 911. I think they got it far more what the truth of what happened than the official 911 commission and people should look up. I did a bunch of interviews with Bob Graham, do I think it's gonna happen? I don't know. I think the American Manufacturers Association, I think Wall Street would very much like the past that the evidence that there might have been a coup not to come out, it's not good for business for United States to look so like, a third world country to look potentially so unstable to look like there could have been military intervention. So will this will this come out? I don't know how it doesn't in the sense. It's just like I say everything I'm talking about. It's completely in the public domain, so, so I don't know.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 41:03
So, Professor Kalt, thank you so much. I hope this time the audio works. Is it true that you were cited 15 times by Trump's defense team but what you feel they did not properly quoted you?
Brian Kalt 41:18
Yes. Hopefully you can hear me now.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 41:21
Brian Kalt 41:22
Both the house managers cited me about 19 times by my account. And the and, and the Trump lawyer cited me about 15 times the the article I had written in 2001, on impeaching former officers, was the only full length piece of scholarship out there. So it was inevitable that both sides were going to use it as best they could.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 41:50
How they got...book on constitutional cliffhanger, a legal guide for Presidents and their enemies. So it seems presidents and enemies and not reading, but their lawyers are reading what you're writing, right?
Abdul Malik Mujahid 42:06
Well, the book itself was looking through six different scenarios where the constitution isn't perfectly clear. And we can get into some uncertainty and some mischief perhaps. So there is a chapter on presidents pardoning themselves, for instance, a chapter on prosecuting sitting presidents. This is back in 2012. And the idea was to think about these things before we have an actual case, to set out all the arguments before an evidence before we know which side we're rooting for, because that way we can get a more honest answer a better legal analysis, once the once the case actually arose. Because it's an ambiguous situation, both sides had plenty to look at. So I weighed all of the evidence about what I called late impeachment. And I concluded that the better argument was that ex presidents can be impeached and tried. But there was a lot of evidence on the other side, too. It just wasn't as much as on the late impeachment side. So what I expected them to do, what I expected Trump's lawyers to do was to take what I said was the best argument for their side and use that and and maybe cite my article for that. What they actually did was to take things that I said, and then cite me as though I had said the opposite. So for instance, I said, Well, you could argue this against late impeachment. Here's why that's wrong. And then they cited me for the this part, not the you could argue this, but it would be wrong and here are all the reasons. And I don't know why they did that. They didn't need to do that. But but they did. And it was it was very unfortunate.
Abdul Malik Mujahid 44:05
Pennsylvania law that lawyers have a responsibility to state facts, as there are, do you think there will be some repercussions on using your scholarship in a false way?
Brian Kalt 44:21
No,I think that's a that's a sort of a different thing that they're dealing with there. So for instance, if you were to say in a brief that someone was at a certain place at a certain time, and then turns out they weren't. That's I think more what they're talking about the way that you cite authorities and the footnotes. That's, that's a little more I don't know, I mean, lawyers. All have experienced this where a brief cites a case or cites an article or cites a brief and then you look at it and it says the opposite. That's not me. It's dishonest in a way, but that's not the sort of thing that gets you disbarred it can get you called out in court. And and and the judge won't be very happy with you and it severely can affect your credibility with the judge. But it's again, not the sort of thing that gets you disbarred unless it's just I don't know, more more than a few times everyone brief
Abdul Malik Mujahid 45:23
Tell me this, you know, why why Chief Justice Roberts did not preside and why it was not made a big deal, and there was nothing big about it it just happened that oh, it's alright?
Brian Kalt 45:39
Well, I think that the the Trump lawyers did make a big deal out of it. But the reality is the Constitution says that when the President is tried, that the Chief Justice presides, and Donald Trump, when the trial began was not the President, if they had started the trial before January 20, that would have worked. But it's ambiguous. So if you say if the President is on trial, does that mean that he was the President when he did what he was being impeached for? Does it mean he was the President when he was impeached? Or does it mean at the time of the trial? I think the best reading is that it means at the time of the trial, but you could argue both sides if if Roberts had said that he should preside and the senate agreed, I don't think that would have been all that problematic. The way that they wanted to use that though, as an argument against late impeachment was to say, well, it says that, and they did say this. It says that if the President has tried that the Chief Justice presides. And it says the president is removed if he's convicted, it doesn't say anything anywhere about ex presidents. So that to them was sort of more evidence of that when it talks about the president being impeachable. It doesn't mean ex president they said, and, and so you can't you can't take president to mean only the sitting president and the Chief Justice clause, and then take it separately to also include ex presidents in the removal clause. But that's, again, not what the Constitution says the Constitution says, if the President is convicted, he's removed. Well, okay. But if he's not the President, and he's convicted, then he's not removed. The Constitution doesn't say, only sitting presidents can be tried. It doesn't say the timing of the trial has to be while he's still in office. It just says, if he's convicted, and he's still in office, then he's removed. It does limit it to things he did as President. It's not that they're saying you can impeach anybody. It has to be official misconduct. But, but this is a very good example of just the the intricacies and the ambiguities of the text coming... where anyone can make an argument about it. And you really need to sit down and work through all of the evidence and figure out, what does it really mean? What does it really say? What did the founders intend here?
Abdul Malik Mujahid 48:02
Tell me this professor, General Flynn when the whole idea about the military takeover and martial law and all that he says that, you know, martial law has been instituted 64 times in the past. And I don't know whether that is true or not. But what is the constitutionality of this martial law business?
Well, that's sort of outside of my area of expertise. But I, I know, just as a historical matter, that martial law has never been part of a presidential election before. I mean, that's, you have civil unrest, you have the Civil War and and the need to reconstruct the South afterwards. Okay. The military has a role in that. But something like the, we don't like how the election came out, that that would, that would have been unprecedented. And Flynn was, Flynn was saying some pretty out there things and, and it didn't have any resonance in the end, but but again, that didn't really come up in the impeachment. They didn't go after Trump for what he did. With with those sorts of ideas to...
Abdul Malik Mujahid 49:22
..whole lot of questions, Professor with you, and I thought on one point, Paul Jay who's who is a journalist, and you could also involve but hopefully we'll invite you again now because our constitution seems to have a whole lot, you know, but with amendments and all that, but there are questions on which, you know, people continue to fight I mean, the people who invaded on January 6, were doing that to save the Constitution. And the people who are trying those people they're trying to save the Constitution. So constitution seems to prevail in terms of rhetoric. But there seems to be a whole lot of ambiguities which probably will never be removed and rarely will be used. But we will hopefully we'll invite you again. So thank you so much Paul Jay and Professor Kalt truly appreciate your time with us and thank you so much Sherdil and Dr. Abdul Waheed for producing today's show. And thank you for watching. We have interesting conversation here 24 seven so stay tuned for other programming. You're watching Muslim network TV on galaxy 19 satellite, Amazon Fire TV, Roku, Apple TV and your download our app on your phone, Muslim network TV on our website. Please Salam.