May 17, 2024 • 32 mins
Gregg Jarrett, NY Times Best Selling Author and Fox News Legal Analyst and Paul Mauro, retired NYPD Inspector, attorney, and founder of Ops Desk.org discuss:
- What is actually happening in NYC with regard to crime and infractions against innocent people?
- Why are the illegal immigrants who attacked the police set free?
- Why are there no penalties for Fauci? For Peter Daszak ?
- Why is Joe Biden asserting his authority to use executive privilege regarding special counsel's audio tapes of him?
All the while a known perjurer sits on the stand, a witness for Biased Bragg, spinning tales about a President.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, we'll come in your city, gets saying your comfort
sound will be entire highland. Tell and if you want
a little banging a yi, I come along.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
As you can see today we're expanding the electoral map
because we are going to officially play in the state
of New Jersey.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
We're going to win the state of New Jersey, he said,
very loudly. Ovaries, Fallopian and pelopian tubes. Right of an
ah ah NHPI students rely on pilgrims.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Block team minus one hundred and seventy two days left
till you get to vote.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Away, coming to your city, Going away, I again, Tom
saying you a conscious sock.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
From coast to coast, from border to border, from c
to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is on.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
All right, thank you, Scott Shannon. Hour two Sean Hannity Show.
Told for your number is eight hundred and ninety four one, Seawn.
If you want to be a part of the program,
All right. So the I guess they just have adjourned
for the day, which is probably good Court will not
be in session tomorrow because Donald J. Trump is going
(01:41):
to his son's graduation, which is good news. The judge
didn't make an immediate decision on that, and which I
don't think was fair by the way. Eli Honig over
at Fake News c and An, actually this is what
he said about what happened today. I don't think I've
ever seen a star operating witness get their knees chopped
(02:03):
out as clearly and dramatically as what just happened with
Michael Kohene.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
And I'm telling you everybody, everybody in the courtroom that
I talk to, and we're gonna have a number of
them that we'll tell you tonight on Hannity nine Easter.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
We got a lot of people in the courtroom today.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
That literally said they'd never seen anything like it, and
it's pretty unbelievable, but it's incredible. Now we have judged
in the Impiro coming up, we have Greg Jarard coming up,
and we're going to have a lot more legal analysts.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
We'll get your calls. I know a lot of you
want to weigh in on this.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
We do have one other legal issue that I think
we've really got to get into here, and House Republicans
now will take their first steps of holding the Attorney
General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress today for refusing
to turnover audio recordings of Special Counsel Robert Hurry's interviews
(03:02):
with Joe Biden. Now you might remember this is you know,
you know, pretty pretty interesting for a lot of different reasons.
Because the tape apparently as Joe Biden was still vice
president in two thousand and nine, you know, and all
these you know, apparently is a disaster that was described
(03:25):
by the Special Council the Republicans of saying Americans have
a right to hear it. Well, what happened today is
the White House they said they wouldn't do this. They
also said that the Attorney General's office is going to
be independent from the Biden White House. Well that's not
turning out to be true either, which is pretty unbelievable,
(03:48):
but I guess predictable in this day and age in which.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
We live in. But it's the reality now.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
It's pretty sad, but it's again, this is the country
we live in under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland. Anyway,
from the Associate Attorney General to Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan,
I write to inform you that the President has asserted
executive privilege over the requested audio recordings and is making
(04:19):
a protective assertion of privilege over any remaining materials responsive
to the subpoenas that have not already been produced produced.
It is a long standing position the executive branch, held
by the administrations of both parties, that an official who
asserts the president's claim of executive privilege cannot be prosecuted
(04:41):
for criminal contempt of Congress. Now, from the Attorney General
Garland to the President of the United States, the audio
recordings of your interview, this is with Robert Hurst, people,
fall within the scope of executive privilege. Production of these
recordings to the com vidies would raise an unacceptable risk
(05:02):
of undermining the department's ability to conduct similar, high profile
criminal investigations, in particular investigations where the voluntary cooperation of
the White House official is exceedingly important the White House Council.
The absence of legitimate need for the audio recordings lays
bare your likely goal to chop them up, distort them,
(05:23):
and use them for partisan political purposes. And Garland goes on,
we have gone to extraordinary links to ensure the committees
get their responses, and so on and so on and
so on. Here, you know, I got to tell you something.
This ought to scare everybody because this is not what
justice is designed to be in this country. It just
(05:46):
isn't you know. Jason Smith, by the way, joins us.
He's the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
and they've been doing their own investigation to talk about
the committee vote to hold the Attorney General now in
contempt of Congress over this issue. Anyway, Congressman, welcome back.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
To the program.
Speaker 6 (06:04):
It's great to be with you. Sean.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Let's get your analysis of this.
Speaker 6 (06:09):
Well. You know, Merrek Garland is acting like the president's
personal lawyer, not the Attorney General of the United States.
The Biden administration and the Department of Justice, they've ignored
every subpoena this Congress has sent, and every action they've
taken has been to shield President Biden from oversight. And
(06:30):
that's leading Congress with no other choice but to move
forward with the content proceedings. That's why you're seeing that today.
You know, the Attorney General of the United States does
not get to tell Congress what documents or evidence are
relevant to our investigations throughout this impeachment inquiry. So this
(06:51):
runs completely afoul of the separation of powers. What we've
seen today is just absolutely trust. But you know what
Sean think about these these recordings, These tapes must be
so bad that Biden and the Democrats would rather hold
Garland in contempt than to release them. It tells you
that they must be a whole lot worse than what
(07:14):
even the transcripts provide.
Speaker 5 (07:17):
You know, I talked to a lot of attorneys today
about this, and the consensus is very clear, so blatant
misuse of executive privilege. Greg Jarrett was so passionate about it.
And what they want to do is hide in advance
of the election what would probably be a devastating recording
of the president's mental infirmities. That's what this really is
(07:39):
all about. And that resulted in the Special Council her
describing him as a well meaning elderly man with a
poor memory, and that's how a jury would likely see hit.
And therefore, well, you know what's the point. They're probably
not going to find him guilty because he's a well
meaning old guy with a horrible memory. Now, the doctorate
of executive privileged Congressmen, you correct me if I'm wrong,
(08:02):
doesn't that allow a president to withhold from Congress private
and confidential communications with aids? Because that's not what's happening here.
The special counsel was not an aide to Biden who
was offering counsel and advice. He was adversarial. He was
investigating Biden for potential crimes over classified documents that he
(08:24):
retained in violation of federal law.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Would you agree with that, You're exactly right.
Speaker 6 (08:30):
Executive privilege is to do your job as president, not executive.
Executive privilege isn't to save your job. That's, in fact
why Joe Biden's using executive privilege is to save his job,
because he doesn't want the American people to see the truth.
And that's in fact what could be outlaid in these
audio tapes.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
Okay, let me take it a step further. Let's look
at the case of the US versus Nixon. Right, what
did the Supreme Court rule that there is no executive
privilege when the information sought is relevant to a criminal case.
Isn't that exactly what her was doing? Hence, Biden wrongfully
asserting the privilege over a recording in the possession of
(09:13):
the Attorney General, his attorney general, conflicted attorney general weaponized
Department of Justice. In my view, Biden is shielding both
himself and Garland by abusing what a presidential power.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 6 (09:27):
That's absolutely the case. We know that this whole interview
was mister Hurr interviewing the president for a crime, and
even her said that he could not even bring charges
because he was an older man and that he had
a poor memory. That is why they're not bringing charges.
(09:47):
So it shows clearly it was under investigation for criminal conduct.
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Now, by the way, the Supreme Court case that is
being heard about immunity and the presidency would be a
different case, wouldn't it. I know that the president's lawyers,
President Trump's lawyers argue for absolute immunity. I would probably
argue I would have argued for limited immunity. That would have,
(10:12):
I think been if it had been applied. I think
a lot of the law fair against Donald Trump wouldn't
have happened. There's a great distinction here, isn't there.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
There's a huge distinction. But you know, this just shows
an example the two cheer justice system on full display,
one for the Biden family and one for everyone else.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Yeah, I agree with you there too.
Speaker 5 (10:35):
You know, Biden in this case is shielding himself in
Garland by abusing I believe presidential power, and I think
Garland probably knows better and urged the president to do it.
You know, I guess he's sort of like Obama's Eric Holder, right,
I'm not any different in my view. But executive privilege
is not absolute. It's a qualified privilege, in other words,
(10:57):
only can be asserted under limited circumstances that we just discussed.
And Congress has okay that we have co equal branches
of government. Part of that coequal branches oversight over the
executive branch. They have investigative authority. Your committee is one
of them, as is the Judiciary Committee, as is the
Oversight Committee. And you derive your powers, you know, from
(11:20):
our Constitution. And you look at these discrepancies between the
transcript and the recording, and the Congressional Committee needs to
be entitled to resolve that. In my view, why don't
they want that resolved? I think it's pretty obvious why.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
That's exactly right. Article one gives us the authority and
the constitution for Congress to have oversight over the executive branch.
And that's in fact what we're doing. That is why
we subpoened this information. That's why we're asking for it
is because this information is essential to the investigation. The
Attorney General doesn't have the discretion of deciding what documents
(12:00):
youngest should have or should not have in their investigation
under Article one.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, they're just hoping to run out the clock, aren't they.
You know what they want.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
They want to make sure those tapes are not heard
by the American people before the election.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Isn't that what this is about?
Speaker 5 (12:17):
And because I doubt that Robert Hurr lied when he
characterized Joe Biden as a well meaning, elderly man with
a poor memory who didn't remember when he that he
was vice president and just became vice president in two
thousand and nine, and other horrific examples of a poor memory.
Speaker 6 (12:35):
Right, exactly, Sean, you hit the nail on the head.
You're saying it exactly what it is. They're trying to
make sure that the American people don't hear the truth
see the truth. The more that they can keep Joe
Biden in the basement and not allow people to actually
see his conduct or even his actions, they feel like
that that's how he can get reelected.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
Unbelievable. Well, we appreciate your time, Congressman. Anyway, Jason Smith,
head of the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Thank you, sir, all right, courteous ended for the day.
Donald Trump, let me just play some of his comments.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
He does this every day.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Kind of reached all the comments of everyone else because
of the gag order. But let's listen in thin it's a.
Speaker 7 (13:15):
Very interesting day. It's a fascinating day, and it shows
what scammed this whole thing.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Answer.
Speaker 7 (13:22):
I think that seems to be in the way almost everybody,
even CNN and MSDNC, they have courts over here to
drop the trial. Elly Honigan, this is statement he jus made.
Would not have even charged this case, this case shad
have been charging India and editing started against me.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Nicholas Chambers, lawyer, News Maanks. There's no blog in securing
a non disludger agreement.
Speaker 7 (13:52):
There's nothing.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Everybody hasn't.
Speaker 7 (13:55):
Every company hasn't out of concern.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
For your marriage or protecting your family, or any other
reason the common not just London any as. The Manhattan
Show trial against President Trump is a gross abuse of power.
Speaker 7 (14:11):
It's age disgusting spectacle.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
That says, and if you terrify all of this, and
that's true, Jonathan Turley Fox News judge has failed to
protect rights have defended in requiring clarity.
Speaker 7 (14:27):
Trump did not violate federal election law at all.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
I didn't violate any law. It's a scam.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Brand could not prosecute federal election law. It's not over
this jurisdiction here, and Jay declined to bring the action.
As you know, Neo j looked at this a long
time ago. In this case, it was going to be brought,
but it should have never been brought. Should have been
brought seven or eight years ago. They didn't do that
because they wanted to bring it right in the middle
(14:57):
of the election, especially since when leading in every poll.
It's a weird situation where judges allowed prosecutors to refer
to election violations. And as you know, the federal elections
look at it and they didn't bring anything, and it's
under their jurisdiction. That was from Jonathan Jurley Andrew McCarthy.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
NDAs are legal in common yet.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Trump's was illegal.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
I have the only illegal India.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
It seems Trump's crime, by Blue State delights was winning
the election.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
That was my crime.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I won an election that I wasn't supposed to win
against Hillary Clinton. And that's not a crime either Republican
in New York.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
It's not a crime.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Bregg wants to prosecute Trump for a federal campaign finance crime,
something he has no.
Speaker 7 (15:48):
Jurisdiction to do.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
This is from Andrew McCarthy, highly respective. He's got no
jurisdiction to do and that defends who do have jurisdiction
decided not to do it, not to charge. They decided
not to do it. Hey, look at this, they decided
not to do it. This is Brad who, by the way,
didn't want to do it himself. And then I started
(16:13):
running what I announced that I was running. Roma said
that became a hot at him. Again, this is a
political persecution. You have an events editorial board in this
case is a joke. Ashton Kutcher's going to copy Left
to tell us that we've been publishing I know what
that means the series and glorified lego pranks and seriously
(16:37):
called in to question the impartiality of the American justice system.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
All right, we're gonna dip out of this.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
We're gonna get reaction to the Blockbuster Day with Judge
Janine Piro. She's coming up next later on. Greg Jarrett
as we continue twenty five to the top of the hour.
Thank you for being with us eight hundred ninety four
one Sean. If you want to be a part of
the program, I want to remind you if you want
to gun, this is a wake up call.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
On a regular morning US Army Vet.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
His name is Brian, attacked by a man with a
steel pipe while with his family. Now, despite warnings, Brian
was forced to defend himself with his firearm, and in
today's twisted America, well, he ended up being the guy
charged with first degree murder and put in jail. Now,
Brian thankfully remembered he was a member. I've been a
(17:25):
member for nine years of the United States Concealed Carry Association.
He remembered that his membership included self defense liability insurance.
He reached out to the USCCA, immediately connected with a
highly skilled legal team, and those charges they got dropped.
That saved him from financial ruin. And that's why I've
been a proud member for nine years. You know, proving
(17:48):
your innocence now can destroy your life if you're not prepared.
Just go to defendfamily dot com right now and start
your one hundred percent risk free USCCA membership. If you
sign up now, you'll not only get self defense liability insurance,
world class training, the even of training centers around the country.
You can sign up for situational self defense and right
(18:11):
now six chances to win a gun of your choice
up to one hundred and fifty five bucks worth of
free bonuses. All right, defendfamily dot com. Defendfamily dot com.
All right, we have been going over what unbelievable, what
has been unbelievable in the courtroom in New York City
today in the case of Donald Trump. I had more
than one person in the courtroom describe what happened today
(18:33):
as a my cousin Vinnie moment, as I've been telling you,
and anyway you know. The defense was asking about a
series of Frank calls. In twenty sixteen, Todd Blanche, representing
Donald Trump in Cross with Michael Cohne, talked about the
hall logs between Cone and Trump's former bodyguard, a guy
(18:55):
by the name of Keith Schiller. This is before Trump
was president and a little bit into his president. Cone
then testified earlier this week that he made a call
to Shiller in October twenty sixteen to speak to Trump
and confirm the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Really,
and this is the call that he identified as having
(19:15):
that happen. Blanche questioned con about the series of harassing
phone calls Cone had claimed in a text to Shiller
that he received at the time and anyway, Blanche pointed
to the message exchange where Cone said some fourteen year
old prank called him, and the message exchanged, Schiller asked
(19:37):
Cone to call him. According to the call logs, the
call Cone made to Shiller less than two minutes, about
a minute and a half, and Blanche argued that the
call was too short for Cone to have both explained
the prank call and his concerns about it, and shared
what he testified earlier in the week was an extensive
(19:57):
conversation with Donald Trump on the sh Stormy Daniel issue,
Blanche obviously arguing that the call that Coene claims was
he was informing Trump about the hush money payment was
actually about him dealing with the prank caller. Apparently the
reaction from the jury was wow, anyway, joining us now,
(20:20):
She's been on both sides of this. I mean, her
background is extensive. I think one of the smartest legal
minds in the country, earned the great one Mark Levin.
Two of my friends, my friend she is the co
host of the hit show The Five. Judge Janine Piro's
with us. I know you're following this as closely as
we are.
Speaker 8 (20:40):
Wow, it was it was wow. I got to tell you, Sean,
And as you stated, I mean, I've been a da
like Alvin Bragg, and I've been a judge like Juan Mashawan,
and the whole thing is so bizarre. But the wow
moment today had to do with Michael Cohen saying I
talked to Donald Trump about the stormy Daniel's payment. But
(21:04):
the truth is he called Keith Schiller not to talk
to Donald Trump, but to talk in response to Keith
Schiller telling him call me, because Michael Cohen was being
harassed by some fourteen year old who kept making prank calls.
So Keith Shiller says, call me, you know, I'll tell
you what to do or connect you with the police.
(21:26):
It's a minute and a half phone call. Now Michael
Cohen wants the jurors to believe, Oh no, I definitely
spoke to not just Keith Schiller but Donald Trump in
that minute and a half now think about it. You
gotta call Keith. You got to say he just speak
to the boss. Keith has to say, let me see
if he's available. And then let's assume you get Trump
on the phone within you know, thirty seconds. Then you've
(21:48):
explained the whole thing in less than a minute. I mean,
this isn't all outline in what we haven't seen yet
our text messages between Shiller, the bodyguard for Donald Trump,
and Michael Cohen, where Michael Cohen says, this kid's driving
me nuts during the exact same period of time that
he alleges that he was calling Trump to inform him
(22:09):
on what he was doing about Stormy Dangels. I mean,
the jury, according to my sources as well, looked at
each other. Now, this is kind of a low key jury, Sean,
but they were stunned. This was not about Michael Cohen
calling Donald Trump. It was about his call to Donald
Ship to his chief Shiller, and it's all about Michael
(22:31):
Cohen protecting himself and trying to deep six Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
All right.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
Now, there's another aspect to this, and that is the
prosecutions role here and how apparently they kept these text
messages they knew about them, but they kept it away
from Cohan, knowing that Cohan two days earlier made this
testimony and this allegation about this extensive conversation with Trump about.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
The deal, So clearly they knew he was lying.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
They had the text messages, and I guess I don't
know if they just didn't inform him. Did they just
screw up or anything nefarious?
Speaker 8 (23:08):
In your mind, yes, absolutely, I mean the whole case
is with farious. There is no case. There is a
great point of the loss, and you know in the
end they have to continue this narrative that what they're
doing is absolutely appropriate. The fact that they didn't give
these text messages to Michael Cohen or to the prosecution
(23:32):
tells me that they're possibly some moorning perjury that they
knew he was going to go on the stand and
talk and say that that phone call on October twenty
fourth or twenty sixteen had to do with telling Donald
Trump how if they were handling stor mc daniels. But
in truth, that phone call was about a kid who
was harassing Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen seeking help. He's
(23:55):
getting a text back from Schiller's saying call me, and
it had nothing to do with Donald Trump. There's no
proof Donald Trump was even on that call. Chilli didn't
say call me because I'm with Donald Trump. I did
he even know he was with Donald Trump. This whole
thing is the borning, surgery and moving records out so
the witness would not remember. I'll get call him the
(24:16):
benefit of the doubt, although I think he's an outright liar.
You can never give him the benefit.
Speaker 6 (24:20):
Of the doubt.
Speaker 8 (24:21):
But that the prosecution did not give him those text
messages that were his at the exact same time of
the call log is outrageous.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
It really is. Well, what do you make of that?
Speaker 5 (24:33):
I mean, you would think if they knew the testimony
that he gave the other day didn't correspond with text
messages that they have, don't they have a legal obligation
to get the truth out. I mean, Alan Dershwitz said
the other night on Hannity, and I thought he was
dead on accurate, and it was something I didn't know before.
I'm sure you did because of your background in the law.
(24:55):
And that was that on the issue of attorney client
privilege and Michael Cohene taping Donald Trump not informing him
that he's taping him and then sharing that information with
the with the prosecution in this case, and Dershowood said, well,
he needs to be questioned extensively on this and about
(25:17):
what the nature of those conversations were and why attorney
client privilege was broken, and why they didn't inform Donald Trump,
why would you ever break that privilege? And what were
the conversations with the prosecutors. And if he's on the
stand and he doesn't tell the truth, and the prosecutors
know he's not telling the truth, they would have an
obligation to stand up in court before the judge and
(25:40):
the jury and tell them that's not true. Now, that's
pretty amazing.
Speaker 8 (25:46):
That is amazing. They are not abiding by the rules
that they are imposed upon them. You were required to
give the sculptory material to the defense immediately once he
lied on the stand. Let's assume I'll give the prosecutor
the benefit of the doubt, right, although I don't believe
they deserve it either, but let's assume that they forgot
to give it to them. Once Michael Cohen said that,
(26:08):
they should have went up to the bar, to the
bench and said, Rana, we have exculpatory material. It's our mistake,
but no, they're running with it. And so this is
absolutely the true. This phone call was to Donald Trump.
This is when he explained it all to Donald Trump.
It's a lie. They suborned it, they violated discovery rules,
they didn't give this information to the defense.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
This is all.
Speaker 8 (26:33):
This is all corrupt, and it's just consistent with what
they've been doing from the filing of these criminal charges.
I am ashamed that these people can call themselves prosecutors
when they're nothing more than political operatives on the hunt
to interfere with an election.
Speaker 5 (26:48):
It's unbelievable. By the way, I just read your book.
I got to just stop here for a second because
you're so good at the law. And my friend Judge
Denine has just come out with a new book and
it's called Crimes Against America, the Left's Takedown of Our Republic.
Now it's just been released. It is an unbelievable read.
(27:09):
It is so informative and well researched. It's up on
my website right now and it's on Amazon dot Com.
I assume it's some bookstores now everywhere or will be.
Speaker 8 (27:21):
Yeah, okay, it's definitely on Amazon, and I think it's
judgejbook dot com singular. But the book is about the
breakdown of the institutions of government, all of them in
this case is a classic example that this should be
a book in itself. But what the prosecution has done
here is what the republic, what the Democrats and woke
(27:41):
people are doing, and that is taking down our system
so we can no longer rely on it. So there
is no real truth and justice anymore. What there is
is a subjective reality of making sure that the people
in power stay in power and do everything they can,
including and guiding an opponent so that opponents cannot say,
(28:01):
be elected president. But I'm telling you, Shawne, who is
going to be elected president? I'm telling you in the
end here this is a corrupt effort that I think
the American people see through, which is why the president
former president is maintaining such good numbers in terms of
his polling.
Speaker 5 (28:19):
Quick break right back more. We judge Janine Piro and
don't forget her new book is just out. You definitely
want to get a copy of it. It is on
Hannity dot com, Amazon dot com, bookstores around the country.
Crimes against America the Left's takedown of our Republic. Get
that book. We continue now. Judge Janine Piro is with
us her new book just out now. It's on Amazon
(28:41):
dot com, Hannity dot com, bookstores around the country, Crimes
against America, the Left's takedown of our Republic. You got
to read this book. I got to tell you something.
The polls to me tell a lot, you know. I
pointed something out the other day when Bill Clinton was impeached.
People don't remember this, but his overrating by Gallup went
(29:01):
up to seventy percent. And now compared to what Donald
Trump has been through. And I think there's a message
here because every time they do this to Donald Trump,
what happens. His poll numbers go up. Every time they
indict him, poll numbers go up. People see this sham
trial for what it is. They see this Biden donor judge.
(29:22):
They see a misdemeanor case, you know, with this convoluted
legal theory upgrading into a federal felony, which the DOJ
even passed on. That's the weaponized DJ. I mean, I
can't believe the level of corruption, never mind the judge's
family and how they may benefit from all of this.
He should have recused himself as per New York law.
He didn't. This case, even if Trump was found guilty'd
(29:44):
be overturned on appeal very quickly, although quickly doesn't mean
before the election, which is which is to me election interference.
The idea that this, this judge right now should end
this case, of my view, and he's not going to
do it.
Speaker 8 (30:00):
He is not going to do it. There should be
a directed verdict if I had a case like this,
the same judges Mershon, if you have a case where
Donald Trump has no way, shape or form been implicated
in the bookkeeping, in the categorizing of ledgers, nothing like that,
and NDA is not illegal. Let's assume that there was
(30:21):
discussion about it. It's done every day. It's done with celebrities.
It is a civil agreement. There's nothing wrong with that.
But what's going on right now is they're trying to,
you know, hoodwink the jury as though, look, this is
all bad and Donald Trump's bad, and who cares about
Stormy Daniels and what kind of sex they had. It's
an embarrassment, Sean, It's terrible case.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Yeah, yeah, no, no, finish your thought.
Speaker 8 (30:47):
The case should be dismissed pursuing to a directed verdict
if there is not enough to go to the jury.
They have not made out a premia fati case. There
is no evidence against Donald Trump. There is no one
has put falsifying a business record. You better prove that
he falsified those business records when you can't even tell
(31:09):
that he was even close to those records, or that
he had an intent to commit a crime. A crime.
Speaker 5 (31:15):
By the way, the intention is a big part of
this case. You have to show he intended to break
federal election law or state election law, if you believe
in the convoluted theory, which ended up itself as questionable
because it was a misdemeanor.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Whose statute of limitations of run out?
Speaker 8 (31:30):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, Sean. And they didn't show any of this.
They showed absolutely nothing. They didn't have anyone implicating him
with a book with the record keeping, or that he
intended to violate anything. And how can you violate an
election if what is allegedly wrong is done after the election.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
It's so well said again, just out crimes against America,
the lefts takedown of our republic. Just out judged it, Impiro.
It's on Hannity dot Com. We put it on our
social media. We're gonna leave it up there because I
want people to get this book. This is a really
good book and it's just out and it really really
(32:12):
is it just it speaks to the moment we are
now living in, and that's the scary part. Anyway, Amazon
dot Com, bookstores around the country. Judge, you're awesome.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
We love you.
Speaker 5 (32:23):
Congrats on all the success. All my friends on the
five and you're all friends of mine. We're so happy
for you.
Speaker 8 (32:29):
Indeed, we love you too.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Bye bye, well not you.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
Sure everybody loves me on the five. Everybody just check it, Nolla,
they do. I have. We're just joking anyway, eight hundred
nine to four one, Sean, if you want to be
a part of the program. Unbelievable times that we're living in.
Well, we'll come in your city, gets saying your comfort
sound will be entire highland. Tell and if you want
a little banging a yi, I come along.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
As you can see today we're expanding the electoral map
because we are going to officially play in the state
of New Jersey.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
We're going to win the state of New Jersey, he said,
very loudly. Ovaries, Fallopian and pelopian tubes. Right of an
ah ah NHPI students rely on pilgrims.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
Block team minus one hundred and seventy two days left
till you get to vote.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Away, coming to your city, Going away, I again, Tom
saying you a conscious sock.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
From coast to coast, from border to border, from c
to Shining Sea. Sean Kennedy is on.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
All right, thank you, Scott Shannon. Hour two Sean Hannity Show.
Told for your number is eight hundred and ninety four one, Seawn.
If you want to be a part of the program,
All right. So the I guess they just have adjourned
for the day, which is probably good Court will not
be in session tomorrow because Donald J. Trump is going
(01:41):
to his son's graduation, which is good news. The judge
didn't make an immediate decision on that, and which I
don't think was fair by the way. Eli Honig over
at Fake News c and An, actually this is what
he said about what happened today. I don't think I've
ever seen a star operating witness get their knees chopped
(02:03):
out as clearly and dramatically as what just happened with
Michael Kohene.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
And I'm telling you everybody, everybody in the courtroom that
I talk to, and we're gonna have a number of
them that we'll tell you tonight on Hannity nine Easter.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
We got a lot of people in the courtroom today.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
That literally said they'd never seen anything like it, and
it's pretty unbelievable, but it's incredible. Now we have judged
in the Impiro coming up, we have Greg Jarard coming up,
and we're going to have a lot more legal analysts.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
We'll get your calls. I know a lot of you
want to weigh in on this.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
We do have one other legal issue that I think
we've really got to get into here, and House Republicans
now will take their first steps of holding the Attorney
General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress today for refusing
to turnover audio recordings of Special Counsel Robert Hurry's interviews
(03:02):
with Joe Biden. Now you might remember this is you know,
you know, pretty pretty interesting for a lot of different reasons.
Because the tape apparently as Joe Biden was still vice
president in two thousand and nine, you know, and all
these you know, apparently is a disaster that was described
(03:25):
by the Special Council the Republicans of saying Americans have
a right to hear it. Well, what happened today is
the White House they said they wouldn't do this. They
also said that the Attorney General's office is going to
be independent from the Biden White House. Well that's not
turning out to be true either, which is pretty unbelievable,
(03:48):
but I guess predictable in this day and age in which.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
We live in. But it's the reality now.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
It's pretty sad, but it's again, this is the country
we live in under Joe Biden and Merrick Garland. Anyway,
from the Associate Attorney General to Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan,
I write to inform you that the President has asserted
executive privilege over the requested audio recordings and is making
(04:19):
a protective assertion of privilege over any remaining materials responsive
to the subpoenas that have not already been produced produced.
It is a long standing position the executive branch, held
by the administrations of both parties, that an official who
asserts the president's claim of executive privilege cannot be prosecuted
(04:41):
for criminal contempt of Congress. Now, from the Attorney General
Garland to the President of the United States, the audio
recordings of your interview, this is with Robert Hurst, people,
fall within the scope of executive privilege. Production of these
recordings to the com vidies would raise an unacceptable risk
(05:02):
of undermining the department's ability to conduct similar, high profile
criminal investigations, in particular investigations where the voluntary cooperation of
the White House official is exceedingly important the White House Council.
The absence of legitimate need for the audio recordings lays
bare your likely goal to chop them up, distort them,
(05:23):
and use them for partisan political purposes. And Garland goes on,
we have gone to extraordinary links to ensure the committees
get their responses, and so on and so on and
so on. Here, you know, I got to tell you something.
This ought to scare everybody because this is not what
justice is designed to be in this country. It just
(05:46):
isn't you know. Jason Smith, by the way, joins us.
He's the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
and they've been doing their own investigation to talk about
the committee vote to hold the Attorney General now in
contempt of Congress over this issue. Anyway, Congressman, welcome back.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
To the program.
Speaker 6 (06:04):
It's great to be with you. Sean.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
Let's get your analysis of this.
Speaker 6 (06:09):
Well. You know, Merrek Garland is acting like the president's
personal lawyer, not the Attorney General of the United States.
The Biden administration and the Department of Justice, they've ignored
every subpoena this Congress has sent, and every action they've
taken has been to shield President Biden from oversight. And
(06:30):
that's leading Congress with no other choice but to move
forward with the content proceedings. That's why you're seeing that today.
You know, the Attorney General of the United States does
not get to tell Congress what documents or evidence are
relevant to our investigations throughout this impeachment inquiry. So this
(06:51):
runs completely afoul of the separation of powers. What we've
seen today is just absolutely trust. But you know what
Sean think about these these recordings, These tapes must be
so bad that Biden and the Democrats would rather hold
Garland in contempt than to release them. It tells you
that they must be a whole lot worse than what
(07:14):
even the transcripts provide.
Speaker 5 (07:17):
You know, I talked to a lot of attorneys today
about this, and the consensus is very clear, so blatant
misuse of executive privilege. Greg Jarrett was so passionate about it.
And what they want to do is hide in advance
of the election what would probably be a devastating recording
of the president's mental infirmities. That's what this really is
(07:39):
all about. And that resulted in the Special Council her
describing him as a well meaning elderly man with a
poor memory, and that's how a jury would likely see hit.
And therefore, well, you know what's the point. They're probably
not going to find him guilty because he's a well
meaning old guy with a horrible memory. Now, the doctorate
of executive privileged Congressmen, you correct me if I'm wrong,
(08:02):
doesn't that allow a president to withhold from Congress private
and confidential communications with aids? Because that's not what's happening here.
The special counsel was not an aide to Biden who
was offering counsel and advice. He was adversarial. He was
investigating Biden for potential crimes over classified documents that he
(08:24):
retained in violation of federal law.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Would you agree with that, You're exactly right.
Speaker 6 (08:30):
Executive privilege is to do your job as president, not executive.
Executive privilege isn't to save your job. That's, in fact
why Joe Biden's using executive privilege is to save his job,
because he doesn't want the American people to see the truth.
And that's in fact what could be outlaid in these
audio tapes.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
Okay, let me take it a step further. Let's look
at the case of the US versus Nixon. Right, what
did the Supreme Court rule that there is no executive
privilege when the information sought is relevant to a criminal case.
Isn't that exactly what her was doing? Hence, Biden wrongfully
asserting the privilege over a recording in the possession of
(09:13):
the Attorney General, his attorney general, conflicted attorney general weaponized
Department of Justice. In my view, Biden is shielding both
himself and Garland by abusing what a presidential power.
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 6 (09:27):
That's absolutely the case. We know that this whole interview
was mister Hurr interviewing the president for a crime, and
even her said that he could not even bring charges
because he was an older man and that he had
a poor memory. That is why they're not bringing charges.
(09:47):
So it shows clearly it was under investigation for criminal conduct.
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Now, by the way, the Supreme Court case that is
being heard about immunity and the presidency would be a
different case, wouldn't it. I know that the president's lawyers,
President Trump's lawyers argue for absolute immunity. I would probably
argue I would have argued for limited immunity. That would have,
(10:12):
I think been if it had been applied. I think
a lot of the law fair against Donald Trump wouldn't
have happened. There's a great distinction here, isn't there.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
There's a huge distinction. But you know, this just shows
an example the two cheer justice system on full display,
one for the Biden family and one for everyone else.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Yeah, I agree with you there too.
Speaker 5 (10:35):
You know, Biden in this case is shielding himself in
Garland by abusing I believe presidential power, and I think
Garland probably knows better and urged the president to do it.
You know, I guess he's sort of like Obama's Eric Holder, right,
I'm not any different in my view. But executive privilege
is not absolute. It's a qualified privilege, in other words,
(10:57):
only can be asserted under limited circumstances that we just discussed.
And Congress has okay that we have co equal branches
of government. Part of that coequal branches oversight over the
executive branch. They have investigative authority. Your committee is one
of them, as is the Judiciary Committee, as is the
Oversight Committee. And you derive your powers, you know, from
(11:20):
our Constitution. And you look at these discrepancies between the
transcript and the recording, and the Congressional Committee needs to
be entitled to resolve that. In my view, why don't
they want that resolved? I think it's pretty obvious why.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
That's exactly right. Article one gives us the authority and
the constitution for Congress to have oversight over the executive branch.
And that's in fact what we're doing. That is why
we subpoened this information. That's why we're asking for it
is because this information is essential to the investigation. The
Attorney General doesn't have the discretion of deciding what documents
(12:00):
youngest should have or should not have in their investigation
under Article one.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, they're just hoping to run out the clock, aren't they.
You know what they want.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
They want to make sure those tapes are not heard
by the American people before the election.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Isn't that what this is about?
Speaker 5 (12:17):
And because I doubt that Robert Hurr lied when he
characterized Joe Biden as a well meaning, elderly man with
a poor memory who didn't remember when he that he
was vice president and just became vice president in two
thousand and nine, and other horrific examples of a poor memory.
Speaker 6 (12:35):
Right, exactly, Sean, you hit the nail on the head.
You're saying it exactly what it is. They're trying to
make sure that the American people don't hear the truth
see the truth. The more that they can keep Joe
Biden in the basement and not allow people to actually
see his conduct or even his actions, they feel like
that that's how he can get reelected.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
Unbelievable. Well, we appreciate your time, Congressman. Anyway, Jason Smith,
head of the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Thank you, sir, all right, courteous ended for the day.
Donald Trump, let me just play some of his comments.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
He does this every day.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Kind of reached all the comments of everyone else because
of the gag order. But let's listen in thin it's a.
Speaker 7 (13:15):
Very interesting day. It's a fascinating day, and it shows
what scammed this whole thing.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Answer.
Speaker 7 (13:22):
I think that seems to be in the way almost everybody,
even CNN and MSDNC, they have courts over here to
drop the trial. Elly Honigan, this is statement he jus made.
Would not have even charged this case, this case shad
have been charging India and editing started against me.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Nicholas Chambers, lawyer, News Maanks. There's no blog in securing
a non disludger agreement.
Speaker 7 (13:52):
There's nothing.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Everybody hasn't.
Speaker 7 (13:55):
Every company hasn't out of concern.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
For your marriage or protecting your family, or any other
reason the common not just London any as. The Manhattan
Show trial against President Trump is a gross abuse of power.
Speaker 7 (14:11):
It's age disgusting spectacle.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
That says, and if you terrify all of this, and
that's true, Jonathan Turley Fox News judge has failed to
protect rights have defended in requiring clarity.
Speaker 7 (14:27):
Trump did not violate federal election law at all.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
I didn't violate any law. It's a scam.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Brand could not prosecute federal election law. It's not over
this jurisdiction here, and Jay declined to bring the action.
As you know, Neo j looked at this a long
time ago. In this case, it was going to be brought,
but it should have never been brought. Should have been
brought seven or eight years ago. They didn't do that
because they wanted to bring it right in the middle
(14:57):
of the election, especially since when leading in every poll.
It's a weird situation where judges allowed prosecutors to refer
to election violations. And as you know, the federal elections
look at it and they didn't bring anything, and it's
under their jurisdiction. That was from Jonathan Jurley Andrew McCarthy.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
NDAs are legal in common yet.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Trump's was illegal.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
I have the only illegal India.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
It seems Trump's crime, by Blue State delights was winning
the election.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
That was my crime.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
I won an election that I wasn't supposed to win
against Hillary Clinton. And that's not a crime either Republican
in New York.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
It's not a crime.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Bregg wants to prosecute Trump for a federal campaign finance crime,
something he has no.
Speaker 7 (15:48):
Jurisdiction to do.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
This is from Andrew McCarthy, highly respective. He's got no
jurisdiction to do and that defends who do have jurisdiction
decided not to do it, not to charge. They decided
not to do it. Hey, look at this, they decided
not to do it. This is Brad who, by the way,
didn't want to do it himself. And then I started
(16:13):
running what I announced that I was running. Roma said
that became a hot at him. Again, this is a
political persecution. You have an events editorial board in this
case is a joke. Ashton Kutcher's going to copy Left
to tell us that we've been publishing I know what
that means the series and glorified lego pranks and seriously
(16:37):
called in to question the impartiality of the American justice system.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
All right, we're gonna dip out of this.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
We're gonna get reaction to the Blockbuster Day with Judge
Janine Piro. She's coming up next later on. Greg Jarrett
as we continue twenty five to the top of the hour.
Thank you for being with us eight hundred ninety four
one Sean. If you want to be a part of
the program, I want to remind you if you want
to gun, this is a wake up call.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
On a regular morning US Army Vet.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
His name is Brian, attacked by a man with a
steel pipe while with his family. Now, despite warnings, Brian
was forced to defend himself with his firearm, and in
today's twisted America, well, he ended up being the guy
charged with first degree murder and put in jail. Now,
Brian thankfully remembered he was a member. I've been a
(17:25):
member for nine years of the United States Concealed Carry Association.
He remembered that his membership included self defense liability insurance.
He reached out to the USCCA, immediately connected with a
highly skilled legal team, and those charges they got dropped.
That saved him from financial ruin. And that's why I've
been a proud member for nine years. You know, proving
(17:48):
your innocence now can destroy your life if you're not prepared.
Just go to defendfamily dot com right now and start
your one hundred percent risk free USCCA membership. If you
sign up now, you'll not only get self defense liability insurance,
world class training, the even of training centers around the country.
You can sign up for situational self defense and right
(18:11):
now six chances to win a gun of your choice
up to one hundred and fifty five bucks worth of
free bonuses. All right, defendfamily dot com. Defendfamily dot com.
All right, we have been going over what unbelievable, what
has been unbelievable in the courtroom in New York City
today in the case of Donald Trump. I had more
than one person in the courtroom describe what happened today
(18:33):
as a my cousin Vinnie moment, as I've been telling you,
and anyway you know. The defense was asking about a
series of Frank calls. In twenty sixteen, Todd Blanche, representing
Donald Trump in Cross with Michael Cohne, talked about the
hall logs between Cone and Trump's former bodyguard, a guy
(18:55):
by the name of Keith Schiller. This is before Trump
was president and a little bit into his president. Cone
then testified earlier this week that he made a call
to Shiller in October twenty sixteen to speak to Trump
and confirm the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Really,
and this is the call that he identified as having
(19:15):
that happen. Blanche questioned con about the series of harassing
phone calls Cone had claimed in a text to Shiller
that he received at the time and anyway, Blanche pointed
to the message exchange where Cone said some fourteen year
old prank called him, and the message exchanged, Schiller asked
(19:37):
Cone to call him. According to the call logs, the
call Cone made to Shiller less than two minutes, about
a minute and a half, and Blanche argued that the
call was too short for Cone to have both explained
the prank call and his concerns about it, and shared
what he testified earlier in the week was an extensive
(19:57):
conversation with Donald Trump on the sh Stormy Daniel issue,
Blanche obviously arguing that the call that Coene claims was
he was informing Trump about the hush money payment was
actually about him dealing with the prank caller. Apparently the
reaction from the jury was wow, anyway, joining us now,
(20:20):
She's been on both sides of this. I mean, her
background is extensive. I think one of the smartest legal
minds in the country, earned the great one Mark Levin.
Two of my friends, my friend she is the co
host of the hit show The Five. Judge Janine Piro's
with us. I know you're following this as closely as
we are.
Speaker 8 (20:40):
Wow, it was it was wow. I got to tell you, Sean,
And as you stated, I mean, I've been a da
like Alvin Bragg, and I've been a judge like Juan Mashawan,
and the whole thing is so bizarre. But the wow
moment today had to do with Michael Cohen saying I
talked to Donald Trump about the stormy Daniel's payment. But
(21:04):
the truth is he called Keith Schiller not to talk
to Donald Trump, but to talk in response to Keith
Schiller telling him call me, because Michael Cohen was being
harassed by some fourteen year old who kept making prank calls.
So Keith Shiller says, call me, you know, I'll tell
you what to do or connect you with the police.
(21:26):
It's a minute and a half phone call. Now Michael
Cohen wants the jurors to believe, Oh no, I definitely
spoke to not just Keith Schiller but Donald Trump in
that minute and a half now think about it. You
gotta call Keith. You got to say he just speak
to the boss. Keith has to say, let me see
if he's available. And then let's assume you get Trump
on the phone within you know, thirty seconds. Then you've
(21:48):
explained the whole thing in less than a minute. I mean,
this isn't all outline in what we haven't seen yet
our text messages between Shiller, the bodyguard for Donald Trump,
and Michael Cohen, where Michael Cohen says, this kid's driving
me nuts during the exact same period of time that
he alleges that he was calling Trump to inform him
(22:09):
on what he was doing about Stormy Dangels. I mean,
the jury, according to my sources as well, looked at
each other. Now, this is kind of a low key jury, Sean,
but they were stunned. This was not about Michael Cohen
calling Donald Trump. It was about his call to Donald
Ship to his chief Shiller, and it's all about Michael
(22:31):
Cohen protecting himself and trying to deep six Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (22:35):
All right.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
Now, there's another aspect to this, and that is the
prosecutions role here and how apparently they kept these text
messages they knew about them, but they kept it away
from Cohan, knowing that Cohan two days earlier made this
testimony and this allegation about this extensive conversation with Trump about.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
The deal, So clearly they knew he was lying.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
They had the text messages, and I guess I don't
know if they just didn't inform him. Did they just
screw up or anything nefarious?
Speaker 8 (23:08):
In your mind, yes, absolutely, I mean the whole case
is with farious. There is no case. There is a
great point of the loss, and you know in the
end they have to continue this narrative that what they're
doing is absolutely appropriate. The fact that they didn't give
these text messages to Michael Cohen or to the prosecution
(23:32):
tells me that they're possibly some moorning perjury that they
knew he was going to go on the stand and
talk and say that that phone call on October twenty
fourth or twenty sixteen had to do with telling Donald
Trump how if they were handling stor mc daniels. But
in truth, that phone call was about a kid who
was harassing Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen seeking help. He's
(23:55):
getting a text back from Schiller's saying call me, and
it had nothing to do with Donald Trump. There's no
proof Donald Trump was even on that call. Chilli didn't
say call me because I'm with Donald Trump. I did
he even know he was with Donald Trump. This whole
thing is the borning, surgery and moving records out so
the witness would not remember. I'll get call him the
(24:16):
benefit of the doubt, although I think he's an outright liar.
You can never give him the benefit.
Speaker 6 (24:20):
Of the doubt.
Speaker 8 (24:21):
But that the prosecution did not give him those text
messages that were his at the exact same time of
the call log is outrageous.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
It really is. Well, what do you make of that?
Speaker 5 (24:33):
I mean, you would think if they knew the testimony
that he gave the other day didn't correspond with text
messages that they have, don't they have a legal obligation
to get the truth out. I mean, Alan Dershwitz said
the other night on Hannity, and I thought he was
dead on accurate, and it was something I didn't know before.
I'm sure you did because of your background in the law.
(24:55):
And that was that on the issue of attorney client
privilege and Michael Cohene taping Donald Trump not informing him
that he's taping him and then sharing that information with
the with the prosecution in this case, and Dershowood said, well,
he needs to be questioned extensively on this and about
(25:17):
what the nature of those conversations were and why attorney
client privilege was broken, and why they didn't inform Donald Trump,
why would you ever break that privilege? And what were
the conversations with the prosecutors. And if he's on the
stand and he doesn't tell the truth, and the prosecutors
know he's not telling the truth, they would have an
obligation to stand up in court before the judge and
(25:40):
the jury and tell them that's not true. Now, that's
pretty amazing.
Speaker 8 (25:46):
That is amazing. They are not abiding by the rules
that they are imposed upon them. You were required to
give the sculptory material to the defense immediately once he
lied on the stand. Let's assume I'll give the prosecutor
the benefit of the doubt, right, although I don't believe
they deserve it either, but let's assume that they forgot
to give it to them. Once Michael Cohen said that,
(26:08):
they should have went up to the bar, to the
bench and said, Rana, we have exculpatory material. It's our mistake,
but no, they're running with it. And so this is
absolutely the true. This phone call was to Donald Trump.
This is when he explained it all to Donald Trump.
It's a lie. They suborned it, they violated discovery rules,
they didn't give this information to the defense.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
This is all.
Speaker 8 (26:33):
This is all corrupt, and it's just consistent with what
they've been doing from the filing of these criminal charges.
I am ashamed that these people can call themselves prosecutors
when they're nothing more than political operatives on the hunt
to interfere with an election.
Speaker 5 (26:48):
It's unbelievable. By the way, I just read your book.
I got to just stop here for a second because
you're so good at the law. And my friend Judge
Denine has just come out with a new book and
it's called Crimes Against America, the Left's Takedown of Our Republic.
Now it's just been released. It is an unbelievable read.
(27:09):
It is so informative and well researched. It's up on
my website right now and it's on Amazon dot Com.
I assume it's some bookstores now everywhere or will be.
Speaker 8 (27:21):
Yeah, okay, it's definitely on Amazon, and I think it's
judgejbook dot com singular. But the book is about the
breakdown of the institutions of government, all of them in
this case is a classic example that this should be
a book in itself. But what the prosecution has done
here is what the republic, what the Democrats and woke
(27:41):
people are doing, and that is taking down our system
so we can no longer rely on it. So there
is no real truth and justice anymore. What there is
is a subjective reality of making sure that the people
in power stay in power and do everything they can,
including and guiding an opponent so that opponents cannot say,
(28:01):
be elected president. But I'm telling you, Shawne, who is
going to be elected president? I'm telling you in the
end here this is a corrupt effort that I think
the American people see through, which is why the president
former president is maintaining such good numbers in terms of
his polling.
Speaker 5 (28:19):
Quick break right back more. We judge Janine Piro and
don't forget her new book is just out. You definitely
want to get a copy of it. It is on
Hannity dot com, Amazon dot com, bookstores around the country.
Crimes against America the Left's takedown of our Republic. Get
that book. We continue now. Judge Janine Piro is with
us her new book just out now. It's on Amazon
(28:41):
dot com, Hannity dot com, bookstores around the country, Crimes
against America, the Left's takedown of our Republic. You got
to read this book. I got to tell you something.
The polls to me tell a lot, you know. I
pointed something out the other day when Bill Clinton was impeached.
People don't remember this, but his overrating by Gallup went
(29:01):
up to seventy percent. And now compared to what Donald
Trump has been through. And I think there's a message
here because every time they do this to Donald Trump,
what happens. His poll numbers go up. Every time they
indict him, poll numbers go up. People see this sham
trial for what it is. They see this Biden donor judge.
(29:22):
They see a misdemeanor case, you know, with this convoluted
legal theory upgrading into a federal felony, which the DOJ
even passed on. That's the weaponized DJ. I mean, I
can't believe the level of corruption, never mind the judge's
family and how they may benefit from all of this.
He should have recused himself as per New York law.
He didn't. This case, even if Trump was found guilty'd
(29:44):
be overturned on appeal very quickly, although quickly doesn't mean
before the election, which is which is to me election interference.
The idea that this, this judge right now should end
this case, of my view, and he's not going to
do it.
Speaker 8 (30:00):
He is not going to do it. There should be
a directed verdict if I had a case like this,
the same judges Mershon, if you have a case where
Donald Trump has no way, shape or form been implicated
in the bookkeeping, in the categorizing of ledgers, nothing like that,
and NDA is not illegal. Let's assume that there was
(30:21):
discussion about it. It's done every day. It's done with celebrities.
It is a civil agreement. There's nothing wrong with that.
But what's going on right now is they're trying to,
you know, hoodwink the jury as though, look, this is
all bad and Donald Trump's bad, and who cares about
Stormy Daniels and what kind of sex they had. It's
an embarrassment, Sean, It's terrible case.
Speaker 3 (30:45):
Yeah, yeah, no, no, finish your thought.
Speaker 8 (30:47):
The case should be dismissed pursuing to a directed verdict
if there is not enough to go to the jury.
They have not made out a premia fati case. There
is no evidence against Donald Trump. There is no one
has put falsifying a business record. You better prove that
he falsified those business records when you can't even tell
(31:09):
that he was even close to those records, or that
he had an intent to commit a crime. A crime.
Speaker 5 (31:15):
By the way, the intention is a big part of
this case. You have to show he intended to break
federal election law or state election law, if you believe
in the convoluted theory, which ended up itself as questionable
because it was a misdemeanor.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Whose statute of limitations of run out?
Speaker 8 (31:30):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, Sean. And they didn't show any of this.
They showed absolutely nothing. They didn't have anyone implicating him
with a book with the record keeping, or that he
intended to violate anything. And how can you violate an
election if what is allegedly wrong is done after the election.
Speaker 5 (31:50):
It's so well said again, just out crimes against America,
the lefts takedown of our republic. Just out judged it, Impiro.
It's on Hannity dot Com. We put it on our
social media. We're gonna leave it up there because I
want people to get this book. This is a really
good book and it's just out and it really really
(32:12):
is it just it speaks to the moment we are
now living in, and that's the scary part. Anyway, Amazon
dot Com, bookstores around the country. Judge, you're awesome.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
We love you.
Speaker 5 (32:23):
Congrats on all the success. All my friends on the
five and you're all friends of mine. We're so happy
for you.
Speaker 8 (32:29):
Indeed, we love you too.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
Bye bye, well not you.
Speaker 5 (32:32):
Sure everybody loves me on the five. Everybody just check it, Nolla,
they do. I have. We're just joking anyway, eight hundred
nine to four one, Sean, if you want to be
a part of the program. Unbelievable times that we're living in.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.