April 17, 2024 • 32 mins
Alina Habba, DJT legal spokesperson and General Counsel for the Save America PAC discusses the ridiculous sham of a trial that is being waged against Donald Trump by Judge Merchan and Bragg, and now we have Bragg attempting to hold the President in contempt of court for violating the gag order.
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 (00:04):
Right, Thanks Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hannity Show,
Toll free. Here's our number. It's eight hundred and nine
point one, Sean, if you want to be a part
of the program. Big part of yesterday is the Manhattan
da who we played yesterday ran on a platform to
get Trump. Not unlike the attorney general of the State
of New York, but it now sounds like and you
(00:28):
got to look at this guy. This is the guy
that you know supports no bad laws. This is the
guy you can be on video beating the crap out
of New York City police officers and don't worry, you
get to get out of jail free, flip the press
and every New York or the bird, and then you know,
leave that sanctuary city for the sanctuary state of California.
(00:50):
You can't even make this up. You know this, this
this is a guy with a history of coddling the
worst criminals in New York City and has made it
pretty much an unlivable city for most people. And this
is an attempt to get the Republican nominee for president.
Where you know, this is a case that goes back
eight years. As we have been pointing out, this is
(01:13):
a case whose statute of limitations have run out. And
if you look at it's a state where falsifying business
records in the state of New York, the City of
New York, that's a misdemeanor unless they can prove it
was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime.
And this guy's not even brought that up. And that's
where we now find ourselves. So he runs on a
(01:34):
platform get Trump, and the indictment has nothing specific in it. Now,
if you really look at this, and I thought Jonathan
Turley's piece really nailed this yesterday, and Bragg's case relies
on a possible federal crime that the DOJ decided not
to charge Donald Trump with because they knew the case
(01:55):
was too weak to bring forward. And when they tried
a similar case, that being the case of former presidential
candidate former Senator John Edwards, it didn't work out well
for them. And Bragg last year downgraded sixty percent of
all felonies in New York, giving lighter sentences to many
of the violent felons. But of course, this is Donald Trump,
(02:16):
and it's a two tier justice system and a weaponized
justice system, So what do you expect so the statut
of limitations for this case have run out and it's
not a felony, and they'll bring it up an eight
year old case two hundred and three days before the
presidential election. Oh, I'm sure the timing is a mere coincidence. Anyway,
(02:38):
here's Jonathan Turtley saying, the more cases against Trump, the
less justice we receive as people. Listen to this, Well, the.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
More cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as
a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have
been far better off with just one case, the mar
Lago case, that's based on real law, real precedent. We
can disagree with the interpretations, but it's not a reach
in the sense of this case. This case is creating something.
(03:07):
It's creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know,
you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired. The social
limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather
curious way. He's effectively arguing that Trump was filing false
business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime.
(03:29):
But it isn't a federal crime, this wasn't a campaign contribution.
None of that appears to matter. And that's why a
lot of us are looking at this and recoiling.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
This is not how the law is supposed to be anyway.
Here to weigh in on all of it is Elena Habba.
She is Donald Trump's legal spokesperson General counsel for the
Save America pack. Elena, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Thanks for having me, Sean.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And we have to get what We have to wait
till next Tuesday, a week from today, to find out
whether or not a president would even be allowed to
attend a son's high school graduation.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
The fact that that's even a question is ridiculous. Let
alone that anybody that observes pasover already knows that if
you are selected for this jury, you're not going to
be allowed to observe it. This judge is making it
incredibly difficult. And we saw it yesterday. You know, they
brought them in, they made them wait around while they
were doing procedural things that frankly should have been done
(04:24):
before the jury pool was selected. Before they were sitting
there waiting for hours. But that's what you get when
somebody doesn't care about tax payer dollars, just being completely
wasted about political animus. And that's what we're seeing in
New York time and time again.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
So if really, if all of this lawfare and this
weaponization of justice, you know, is allowed to be pursued,
and you have four separate venues. You have New York,
you have DC, you have Fulton County, Georgia. Not friendly
territory for anybody that is a conservative or Republican, let
alone somebody with the last name Trump. This judge said
(05:02):
that Donald Trump must be there every single day or
in fact, he will be put what in jail? So
instead of campaigning in Michigan and North Carolina, South Carolina,
let's see Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, he's got to be
in a court room.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Yeah. And what's more, Sean is usually judges will give
a day off of court for them to hear other hearing,
other motions for other cases, and that day is usually
a Friday, so that the plaintiff's council and defense council
can then have a couple of days to rework their
case and get ready for the following week. What this
judge did was give off of Wednesdays. And my theory
(05:46):
on that is, so then he's stuck in court Monday
Tuesday in New York Wednesdays and off day. He has
to be back in New York Thursday Friday, and it
forms a sort of paralysis, right, so he can't really
travel too far because he has to be back in
in the middle of the week at break up everything.
You know, this is the height of when President Trump
wants to be campaigning, wants to be out there. He's
(06:07):
not like Joe Biden. He's very active and his campaigning works,
you know. Obviously he's familiar with New York. He'll make
work what it needs he needs to do. But I
think everything here is by design. I don't put anything
past them.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
What did you make of Alvin Bragg threatening a jail
the forty fifth president if he continues to defy his
gag order and be fined three thousand dollars for three
alleged violations of the gag order.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah, well, the gag order, first of all, is unconstitutional.
There's the First Amendment right to speech, the fact that
we can't address things such as a family member, things
of that nature that are clearly showing bias, that create
a situation where any other judge would have to accuse
the fact that that has been extended. And if you
look at the gag order, Sean, it's extended to people
(06:57):
in his control. You know, it's crazy. It's what we've
seen time and time again. But meanwhile, you have somebody
like Michael Cohen out there talking to all the networks
talking about the case, has been promoting it, has been
using it as a platform to make money. But the
president can't respond that is so unconstitutional, let alone somebody
(07:19):
who's the leading candidate for the Republican Party and nominee.
So it's outrageous. And then to say, oh, what will
jail you? It reminds me of the Carol case when
I was threatened to be put in jail because I
objected to evidence. I mean, what we're seeing firsthand a
severe Trump arrangement syndrome, but more importantly them assisting Biden
(07:40):
because he can't win without their assists. And I think
that's really loud and clear to the American people.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
What did you make of the questionnaire? The forty two questions,
some of which said, okay, they want to know what
publications you might read, Cable or network programs or online
media or websites you might look at, or block you
might look at, whether or not you watch Fox News
or The Wall Street Journal, or whether or not you're
(08:06):
own social media platforms X, Facebook, TikTok. Do you listen
or watch podcasts? If so, which ones? Do you listen
to talk radio? If so, which programs. I'm sure if
anybody says Sean Hannity, that's their ticket right out of
that courtroom.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Right. It's funny because the judge actually didn't allow one
question that we wanted, which is who did you vote for?
And the fact that they allow all these social media questions, well,
number one, Sean, you could have a rogue never trumper
on there that's going to lie. Okay. I'd like to
say that, you know, individuals are going to be always honest,
but you and I both know that's not the truth.
(08:45):
So you could have people lying on there. You could
have somebody who watches the opposition, watch a CNN or
watches Fox. Truly a liberal, you don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
But more By the way, only twelve percent of voters
in New York City voted for Donald Trump. This is
not a place where he's gonna have a fair venue
and get a jury pool that is fair for him
under any circumstances. I think the case should have been
moved to another jurisdiction.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Absolutely, and we tried to change the venue, we tried
to change the judge. Unfortunately, when the judge himself is
the one that makes those determinations, you've got a sack
deck against you. And the lawyers on the team for
the criminal trial know what they're doing. But we do
have a sack deck, we really do. I mean, we
can't ask if you voted for Biden. We can't ask
(09:33):
you know who you vote for? Do you work for
the Biden campaign? I remember when I was selecting a
jury I on the Carol case just a couple of
months ago in New York, there were people that we
found out were working actively for the Biden campaign that
wanted to sit on the jury. I mean, that's what
you're dealing with in New York.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Well, the question is you know how this all plays
out and the timing of it is. I mean, it's
so obvious what this is here? Yeah, I mean this
case goes back eight years. Really, what is the underlying crime?
How come the statute of Limitations were allowed to tass
on this and they can still bring a case. How
(10:11):
does he bring in federal law into what is a
local jurisdiction case. How do you pull that off? Considering
I would think any higher court would immediately see through
this and stop it. Right.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
So what they're going to do, I think is becoming
more clear to our team, which is use Michael Cohen's
campaign finance guilty plea against the president. And you have
to remember, like you said, Sean and your listeners should
remember this. They looked at this case. Syvance chose not
to bring this case. He said he didn't have an
(10:46):
underlying action that would work to bring it as a
federal crime. And then you have brag come out and said, though,
I'm not bringing it either until President Trump decided he
wanted to run again for president and then they indicted him.
So it's no question to me. The motivation here is political.
It's a bogus claim. It's something that somebody else violated
(11:08):
and pled guilty too. He himself said he pled guilty
only because he was afraid for his wife. And now
you've got this discredited person who were relying on and
is the basis for something The President wasn't even in
New York for he was in Washington at the White.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
House and didn't Stormy daniels By the way deny that
any affair took place. Wasn't that done in writing?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
She did do that in writing? That's correct. And you
know the fact that they're bringing up they did this
in twenty sixty and remember Sean, they brought in women
and tried to paint President Trump as this person that is,
you know, disrespectful to women and et cetera, et cetera.
It's the standard campaign democrat method. When you have nothing,
(11:51):
you attack and you create bs stories, and that's what
they're doing.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Here on the issue of recusal. Now, I think they
serve they have opened the door for an avenue of appeal,
if you know, God forbid, there's a conviction which I
would say the odds are not in your favor just
based on the venue itself, but the fact that the
judge and his family or has a family member that
(12:16):
is politically active and even campaigning. I guess it's mentioning
this specific case that is a clear cut case for
recusal under New York state law, is it not. Yes.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
New York State is actually one of the few states
that has a law where if a judge is financially incentivized,
not just by himself, by by anybody within six degrees
of separation of him, then they must recuse. I'm not
sure how you could possibly say that this is not
a clear instance of that. It's insane. And yes, while
it helps us on appeal, we're still taking the president
(12:48):
away from the campaign trail for the next six seven weeks,
and those are that's time that he can't cook back.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Okay, but let's say that there was a guilty verdict
in this case, and let's say that this was brought
up on appeal. What are the odds that case is
going to be adjudicated, that appeal will be adjudicated before
the November election.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Unlikely unless they can get it in order to show cause,
which would be an expedit expedited form. They really, you know,
the system is broken, That's the truth. The system is absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Is there anything you can do preemptively to get a
higher court to look at whether or not there's a
conflict and a recusal issue here?
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Yes, we actually have papers pending. The criminal team does currently,
so as soon as it's heard, we would hope before
the jury is selected that they would have a chance.
But I'll be honest with you, Shun, It's New York
you know, we've seen it again. We're in the state
of New York and the first Apartment is predominantly liberal judges.
(13:51):
The departments that would look at any criminal here. You
know that's for civil, for criminal. You know, they've got
the same thing. These are liberal judges elected by liberal constituents.
So we'll see what is going to happen. The reality
is the President wasn't even there. Hopefully the jury will
have some sense, but we're in New York and my
(14:12):
faith in the system in New York is very slim.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Not to mention.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
You can say, we have a jury, but when you've
got a judge that's not allowing certain questions and evidence
to be brought in and the jury never sees it,
it doesn't matter how good of a lawyer you are.
You're not a magician. You can't make them read your mind.
So we have to see everyer is going to be
a challenge. They're going to have to really challenge the
evidentiary issues here and get in as much as they
possibly can.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
All right, Elena, and have always appreciate your time. The
President's spokes first a legal spokesperson and also general counsel
for the Save America up pack, Alena. I know we'll
be talking to you a lot on radio and TV
in the weeks ahead. Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Thank you, Sean.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Eight hundred and nine to four one, Shawn is our number.
If you want to be a part of the program,
right twenty five to the top of the hour, your
calls are coming up. A hundred and nine to four one, Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program.
You know, twenty bucks today it's sad. I mean it's
horrible because I remember when it was like a treat
when I was able to get you know, burger and
fries and something to drink. But twenty bucks barely get
(15:14):
your burger and fries. But I'll tell you what twenty
bucks will get you. It will get you unlimited talk,
unlimited text, plenty of five gen data and it's all
for my cell phone company, a veteran own company known
as pure Talk. And here's the beauty of pure Talk.
You get the same five G networks as the big
carriers AT and T, Verizon, T Mobile. You get the
(15:35):
same exact cell tower, same exact ones, the same exact service,
but about half the cost. Average family saving close to
one thousand dollars a year for the same service, no
contract to sign, no activation fee. And if you make
the switch and join the hundreds of thousands of US,
and you do it today by dialing pound two fifty
(15:56):
saying the keyword save now, do it now. You save
an additional fifty percent off your first month. And it's
a company that actually shares your values, same service. All
that money in your pocket and this Biden economy, every
penny counts pound two fifty key word save now from
our friends at Pure Talk. Make the switch anyway, eight
(16:19):
hundred ninety four one, Shawn. We'll get to your calls
here in a second. So finally, yesterday the articles of
impeachment from the House, after being delayed a week, were
delivered to the United States Senate. Now we do need
forty one senators to stand up and say all business
in the US Senate will stop until this House impeachment
is dealt with properly, thoroughly and constitutionally. I think we
(16:42):
might get those votes, but you never know with Republicans
in the House or Senate. As always the Rhino brigade anyway,
So MAJORCUS is testifying unrelated matter more budgetary issues that
he's dealing with today and actually said to Congressman Mark Green,
I've never minimized the challenge that the southern border presents.
(17:04):
I'm like, what, listen.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
Let me ask you this question. Just recently, in your
last trip here, you actually admitted that there was a
crisis at the southwest border.
Speaker 6 (17:15):
What changed, Oh, mister chairman, nothing changed. I have recognized
the enormous challenge that the southern border presents ever since
I began my tenure, and actually well before that. Then
when I served as a Deputy secretary.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
Let me ask this question. Then when you came to
Congress and said there was no crisis at the southern
border in your first few trips here, no crisis, there's
no secure, the border secure. Nothing changed between then and
now you're saying it's a crisis.
Speaker 6 (17:43):
Mister chairman. I have never minimized the challenge that the
southern border presents. I didn't minimize it when I served
as a federal prosecutor for twelve years from nineteen eighty
nine through two thousand and one.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Again, he's just plat out line, how do we know?
Play a nice long montage of the Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorcus saying that the border is secure.
The border's closed, border secure, borders closed. That's all we
heard from everybody in the administration. They lie to us
for three years, but now it's Donald Trump's fault. And
(18:18):
oh no, no, I've never minimized the challenge at the
southern border. And here we are ten plus million unvetted
Joe Biden illegal immigrants, tens of thousands coming from our
top geo political foes. I'll remind you of the countries
as I do every day, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan,
just to name a few. But here is the proof
(18:40):
that what he said today is another lie, which would
be another cause for impeachment. Just say it, listen, Secretary
my Orcus, do you continue to maintain.
Speaker 7 (18:48):
That the border is secure?
Speaker 6 (18:50):
Yes, and we are working day in and day out
to enhance its security.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Congressman, do you believe it right now? Is the crisis
at the border?
Speaker 6 (18:59):
I think that the answer is no. I think there
is a challenge at the border that we are managing. Congresswoman,
the border is secure and the border is not open.
Let me explain a very important, make a very important point,
and that is that the border is secure. The United
States Border Patrol secures the border on behalf of the
(19:21):
American people. The bottom line is that US borders are
not open. The border is closed, the border, the border
is secure. The border. We are working to make the
border more secure. That has been a historic challenge.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
But you do think it's a crisis now, Brett.
Speaker 6 (19:43):
It is a challenge that we have been addressing vigorously
with all of the tools and resources that we have
been provided.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Well, we don't.
Speaker 6 (19:53):
Bear responsibility for a broken system, and we're doing a
tremendous amount within that broken system.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
All right, let's get to our phones. Eight hundred and
ninety four one, Sean, if you want to join us,
Chip is in the lib free or Die state. That
would be a great title for a book anyway of
New Hampshire. Sure, Hi, how are you glad you called? Sir?
Speaker 4 (20:12):
Hi? Sean, I'm a big fan of a show. I
listened to you on the radio during the day. I
watch a TV show at night.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
And no, thank you, by the way, thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (20:21):
Hell, you're welcome. With all this talk about, you know,
threatening to put Donald Trump in jail, and you know,
can they actually do that with him? Being protected by
the Secret Service.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
I think the answer to that question is probably yes.
Is it complicated, yes, would there be a lot of
challenges to it, yes? Is it unprecedented, yes, But everything
that we are now dealing with is unprecedented. You know,
you watch the left, these these lunatics on cable news,
(20:54):
you read any of the mainstream media papers, you know,
New York Times, Washington, Poe, if if you watch the
network's ABC, NBC, CBS, they're celebrating this lawlessness. They they
are celebrating lawfair They as long as it's not them
that that are being victimized by, what do they care.
(21:15):
We have a system that protects you if you are
a liberal, or if you're a Democrat and your last
name's Clinton or Biden. But if you are a conservative,
you know that they're gonna they're gonna throw the book
at you. And yeah, I think that liberals would love
nothing more than Donald Trump in a jail cell, never campaigning.
I mean the idea that he would have to sit
(21:37):
through four trials and he can't leave, he has to
be there every day, But the next two hundred and
two days would suit them fine, because then they they
they basically get to campaign on their terms and what
does that say about the country? And then Donald Trump
can still by the way, Donald Trump can still win
(21:57):
is one thing that nobody can predict. Here. He has
defied all conventional political gravity to this point. Every arrest,
every indictment, every arraignment, every mugshot, now this trial after
the civil case, and every time his poll numbers go up.
Isn't that interesting? Because I think the American people are
(22:19):
disgusted and find all of this repulsive, and they see
this for what it is, an idea that you know,
eight years ago this case was front and center, and
they only bring it to trial two hundred and three
days before the election yesterday. You got to be kidding me, right, yeah, Well,
(22:39):
we're losing our country. We're shredding our constitution, and this
is very dangerous for the country. This is basically a
post constitutional America and it will remain so as long
as as people like this that believe don't believe in
equal justice or application of our laws are in power.
(23:00):
That's why what happens in two hundred and two days matters.
Can I be any more urgent than I'm being? Oh?
Speaker 4 (23:06):
No, absolutely, we got a volt for Trump. We got
to getting back in office.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Yeah, be nice. If New Hampshire came over and turned red,
it would be very helpful.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Oh, it would be a big plus for us, because
this state used to be red. It's it's it's purple.
That maybe it's best right now.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
You know the problem. You had too many people from Vermont,
New York, New Jersey and other places moving there. Yeah,
and and they've changed, they've they've changed your state, not
for the better anyway, all over the place with this.
I wish you're the best, my friend. I do love
the people in New Hampshire, especially the rugged individualists that
(23:47):
you are. God bless y' all. Eight hundred nine four one, Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program.
Liz is in the Free State of Florida. Liz, how
are you. It's great to be a fellow Floridian. What's happening?
Speaker 7 (23:58):
Yes, it is, Sean, and I am a fan and
a first time caller, and I thank you for taking
my call. I would like to know your thoughts on
some issues in that's Israel. So we all know Iran
is a bully and enemy of Western civilization of the
United States and Israel and Israel only wants to live
in peace. As we see, they gave away land, you know,
(24:20):
hoping for peace. We all know how that ended. So
israel I feel has no choice but to take out Iran.
But what does that even mean to they wipe out
all its nuclear facilities, kill all the leaders, because Iran
will retaliate again, It will never end. Now the question
is Biden has said it's Israel retaliates that the US
(24:40):
won't support them. So does that mean that when the
missiles and the drones go flying again with even more force?
Because I feel this past Saturday was just an Iranian test,
will Biden send help? That's really my question.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
We already know the answer. He's already said he will
not help Israel. Well, you know the one. He wants
to have it both ways. He wants to say that
he's helping Israel. And I said this from the beginning
because my sources, which run pretty deep within Israel, were
telling me that what Biden is telling the American people
is very different than what he's telling the Israeli government
(25:16):
behind the scenes. Now, remember this was the worst terror
attack in Israel's history. You know, twelve hundred dead israelis
hundreds taken hostage among the Americans that are still being
held hostage, if they're even alive, and yet it would
be the equivalent of forty thousand dead Americans if we
compare and extrapolate out the population. Okay, so why is
(25:40):
Joe Biden? Why would he ever be pressuring Israel to
do anything other than to defeat their terrorist enemies who
before October seventh? Because I've been there. I've been in
the terror tunnels, I've been in the border towns. I've
been there. I've seen the ten thousand rockets that had
(26:03):
landed in one town alone, a border town with Gaza
called Stadroat. I've been there. I saw the web, I
saw the remains of these missiles that they fired. I
saw the underground playground, bunker playgrounds kids play in. This
has been their reality forever. If anything, I would argue
that Israel now has an opportunity. Iran has opened the door.
(26:28):
And if you ask me what my response would be,
I can tell you it would be I would take
out the financial infrastructure of the entire state of Iran
by knocking out their refineries, and I would then seriously
consider taking out their nuclear sites and doing the world
a favor. Now, remember when Iran did this in the past,
(26:52):
when they did it to Iraq, later did it to Syria.
You know, there was worldwide condemnation, but in retrospect they
did the world favor. It would be much easier if
Prime Minister net and Yahoo and Israel had the support
of the US, but they don't have that support under
this president. And the reason why is what makes this
really repulsive to me and probably the lowest moment of
(27:15):
Joe Biden's presidency, which is saying something. He's doing it
because the radical base that is the new modern leftist
Democratic Party, they are not they are supporting the radicals
that committed this atrocious act of terrorism against Israel, and
(27:37):
they're doing it. Oh, we support the Palestinians. Well, all
the terror tunnels that were built, the hundreds of miles
of them, were built with money that had been earmarked
for schools and hospitals and infrastructure, but they used it
for terror. So that the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people,
they voted in Hamas. A poll recently showed seventy percent
(27:59):
of them today would vote in Hamas. So you know,
at this time, war is ugly. I played Winston Churchill
many times on this program. All I have to offer
is blood, til his and sweat. What is our name?
Our name is victory, victory at all costs against this
(28:19):
monsterous tyranny. That's what this that, that's what the message.
If we had a real president that didn't abdicate his
role on the world stage as the leader of the
free world, that would be our position today. People can
argue how much support we should give Israel. Israel's just
asking to buy weapons from us. They're not even asking
(28:43):
for the aid money that that Biden so willingly gave Ukraine.
But and and incomes. You know, Vladimir Putin, he's pledging
to support Iran in this conflict. Here we go unreal,
but it's sad. What would you what would you suggest
Israel do?
Speaker 7 (28:59):
Well? Well, the thing is that I believe that most
of Iran, the people there, they are pro Israel. They're
they're stuck, so they I believe that they should do
the same thing, you know, take take it all out, nukes,
you know the leaders, I mean, just remove the vast
(29:21):
uh you know, leaders that are are doing all this.
But the thing is that I don't know, I mean,
we know that Biden's really not in charge, is it Obama?
Do you think that he's the one, because I know
that I.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
Think it's everybody around Biden and Biden himself have have
determined that the base of their party is so radicalized
that if he offers any more support to Israel that
he will he will further erode his shrinking base. There.
They're the number the polling that that stands out the
(29:55):
most to me is that Biden is losing the base
of the Democrat out of coalition. And part of it
is these radicals, you know, like in Dearborn that you know,
eighteen point nine percent of Democratic primary voters in the
presidential elect primary in Michigan voted against Biden, over one
(30:15):
hundred thousand people, and that's that number scared the hell
out of them. And if it comes down to supporting
Israel versus his own political ambition, he's going to choose
the latter, and that's what he's chosen. Anyway. I do
appreciate your call, Thank you for being with us eight
hundred and ninety four one Seawn. If you want to
be a part of the program up next our final
(30:43):
roundup and Information Overload hour, you know, I'll never talked
about this really publicly, but nine years ago I made
a decision to change my life. Why. I saw the
direction this country was headed. Crime was escalating. We had
politicians and DA's across the country. They'll let the criminals,
(31:06):
the cop beaters, go free. They'll let people even involved
in you know, they won't throw the book of people
to commit murder and rape and homicide. But I've I've
always been a believer that I need to protect my
family and I knew at that time I needed to
do more than just have a pistol carry permit, which
I've had my entire adult life. And then I decided
(31:28):
to join the us CCA. This is nine years ago,
and with the us CCA you can get firearm education
and training, situational self defense liability insurance, which, by the way,
I need to keep my family safe. God forbid that
moment comes and you've got to protect your family. The USCCA,
if you join, like I am a member, well they're
(31:49):
going to be there for you. Now. They've now joined
as well with the former head of training for the
FBI at Quantico, and they have put together a guide
that all of you can download for free, and that's
the Concealed Carry and situationals Defense Guide that they will
give you and proven ways that you can deter criminals,
(32:09):
defend your families, stay out of legal trouble. They also
have about eight thousand centers around the country that will
teach you situational self defense. I highly recommend it. I
train in this every day. Go to USCCA dot com
slash Hannity and put in your email. Get the guide
sent instantly for free to your inbox USCCA dot com
slash Hannity. I'm telling you these are different times. I
(32:33):
joined nine years ago. I've never regretted it. We'll continue
Right, Thanks Scott chan An Hour two Sean Hannity Show,
Toll free. Here's our number. It's eight hundred and nine
point one, Sean, if you want to be a part
of the program. Big part of yesterday is the Manhattan
da who we played yesterday ran on a platform to
get Trump. Not unlike the attorney general of the State
of New York, but it now sounds like and you
(00:28):
got to look at this guy. This is the guy
that you know supports no bad laws. This is the
guy you can be on video beating the crap out
of New York City police officers and don't worry, you
get to get out of jail free, flip the press
and every New York or the bird, and then you know,
leave that sanctuary city for the sanctuary state of California.
(00:50):
You can't even make this up. You know this, this
this is a guy with a history of coddling the
worst criminals in New York City and has made it
pretty much an unlivable city for most people. And this
is an attempt to get the Republican nominee for president.
Where you know, this is a case that goes back
eight years. As we have been pointing out, this is
(01:13):
a case whose statute of limitations have run out. And
if you look at it's a state where falsifying business
records in the state of New York, the City of
New York, that's a misdemeanor unless they can prove it
was done with intent to commit or conceal another crime.
And this guy's not even brought that up. And that's
where we now find ourselves. So he runs on a
(01:34):
platform get Trump, and the indictment has nothing specific in it. Now,
if you really look at this, and I thought Jonathan
Turley's piece really nailed this yesterday, and Bragg's case relies
on a possible federal crime that the DOJ decided not
to charge Donald Trump with because they knew the case
(01:55):
was too weak to bring forward. And when they tried
a similar case, that being the case of former presidential
candidate former Senator John Edwards, it didn't work out well
for them. And Bragg last year downgraded sixty percent of
all felonies in New York, giving lighter sentences to many
of the violent felons. But of course, this is Donald Trump,
(02:16):
and it's a two tier justice system and a weaponized
justice system, So what do you expect so the statut
of limitations for this case have run out and it's
not a felony, and they'll bring it up an eight
year old case two hundred and three days before the
presidential election. Oh, I'm sure the timing is a mere coincidence. Anyway,
(02:38):
here's Jonathan Turtley saying, the more cases against Trump, the
less justice we receive as people. Listen to this, Well, the.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
More cases against Trump, the less justice we receive as
a people. You know, the opponents of Trump would have
been far better off with just one case, the mar
Lago case, that's based on real law, real precedent. We
can disagree with the interpretations, but it's not a reach
in the sense of this case. This case is creating something.
(03:07):
It's creating a criminal code just for Trump. You know,
you have a misdemeanor whose time has expired. The social
limitations ran out, and it was revived in this rather
curious way. He's effectively arguing that Trump was filing false
business records through his counsel to hide a federal crime.
(03:29):
But it isn't a federal crime, this wasn't a campaign contribution.
None of that appears to matter. And that's why a
lot of us are looking at this and recoiling.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
This is not how the law is supposed to be anyway.
Here to weigh in on all of it is Elena Habba.
She is Donald Trump's legal spokesperson General counsel for the
Save America pack. Elena, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Thanks for having me, Sean.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And we have to get what We have to wait
till next Tuesday, a week from today, to find out
whether or not a president would even be allowed to
attend a son's high school graduation.
Speaker 4 (04:04):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
The fact that that's even a question is ridiculous. Let
alone that anybody that observes pasover already knows that if
you are selected for this jury, you're not going to
be allowed to observe it. This judge is making it
incredibly difficult. And we saw it yesterday. You know, they
brought them in, they made them wait around while they
were doing procedural things that frankly should have been done
(04:24):
before the jury pool was selected. Before they were sitting
there waiting for hours. But that's what you get when
somebody doesn't care about tax payer dollars, just being completely
wasted about political animus. And that's what we're seeing in
New York time and time again.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
So if really, if all of this lawfare and this
weaponization of justice, you know, is allowed to be pursued,
and you have four separate venues. You have New York,
you have DC, you have Fulton County, Georgia. Not friendly
territory for anybody that is a conservative or Republican, let
alone somebody with the last name Trump. This judge said
(05:02):
that Donald Trump must be there every single day or
in fact, he will be put what in jail? So
instead of campaigning in Michigan and North Carolina, South Carolina,
let's see Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, he's got to be
in a court room.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Yeah. And what's more, Sean is usually judges will give
a day off of court for them to hear other hearing,
other motions for other cases, and that day is usually
a Friday, so that the plaintiff's council and defense council
can then have a couple of days to rework their
case and get ready for the following week. What this
judge did was give off of Wednesdays. And my theory
(05:46):
on that is, so then he's stuck in court Monday
Tuesday in New York Wednesdays and off day. He has
to be back in New York Thursday Friday, and it
forms a sort of paralysis, right, so he can't really
travel too far because he has to be back in
in the middle of the week at break up everything.
You know, this is the height of when President Trump
wants to be campaigning, wants to be out there. He's
(06:07):
not like Joe Biden. He's very active and his campaigning works,
you know. Obviously he's familiar with New York. He'll make
work what it needs he needs to do. But I
think everything here is by design. I don't put anything
past them.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
What did you make of Alvin Bragg threatening a jail
the forty fifth president if he continues to defy his
gag order and be fined three thousand dollars for three
alleged violations of the gag order.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah, well, the gag order, first of all, is unconstitutional.
There's the First Amendment right to speech, the fact that
we can't address things such as a family member, things
of that nature that are clearly showing bias, that create
a situation where any other judge would have to accuse
the fact that that has been extended. And if you
look at the gag order, Sean, it's extended to people
(06:57):
in his control. You know, it's crazy. It's what we've
seen time and time again. But meanwhile, you have somebody
like Michael Cohen out there talking to all the networks
talking about the case, has been promoting it, has been
using it as a platform to make money. But the
president can't respond that is so unconstitutional, let alone somebody
(07:19):
who's the leading candidate for the Republican Party and nominee.
So it's outrageous. And then to say, oh, what will
jail you? It reminds me of the Carol case when
I was threatened to be put in jail because I
objected to evidence. I mean, what we're seeing firsthand a
severe Trump arrangement syndrome, but more importantly them assisting Biden
(07:40):
because he can't win without their assists. And I think
that's really loud and clear to the American people.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
What did you make of the questionnaire? The forty two questions,
some of which said, okay, they want to know what
publications you might read, Cable or network programs or online
media or websites you might look at, or block you
might look at, whether or not you watch Fox News
or The Wall Street Journal, or whether or not you're
(08:06):
own social media platforms X, Facebook, TikTok. Do you listen
or watch podcasts? If so, which ones? Do you listen
to talk radio? If so, which programs. I'm sure if
anybody says Sean Hannity, that's their ticket right out of
that courtroom.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Right. It's funny because the judge actually didn't allow one
question that we wanted, which is who did you vote for?
And the fact that they allow all these social media questions, well,
number one, Sean, you could have a rogue never trumper
on there that's going to lie. Okay. I'd like to
say that, you know, individuals are going to be always honest,
but you and I both know that's not the truth.
(08:45):
So you could have people lying on there. You could
have somebody who watches the opposition, watch a CNN or
watches Fox. Truly a liberal, you don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
But more By the way, only twelve percent of voters
in New York City voted for Donald Trump. This is
not a place where he's gonna have a fair venue
and get a jury pool that is fair for him
under any circumstances. I think the case should have been
moved to another jurisdiction.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Absolutely, and we tried to change the venue, we tried
to change the judge. Unfortunately, when the judge himself is
the one that makes those determinations, you've got a sack
deck against you. And the lawyers on the team for
the criminal trial know what they're doing. But we do
have a sack deck, we really do. I mean, we
can't ask if you voted for Biden. We can't ask
(09:33):
you know who you vote for? Do you work for
the Biden campaign? I remember when I was selecting a
jury I on the Carol case just a couple of
months ago in New York, there were people that we
found out were working actively for the Biden campaign that
wanted to sit on the jury. I mean, that's what
you're dealing with in New York.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
Well, the question is you know how this all plays
out and the timing of it is. I mean, it's
so obvious what this is here? Yeah, I mean this
case goes back eight years. Really, what is the underlying crime?
How come the statute of Limitations were allowed to tass
on this and they can still bring a case. How
(10:11):
does he bring in federal law into what is a
local jurisdiction case. How do you pull that off? Considering
I would think any higher court would immediately see through
this and stop it. Right.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
So what they're going to do, I think is becoming
more clear to our team, which is use Michael Cohen's
campaign finance guilty plea against the president. And you have
to remember, like you said, Sean and your listeners should
remember this. They looked at this case. Syvance chose not
to bring this case. He said he didn't have an
(10:46):
underlying action that would work to bring it as a
federal crime. And then you have brag come out and said, though,
I'm not bringing it either until President Trump decided he
wanted to run again for president and then they indicted him.
So it's no question to me. The motivation here is political.
It's a bogus claim. It's something that somebody else violated
(11:08):
and pled guilty too. He himself said he pled guilty
only because he was afraid for his wife. And now
you've got this discredited person who were relying on and
is the basis for something The President wasn't even in
New York for he was in Washington at the White.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
House and didn't Stormy daniels By the way deny that
any affair took place. Wasn't that done in writing?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
She did do that in writing? That's correct. And you
know the fact that they're bringing up they did this
in twenty sixty and remember Sean, they brought in women
and tried to paint President Trump as this person that is,
you know, disrespectful to women and et cetera, et cetera.
It's the standard campaign democrat method. When you have nothing,
(11:51):
you attack and you create bs stories, and that's what
they're doing.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Here on the issue of recusal. Now, I think they
serve they have opened the door for an avenue of appeal,
if you know, God forbid, there's a conviction which I
would say the odds are not in your favor just
based on the venue itself, but the fact that the
judge and his family or has a family member that
(12:16):
is politically active and even campaigning. I guess it's mentioning
this specific case that is a clear cut case for
recusal under New York state law, is it not. Yes.
Speaker 3 (12:28):
New York State is actually one of the few states
that has a law where if a judge is financially incentivized,
not just by himself, by by anybody within six degrees
of separation of him, then they must recuse. I'm not
sure how you could possibly say that this is not
a clear instance of that. It's insane. And yes, while
it helps us on appeal, we're still taking the president
(12:48):
away from the campaign trail for the next six seven weeks,
and those are that's time that he can't cook back.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Okay, but let's say that there was a guilty verdict
in this case, and let's say that this was brought
up on appeal. What are the odds that case is
going to be adjudicated, that appeal will be adjudicated before
the November election.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
Unlikely unless they can get it in order to show cause,
which would be an expedit expedited form. They really, you know,
the system is broken, That's the truth. The system is absolutely.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Is there anything you can do preemptively to get a
higher court to look at whether or not there's a
conflict and a recusal issue here?
Speaker 3 (13:29):
Yes, we actually have papers pending. The criminal team does currently,
so as soon as it's heard, we would hope before
the jury is selected that they would have a chance.
But I'll be honest with you, Shun, It's New York
you know, we've seen it again. We're in the state
of New York and the first Apartment is predominantly liberal judges.
(13:51):
The departments that would look at any criminal here. You
know that's for civil, for criminal. You know, they've got
the same thing. These are liberal judges elected by liberal constituents.
So we'll see what is going to happen. The reality
is the President wasn't even there. Hopefully the jury will
have some sense, but we're in New York and my
(14:12):
faith in the system in New York is very slim.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Not to mention.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
You can say, we have a jury, but when you've
got a judge that's not allowing certain questions and evidence
to be brought in and the jury never sees it,
it doesn't matter how good of a lawyer you are.
You're not a magician. You can't make them read your mind.
So we have to see everyer is going to be
a challenge. They're going to have to really challenge the
evidentiary issues here and get in as much as they
possibly can.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
All right, Elena, and have always appreciate your time. The
President's spokes first a legal spokesperson and also general counsel
for the Save America up pack, Alena. I know we'll
be talking to you a lot on radio and TV
in the weeks ahead. Thank you for being with us.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Thank you, Sean.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Eight hundred and nine to four one, Shawn is our number.
If you want to be a part of the program,
right twenty five to the top of the hour, your
calls are coming up. A hundred and nine to four one, Sean.
If you want to be a part of the program.
You know, twenty bucks today it's sad. I mean it's
horrible because I remember when it was like a treat
when I was able to get you know, burger and
fries and something to drink. But twenty bucks barely get
(15:14):
your burger and fries. But I'll tell you what twenty
bucks will get you. It will get you unlimited talk,
unlimited text, plenty of five gen data and it's all
for my cell phone company, a veteran own company known
as pure Talk. And here's the beauty of pure Talk.
You get the same five G networks as the big
carriers AT and T, Verizon, T Mobile. You get the
(15:35):
same exact cell tower, same exact ones, the same exact service,
but about half the cost. Average family saving close to
one thousand dollars a year for the same service, no
contract to sign, no activation fee. And if you make
the switch and join the hundreds of thousands of US,
and you do it today by dialing pound two fifty
(15:56):
saying the keyword save now, do it now. You save
an additional fifty percent off your first month. And it's
a company that actually shares your values, same service. All
that money in your pocket and this Biden economy, every
penny counts pound two fifty key word save now from
our friends at Pure Talk. Make the switch anyway, eight
(16:19):
hundred ninety four one, Shawn. We'll get to your calls
here in a second. So finally, yesterday the articles of
impeachment from the House, after being delayed a week, were
delivered to the United States Senate. Now we do need
forty one senators to stand up and say all business
in the US Senate will stop until this House impeachment
is dealt with properly, thoroughly and constitutionally. I think we
(16:42):
might get those votes, but you never know with Republicans
in the House or Senate. As always the Rhino brigade anyway,
So MAJORCUS is testifying unrelated matter more budgetary issues that
he's dealing with today and actually said to Congressman Mark Green,
I've never minimized the challenge that the southern border presents.
(17:04):
I'm like, what, listen.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
Let me ask you this question. Just recently, in your
last trip here, you actually admitted that there was a
crisis at the southwest border.
Speaker 6 (17:15):
What changed, Oh, mister chairman, nothing changed. I have recognized
the enormous challenge that the southern border presents ever since
I began my tenure, and actually well before that. Then
when I served as a Deputy secretary.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
Let me ask this question. Then when you came to
Congress and said there was no crisis at the southern
border in your first few trips here, no crisis, there's
no secure, the border secure. Nothing changed between then and
now you're saying it's a crisis.
Speaker 6 (17:43):
Mister chairman. I have never minimized the challenge that the
southern border presents. I didn't minimize it when I served
as a federal prosecutor for twelve years from nineteen eighty
nine through two thousand and one.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Again, he's just plat out line, how do we know?
Play a nice long montage of the Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorcus saying that the border is secure.
The border's closed, border secure, borders closed. That's all we
heard from everybody in the administration. They lie to us
for three years, but now it's Donald Trump's fault. And
(18:18):
oh no, no, I've never minimized the challenge at the
southern border. And here we are ten plus million unvetted
Joe Biden illegal immigrants, tens of thousands coming from our
top geo political foes. I'll remind you of the countries
as I do every day, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan,
just to name a few. But here is the proof
(18:40):
that what he said today is another lie, which would
be another cause for impeachment. Just say it, listen, Secretary
my Orcus, do you continue to maintain.
Speaker 7 (18:48):
That the border is secure?
Speaker 6 (18:50):
Yes, and we are working day in and day out
to enhance its security.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Congressman, do you believe it right now? Is the crisis
at the border?
Speaker 6 (18:59):
I think that the answer is no. I think there
is a challenge at the border that we are managing. Congresswoman,
the border is secure and the border is not open.
Let me explain a very important, make a very important point,
and that is that the border is secure. The United
States Border Patrol secures the border on behalf of the
(19:21):
American people. The bottom line is that US borders are
not open. The border is closed, the border, the border
is secure. The border. We are working to make the
border more secure. That has been a historic challenge.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
But you do think it's a crisis now, Brett.
Speaker 6 (19:43):
It is a challenge that we have been addressing vigorously
with all of the tools and resources that we have
been provided.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Well, we don't.
Speaker 6 (19:53):
Bear responsibility for a broken system, and we're doing a
tremendous amount within that broken system.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
All right, let's get to our phones. Eight hundred and
ninety four one, Sean, if you want to join us,
Chip is in the lib free or Die state. That
would be a great title for a book anyway of
New Hampshire. Sure, Hi, how are you glad you called? Sir?
Speaker 4 (20:12):
Hi? Sean, I'm a big fan of a show. I
listened to you on the radio during the day. I
watch a TV show at night.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
And no, thank you, by the way, thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (20:21):
Hell, you're welcome. With all this talk about, you know,
threatening to put Donald Trump in jail, and you know,
can they actually do that with him? Being protected by
the Secret Service.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
I think the answer to that question is probably yes.
Is it complicated, yes, would there be a lot of
challenges to it, yes? Is it unprecedented, yes, But everything
that we are now dealing with is unprecedented. You know,
you watch the left, these these lunatics on cable news,
(20:54):
you read any of the mainstream media papers, you know,
New York Times, Washington, Poe, if if you watch the
network's ABC, NBC, CBS, they're celebrating this lawlessness. They they
are celebrating lawfair They as long as it's not them
that that are being victimized by, what do they care.
(21:15):
We have a system that protects you if you are
a liberal, or if you're a Democrat and your last
name's Clinton or Biden. But if you are a conservative,
you know that they're gonna they're gonna throw the book
at you. And yeah, I think that liberals would love
nothing more than Donald Trump in a jail cell, never campaigning.
I mean the idea that he would have to sit
(21:37):
through four trials and he can't leave, he has to
be there every day, But the next two hundred and
two days would suit them fine, because then they they
they basically get to campaign on their terms and what
does that say about the country? And then Donald Trump
can still by the way, Donald Trump can still win
(21:57):
is one thing that nobody can predict. Here. He has
defied all conventional political gravity to this point. Every arrest,
every indictment, every arraignment, every mugshot, now this trial after
the civil case, and every time his poll numbers go up.
Isn't that interesting? Because I think the American people are
(22:19):
disgusted and find all of this repulsive, and they see
this for what it is, an idea that you know,
eight years ago this case was front and center, and
they only bring it to trial two hundred and three
days before the election yesterday. You got to be kidding me, right, yeah, Well,
(22:39):
we're losing our country. We're shredding our constitution, and this
is very dangerous for the country. This is basically a
post constitutional America and it will remain so as long
as as people like this that believe don't believe in
equal justice or application of our laws are in power.
(23:00):
That's why what happens in two hundred and two days matters.
Can I be any more urgent than I'm being? Oh?
Speaker 4 (23:06):
No, absolutely, we got a volt for Trump. We got
to getting back in office.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Yeah, be nice. If New Hampshire came over and turned red,
it would be very helpful.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
Oh, it would be a big plus for us, because
this state used to be red. It's it's it's purple.
That maybe it's best right now.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
You know the problem. You had too many people from Vermont,
New York, New Jersey and other places moving there. Yeah,
and and they've changed, they've they've changed your state, not
for the better anyway, all over the place with this.
I wish you're the best, my friend. I do love
the people in New Hampshire, especially the rugged individualists that
(23:47):
you are. God bless y' all. Eight hundred nine four one, Sean,
if you want to be a part of the program.
Liz is in the Free State of Florida. Liz, how
are you. It's great to be a fellow Floridian. What's happening?
Speaker 7 (23:58):
Yes, it is, Sean, and I am a fan and
a first time caller, and I thank you for taking
my call. I would like to know your thoughts on
some issues in that's Israel. So we all know Iran
is a bully and enemy of Western civilization of the
United States and Israel and Israel only wants to live
in peace. As we see, they gave away land, you know,
(24:20):
hoping for peace. We all know how that ended. So
israel I feel has no choice but to take out Iran.
But what does that even mean to they wipe out
all its nuclear facilities, kill all the leaders, because Iran
will retaliate again, It will never end. Now the question
is Biden has said it's Israel retaliates that the US
(24:40):
won't support them. So does that mean that when the
missiles and the drones go flying again with even more force?
Because I feel this past Saturday was just an Iranian test,
will Biden send help? That's really my question.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
We already know the answer. He's already said he will
not help Israel. Well, you know the one. He wants
to have it both ways. He wants to say that
he's helping Israel. And I said this from the beginning
because my sources, which run pretty deep within Israel, were
telling me that what Biden is telling the American people
is very different than what he's telling the Israeli government
(25:16):
behind the scenes. Now, remember this was the worst terror
attack in Israel's history. You know, twelve hundred dead israelis
hundreds taken hostage among the Americans that are still being
held hostage, if they're even alive, and yet it would
be the equivalent of forty thousand dead Americans if we
compare and extrapolate out the population. Okay, so why is
(25:40):
Joe Biden? Why would he ever be pressuring Israel to
do anything other than to defeat their terrorist enemies who
before October seventh? Because I've been there. I've been in
the terror tunnels, I've been in the border towns. I've
been there. I've seen the ten thousand rockets that had
(26:03):
landed in one town alone, a border town with Gaza
called Stadroat. I've been there. I saw the web, I
saw the remains of these missiles that they fired. I
saw the underground playground, bunker playgrounds kids play in. This
has been their reality forever. If anything, I would argue
that Israel now has an opportunity. Iran has opened the door.
(26:28):
And if you ask me what my response would be,
I can tell you it would be I would take
out the financial infrastructure of the entire state of Iran
by knocking out their refineries, and I would then seriously
consider taking out their nuclear sites and doing the world
a favor. Now, remember when Iran did this in the past,
(26:52):
when they did it to Iraq, later did it to Syria.
You know, there was worldwide condemnation, but in retrospect they
did the world favor. It would be much easier if
Prime Minister net and Yahoo and Israel had the support
of the US, but they don't have that support under
this president. And the reason why is what makes this
really repulsive to me and probably the lowest moment of
(27:15):
Joe Biden's presidency, which is saying something. He's doing it
because the radical base that is the new modern leftist
Democratic Party, they are not they are supporting the radicals
that committed this atrocious act of terrorism against Israel, and
(27:37):
they're doing it. Oh, we support the Palestinians. Well, all
the terror tunnels that were built, the hundreds of miles
of them, were built with money that had been earmarked
for schools and hospitals and infrastructure, but they used it
for terror. So that the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people,
they voted in Hamas. A poll recently showed seventy percent
(27:59):
of them today would vote in Hamas. So you know,
at this time, war is ugly. I played Winston Churchill
many times on this program. All I have to offer
is blood, til his and sweat. What is our name?
Our name is victory, victory at all costs against this
(28:19):
monsterous tyranny. That's what this that, that's what the message.
If we had a real president that didn't abdicate his
role on the world stage as the leader of the
free world, that would be our position today. People can
argue how much support we should give Israel. Israel's just
asking to buy weapons from us. They're not even asking
(28:43):
for the aid money that that Biden so willingly gave Ukraine.
But and and incomes. You know, Vladimir Putin, he's pledging
to support Iran in this conflict. Here we go unreal,
but it's sad. What would you what would you suggest
Israel do?
Speaker 7 (28:59):
Well? Well, the thing is that I believe that most
of Iran, the people there, they are pro Israel. They're
they're stuck, so they I believe that they should do
the same thing, you know, take take it all out, nukes,
you know the leaders, I mean, just remove the vast
(29:21):
uh you know, leaders that are are doing all this.
But the thing is that I don't know, I mean,
we know that Biden's really not in charge, is it Obama?
Do you think that he's the one, because I know
that I.
Speaker 1 (29:34):
Think it's everybody around Biden and Biden himself have have
determined that the base of their party is so radicalized
that if he offers any more support to Israel that
he will he will further erode his shrinking base. There.
They're the number the polling that that stands out the
(29:55):
most to me is that Biden is losing the base
of the Democrat out of coalition. And part of it
is these radicals, you know, like in Dearborn that you know,
eighteen point nine percent of Democratic primary voters in the
presidential elect primary in Michigan voted against Biden, over one
(30:15):
hundred thousand people, and that's that number scared the hell
out of them. And if it comes down to supporting
Israel versus his own political ambition, he's going to choose
the latter, and that's what he's chosen. Anyway. I do
appreciate your call, Thank you for being with us eight
hundred and ninety four one Seawn. If you want to
be a part of the program up next our final
(30:43):
roundup and Information Overload hour, you know, I'll never talked
about this really publicly, but nine years ago I made
a decision to change my life. Why. I saw the
direction this country was headed. Crime was escalating. We had
politicians and DA's across the country. They'll let the criminals,
(31:06):
the cop beaters, go free. They'll let people even involved
in you know, they won't throw the book of people
to commit murder and rape and homicide. But I've I've
always been a believer that I need to protect my
family and I knew at that time I needed to
do more than just have a pistol carry permit, which
I've had my entire adult life. And then I decided
(31:28):
to join the us CCA. This is nine years ago,
and with the us CCA you can get firearm education
and training, situational self defense liability insurance, which, by the way,
I need to keep my family safe. God forbid that
moment comes and you've got to protect your family. The USCCA,
if you join, like I am a member, well they're
(31:49):
going to be there for you. Now. They've now joined
as well with the former head of training for the
FBI at Quantico, and they have put together a guide
that all of you can download for free, and that's
the Concealed Carry and situationals Defense Guide that they will
give you and proven ways that you can deter criminals,
(32:09):
defend your families, stay out of legal trouble. They also
have about eight thousand centers around the country that will
teach you situational self defense. I highly recommend it. I
train in this every day. Go to USCCA dot com
slash Hannity and put in your email. Get the guide
sent instantly for free to your inbox USCCA dot com
slash Hannity. I'm telling you these are different times. I
(32:33):
joined nine years ago. I've never regretted it. We'll continue
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.